
Free Schnail Mail for life - stephenc_c_
http://aralbalkan.com/notes/schnail-mail-free-real-mail-for-life/
======
ruswick
This argument is really vacuous and makes an inappropriate analogy.

First, we need to distinguish between attaching ads to _the mail experience_
versus injecting them into the _actual content_. In the original post, this
service would actually open these letters and insert ads into them. This is
not even remotely comparable to what most email providers do. They insert ads
around the service, but never actually alter the content of the email. A
better analogy would be receiving a discount on branded stamps or allowing
advertisements to be displayed on your mailbox.

Second, the use of the term "read" when discussing advertising is asinine,
disingenuous and probably detrimental to the conversation (inasmuch as it can
provoke unnecessary fear in non-technical users). "Read" implies active
evaluation and comprehension, conceivably by a person. The GMail algorithm
does not "read" email in the classical sense. It systematically evaluates the
content in a way isn't even remotely comparable to "reading." (This doesn't
mean that this sort of advertising isn't bad, but portraying it in the way he
did is just unnecessary fear mongering.)

Third, the OP seems to decry "keeping a copy" as some sort of violation. GMail
is a webmail service. What the fuck are they supposed to do if not store your
mail?

Fourth, this service actually seems like a good idea, and is probably
something I would use for various types of mail. The price of mail been
steadily increasing, and I would be fine with these practices if I knew they
were saving me money. I'm willing to tolerate advertising so long as I know
that the service is improving my life. Like I do with 95% of the things I use.

In conclusion, this is a very dubious analogy that doesn't really contribute
to the pragmatic discussion of cost versus privacy.

~~~
autotravis
> This is not even remotely comparable to what most email providers do. They
> insert ads around the service, but never actually alter the content of the
> email

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57594819-93/google-
starts-p...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57594819-93/google-starts-
placing-ads-directly-in-gmail-inboxes/)

~~~
BitMastro
And how is this related to "altering the content of the email"?

------
derefr
I don't know why this still surprises people, or why Google is being singled
out here. Information is transmitted by copying. Every provider has to look at
and analyze your messages if they want to do clever things to them, like let
you search your archived mail server-side. Even if they don't do anything with
your messages themselves, they're still compelled by the government to parse
through it all. Nothing is safe.

Whenever anyone asks me to explain how the Internet works, I don't talk about
tubes or connected servers, because thinking your message is "in" a pipe is a
broken abstraction; it makes people imagine nothing sees or touches your
messages until they arrive at the destination. Instead, the mental model I
encourage people to have for Internet is that "each packet is like a message
stuck to a big public message board." Privacy is not the default; it's a
public system, and privacy is something you have to actively create on top of
it (via encryption, onion-routing, etc.)

~~~
bowlofpetunias
Once again, this is a fundamental mistake especially techies seem to make when
it comes to privacy.

Privacy isn't about what is and what isn't publicly accessible, it's about
_what you do with that information_.

It's a violation of privacy for any company to follow me around in a public
space and record my movements.

It's a violation of privacy for a company to use the data _I 've given them_
for any other purpose than the reason for which I gave it to them, because it
is still _my data_.

This is why collecting and collating wifi ssid's by Google was considered a
violation of privacy. Yes, the data was out there, but the _abuse_ of that
data was a violation.

Privacy is not a technological system. Privacy is not about security.

People should be able to use the internet without automatically getting their
privacy violated, just like they should be able to go out in public without
having their privacy violated. The fact that it is an open system is
absolutely no excuse for deliberate privacy violations.

Stop blaming the victims.

~~~
dnautics
>People should be able to use the internet without automatically getting their
privacy violated, just like they should be able to go out in public without
having their privacy violated.

You do realize that that's exactly wrong. Going out into public means that you
risk being followed. Being followed becomes illegal when they follow you into
your home (a private space) or when they actually hurt you/have hurt you.

------
masnick
In my opinion, this kind of argument is demagoguery and ignores practical
security concerns.

For the average person, which is more likely?

(1) A hacker taking over their email account to get bank info, etc.

(2) Some nebulous threat from Google having too much information about you.

Google and Gmail offer some of the best security controls and threat detection
of any webmail provider that I've seen (pioneered two-factor authentication
for email, warn you about strange sign-in activity on your account, allow you
to kill other sessions, etc.).

If the outcome of this kind of article is people move to less secure email
because of some intangible threat, I think it's a net harm. Gmail is still the
best choice for my mom.

I wrote about this more than a year ago at greater length on my blog:
[http://www.maxmasnick.com/2012/02/12/gmail_paranoia/](http://www.maxmasnick.com/2012/02/12/gmail_paranoia/)
and there's more discussion on HN at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3582609](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3582609)

My point is that any post criticizing Gmail for it's business model should
also consider what is realistically a problem in the actual world (hacking)
and hopefully offer some advice on what to do about it. I'm not sure this kind
of "Google reads all your email and it's terrible. Full stop." post is very
helpful.

Ok, a couple more things to preempt the inevitable trolling:

(1) Government snooping is a separate issue, but as far as I know there are no
major email providers that a non-technical person can use that aren't
vulnerable. We sorely need easy-to-use, widely used email encryption. Google
isn't likely to do this because it would be counter to their business model,
and this _is_ a problem.

(2) I don't use Gmail myself, but not because they are algorithmically reading
my email. I switched (to FastMail) because I don't like the design direction
of the Gmail UX, the FastMail UX is substantially faster, and the support is
better (i.e. it exists). However, given that the average webmail user (a)
doesn't want to pay for email and (b) is going to use one of the most popular
services by default, I still think Gmail is a good choice.

~~~
greyman
> Government snooping is a separate issue, but as far as I know there are no
> major email providers that a non-technical person can use that aren't
> vulnerable.

But at least, those other email providers are different that your web search
provider - while if you use Gmail, your profile will also contain your
searches (if you use Google for search), visits from those searches, and then
also data from other Google services you choose to use.

~~~
masnick
If you're talking about government snooping, they most likely can aggregate
information from different sources.

If you're talking about the nebulous "one company has all my information and
may do something evil" argument, I still say that it doesn't matter. Email is
by far the most sensitive thing most people do online, so if there was a real
threat from a company having all that information, also having searches is not
substantially worse.

Regardless, I still don't see a credible threat of harm from Google having
this information that outweighs the actual threat of hacking.

------
zaidf
Machine "reading" the email != humans reading the same thing

A machine can't laugh at your embarrassing confession. Nor can a machine talk
about your letter to its friends.

For either of these things to happen with gmail would require serious risk and
effort on part of an employee.

~~~
darxius
It doesn't matter, the information is there. He mentions building a profile.
While the machines might have built it, there's nothing stopping a real person
(forced or otherwise) from browsing those profiles.

~~~
mseebach
"The information is there" on all e-mail providers. There is nothing (short of
end-to-end encryption) stopping a real person _at any e-mail provider_ from
looking at your email.

The interesting distinction (for me, and I have been a happy GMail "customer"
for close to a decade soon) isn't the profile, it's the human. I have strong
faith that Google can be successful in keeping humans from reading my e-mail
(or a computer-generated digest of it, which is what the profile amounts to),
and so I don't worry about the existence of the profile.

~~~
darxius
Not always. Several new security-oriented email providers boast diskless email
servers and end-to-end encryption.

~~~
mseebach
Yes, end-to-end encryption would fix all this, but it would also fix it in
OP's satirical mail service, as well as in GMail - so that's really a
tangential point.

Trusting that those providers don't start siphoning off a copy of your mail
(or are indeed diskless and not out of malice or incompetence actually just
using regular disks. Also, being diskless is worthless if they are still
keeping your mail around in memory anyway) is no different than trusting
Google to keep humans away from my email.

------
D9u
So... Can I still get the free snail mail for life? I don't have a twitter
account, and I'm not going to register one just to get free snail mail for
life...

I hope that you can afford the postage, as I intend to embark on a mega mass
mail campaign for a few dozen different customers, and the thought of free
postage is quite enticing...

/s

------
modernerd
What if Schnail Mail automatically filtered postal junk mail so you never had
to receive another piece again?

What if it let you search the contents of every printed message you'd ever
sent or received?

What if it let you send international mail, with attachments, for free?

What if it protected you and more susceptible friends and family from postal
scams?

What if it informed you that your recipient no longer existed at the address
you used?

What if it let you undo sending of mail you regret writing?

...

A free postal mail service that truly replicated Gmail's functionality would
probably appeal to many, even with inserted ('relevant') ads and all the
privacy issues.

Paid versions of such a service already exist (e.g.
[https://www.earthclassmail.com/](https://www.earthclassmail.com/) ). A free
equivalent could be pretty disruptive.

~~~
theon144
Most of these features are available even if you don't use Gmail though - the
article's point wasn't about e-mail in general, just the invasiveness of
Gmail.

~~~
modernerd
My point was that people who use Gmail get more than a free mail service in
return for their privacy.

The things that Gmail does best – search, spam filtering, scam warnings,
simple attachments, innovative labs features like undo send – weren't offered
by Schnail Mail, which invited you to trade your privacy for free postal mail
alone.

Trading privacy for free mail alone _would_ have little appeal to most. But
Gmail offers more than that. A feature-matched physical mail equivalent to
Gmail would make an ad-supported postal mail service far more compelling.

I suspect you'd also see more hands stay raised if you flipped the pitch to
place the negatives up front ahead of a long list of potential benefits.

------
deanjones
This is just a re-hash of Microsoft's Scroogled campaign
([http://www.scroogled.com](http://www.scroogled.com)). Just as with
scroogled, the comparison of a human reading your mail with a machine
analysing the contents in order to provide focussed advertising results in a
complete loss of credibility.

~~~
sp332
Why does putting a human in the loop change anything? Either way, my data is
being used on behalf of other people.

~~~
mynameisvlad
Because machines don't care what you do, or who you are. Humans potentially
do. They can gossip about you, they can read, and understand, all your private
emails and use that information against you.

~~~
sp332
Humans are slow. Gmail's computers are programmed to wring the most possible
profit out of millions and millions of accounts. Seriously, I'm convinced the
humans would do less damage.

~~~
BitMastro
I'm convinced of the opposite: humans judge basing on incomplete and incorrect
data, they are often malicious and selfish and blinded by personal gain.

Computers don't have prejudices, don't have a motive, and work on the specific
task without being sidetracked by feelings.

~~~
sp332
Computers follow instructions of the programmers. If the programmer is good,
the computer has the same prejudices. Specifically, if the programmer wants to
find juicy gossip, a computer lets her do it faster. If the programmer
respects users' privacy, so will the computer. (If she's not good, the
computer has _random_ prejudices.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan#Uncarved_block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_koan#Uncarved_block))

~~~
BitMastro
I partly disagree for the following reasons:

1) If the programmer is good the computer COULD show prejudices. It's not an
implication. I can be a racist bigot, but if I'm a good programmer I will not
prevent login for the users 晴輝, Abd al-Aziz or 湘. I can build a watermill and
it will not have prejudice, it will just do a job.

2) The programs running in such big companies are peer reviewed, so the inner
workings are known and checked by at least two people. You cannot do that to
human beings. You don't know what they are ultimately trying to do AND you
cannot have at least two people checking on them. If now you're thinking of
parents, remember that they have a limited influence on a person.

3) Random prejudice could still work, just like random noise, but I still
disagree on the prejudice part.

~~~
tbirdz
> I can be a racist bigot, but if I'm a good programmer I will not prevent
> login for the users 晴輝, Abd al-Aziz or 湘.

However, if you were a programmer with a very insular mindset, you could
create a system without support for such non English names, by not even
considering that non English users would use the service. Just an example of a
prejudice that could show though.

~~~
BitMastro
True, but by definition a good programmer should take non English names into
account. ;-)

It is more an example of random prejudice introduced by a programmer. In that
case I retract some of my points.

------
StavrosK
The problem with email is that we've arrived at a monoculture. TLS-enabled
email is pretty secure if nobody can compromise either of the two ends (or,
well, the intermediaries). Since everyone uses Gmail, it's trivial to just get
everyone's email, since one of the two ends is pretty much guaranteed to be
there.

If we move to a system where everyone has their own mail server, or at least
one mail server for a few people, that system will be much harder to snoop on.

~~~
knotty66
If a system evolved where a significant proportion of communications were
difficult for the security services to monitor, encryption would be
criminalized and it's users vilified as unpatriotic.

~~~
alextingle
Great. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

------
pilif
The analogy is a bit leaky IMHO. Gmail doesn't add advertisements to the mails
you are sending out. They only add ads to the messages you received and are
looking at in your browser. If you don't want to see any ads, just use an IMAP
client and you'll get the original message.

In-fact, not altering the mails their users are sending was one of the unique
features when gmail launched. AFAIR both Hotmail and Yahoo were altering the
messages of their users to include ads.

The part about reading the mail is true though, but on the other hand: Unless
you host your own email server, it is absolutely impossible to be sure that
nobody is going to read your mail as it is stored on the mailbox server (it
also can (and is as we now know) be read in transit most of the time and
outside of your control).

As such, I honestly trust Google more than I trust $ISP. Usually $ISP is equal
to $CARRIER and those, IMHO, are the personified evil, so I wouldn't trust
them at all. But even $ISP != $CARRIER, I still think that the bigger the mail
provider company, the safer your messages probably are there (minus government
spying, but that works regardless of ISP): Bigger providers are bigger targets
and thus have likely invested more in data security and internal procedures to
make sure mail isn't being read by humans unless strictly needed.

If you don't want ads in your Google-served email while using the web
interface, get a paid Google Apps Account. No ads, very flexible email routing
and actual customer support. For $50 per year per user. That doesn't say
anything about the data being used for other marketing purposes of course,
but, as I said, that problem is the same everywhere unless you self-host
(which is reasonably complicated and annoying to do).

TBH when I was running a free email service in the early 2000s I really had to
fight the temptation to just run grep over /var/mail and have some fun. I
think the smaller the company (it was just me and my colleague back then), the
bigger the risk that one unethical person can do serious damage.

------
greyman
The article is a bit demagogic, because saying "we open your letters" is not
the same thing as "Google algorithm reads your email."

I don't defend Google here, and I also stopped using Gmail, but not for the
reasons mentioned in the article. Storing the emails and mechanically parsing
them wouldn't be a problem for me, if they could ensure that those emails will
not leak out of Google - but that is not technically nor legally possible (at
least nowadays).

------
vasiliys
I didn't realize this was satire until I saw the Google logo, and I thought it
was an awesome idea. "Oh, just like Gmail, but they're really open and honest
about it."

I guess the reason Google and the like have to conceal their intentions is
because there seem to be few people (three out of an audience in the example)
who are willing to go into it knowing the terms (or admit to be willing). A
lot more people are happy with signing up for the service not stopping to
consider why a corporations would be so charitable, then finding out and
joining the outrage bandwagon [while continuing to use the service].

This pattern seems insincere or dishonest (for the most part, always
exceptions, etc), and I'm hoping it's a fad that dies out, as opposed to the
value proposition getting bashed to death. Every other week there's a great
tutorial on how to switch to duck duck go and roll your own everything, those
are the honest sincere solutions for the truly interested.

~~~
dwild
Why would that pattern disappear? It makes money... What I would like to
disappear is naivety of people. They should understands what they actually are
doing. They don't need to understands the technology, just that free doesn't
exist. Personally I don't care, it's a small price to pay to get a good spam
protection, a good security and a good interface accessible everywhere.

~~~
vasiliys
To clarify, I meant the pattern of acting outraged while continuing to use the
accused service. We're on the same page.

------
pcx66
This is a far better mockery/attack on Google's strategy than Microsoft's
Scroogle campaign ever was. They should learn from this. I especially loved
the cute & funny one-liners.

(Not that I support Scroogle, it's a cheap shot. I hate negative marketing.
It's setting a bad example in tech, which has mostly kept the negative
marketing away.)

------
JohnLBevan
I like the way this has been presented, but have to admit that I disagree with
the point - if someone's willing to give me something for free (monetary) in
exchange for reading info I pass through their services I'm fine with that - I
just won't use their service to send anything I don't want them to read. There
are good arguments for privacy, and for people/organisations being open about
how they use any personal data they collect, but in this scenario you've
willingly and knowingly signed up to a contract; and in doing so invalidated
your right to be upset by the required "payment method" of information.

------
sourceless
What happens if I put a sealed envelope inside the schnail mail envelope? Is
that opened too?

------
mathattack
Anyone who has ever Googled their name and hometown must realize how much
information is being sold about us. Google is just presenting the top layer,
but this problem is a very old one. For better or worse, I think we have to
get used to a post-privacy society. If it forces us to be more tolerant of
each other's imperfections (because our own are shared with the world) all the
better.

------
FELICIA-JOY
Knowing in advance that the intent is to read my mail feels icky and invasive.
Google did not start out reading our mail; their approach was a classic case
of the slow-boiled toad
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)).

Perhaps you should gain users confidence and trust first by NOT reading their
mail and giving them an opportunity to become reliant on the service. At less
than 0.50 per piece, postal mail is not so expensive that it weights a
risk/benefit analysis in your favor with this model. Most people would
probably opt to just continue paying for their mail versus having it read.
(Also, not sure people want to create bad friend karma -- ha! -- by having
their friends spammed with "junk" mail.)

Moving from critiquing to finding a more viable option: I think you can still
make money with this upfront by "skinning" the mail with fully printed ad
envelopes (obviously with windows for the addresses to show) paid for by
general consumer advertisers who don't have as much of a need for making sure
they are hitting a niche group.

Once, and if, you gain a critical mass of users then you could introduce the
"read" option with some kind of incentive to get people to opt-in. At least
they will trust you more by that time, theoretically. And you could then sign
up more advertisers including niche marketers.

The current model is not palatable -- unless it were used by a small
business/entrepreneur that is sending marketing mail and therefore does not
care if it is read (but that then poses a problem of them potentially having a
competitor's materials inserted with their materials). If the model remains as
is I would have to say #schnailmailfail.

-Felicia Joy @feliciajoy

------
axus
I was disappointed that it isn't real. This would have been a great way to
keep in touch with prisoners, whose mail is being read anyways. It would have
been nice to type letters without needing to print them out and mail it, and
"free" sealed the deal.

------
weego
This is the guy that did an expenses paid tech talk where one of the big
sponsors is heavily involved in the gambling industry, and then proceeded to
publicly bitch out another speaker for doing a talk on technical hurdles of
some kind of sports betting platform because betting companies are evil. Can't
really have any less respect for someones opinion or thoughts when they are so
ill-mannered and hypocritical.

------
doubledub
Seems like it could be argued both the gag, Schnail Mail, and the real gmail
are fairly upfront in the relationship with the user. Advertising is present.
Obviously, some technical differences but it IS disclosed!

------
powertower
Is this kind of like -
[http://www.promotinglinux.com/truth/](http://www.promotinglinux.com/truth/)
(just for fun)

Or is this supposed to be a sarcastic poke at gmail, the NSA, etc?

------
bjornsing
Funny, but for extra laughs they should add a section on PRISM: We keep
scanned copies of all your snail mail indefinitely, which the NSA can access
through our PRISM backdoor on a moments notice. ;)

~~~
facorreia
I don't think they would be allowed to acknowledge that.

------
capex
Google could offer a $20/month no-ads no-tracking email service. How many
privacy conscious people are willing to pay that? Its not Google deciding to
do this, its just ourselves.

~~~
abrahamsen
Google does offer a $5/month no-ads email service called Google Apps.

According to their homepage, 5 million businesses have chosen that.

[http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/](http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/)

No tracking is trickier, who would believe Google (or any business) if they
claimed they didn't track their customers? The lack of ads you can verify for
yourself.

~~~
aet
No ads is already free. Just you IMPAP or POP3. You are still tracked, but
there are no ads.

------
BitMastro
[http://www.bonkersworld.net/google-reads-your-
email/](http://www.bonkersworld.net/google-reads-your-email/)?

------
drcube
Give me Adblock for Reality and I might think about it.

[http://chromeadblock.com/freedom/](http://chromeadblock.com/freedom/)

------
hawkw
Took me a couple moments to figure out this was a joke.

------
saaddaas
Disrupting postal services industry! Liked the idea. Except its name starting
with 'sch' :/

------
g0lden
wonderful explanation

