
Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy - colin_jack
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy-email-lawsuit
======
arebop
This is a disgraceful smear. The phrase "expectation of privacy" occurs
exactly once in the cited filing, and that's in a quote from another case. It
is used to argue that if someone (not necessarily a Gmail user) sends email to
a Gmail user, that sender ought to expect Gmail to process the email. What
exactly Gmail does with the email is between the recipient and Google.

------
DZPM
No, Google did not say that there is no privacy in Gmail:
[http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-
sa...](http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-say-that-we-
cant-expect-privacy-in-gmail/)

> Earlier on Tuesday, Google was quoted by Consumer Watchdog, RT.com (Russia
> Today) and Gizmodo as having argued in a legal motion that customers have
> “no legitimate expectation of privacy”, but the quote has been taken out of
> context.

~~~
faddotio
Do some digging into Consumer Watchdog, they are basically a FUD group that
basically comes up for air to launch Google smears then recede beneath the
waters. The identity and funding of the organization are totally obfuscated.

~~~
tzs
Google is just one part of what they are active in [1].

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Watchdog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Watchdog)

------
yebyen
...but if the message contains a virus, then I should be protected from the
sender's message exposing me to a virus, and I'll accuse the e-mail provider
of negligence if they don't scan attachments in my messages for known viruses.

I'm not sure if I should be "stunned" by the admission that users shouldn't
expect this kind of privacy, since e-mail is really nothing like postal mail
as the article asserts, in the sense of packages being processed, delivered
as-is and left unopened in the condition they were sent.

~~~
dylangs1030
...Is that a reasonable counterargument to the most recent ravings about
Google and privacy? I didn't think they actually existed.

------
jaaron
How is this a surprise?

The particular argument in this case is as old as GMail is: Google uses email
content as a factor in presenting ads in the service. That's been the case
since day 1. The case isn't suggesting Google gives individuals access to your
email content, or publishes or shares them with other organizations. The case
is directly about how GMail has always worked.

~~~
dylangs1030
It's not a surprise, it just rides the trendy tide of accusing big
corporations of egregious privacy violations.

Obviously Google has been doing this for years. But it's a slow news day and
we need a sexy headline, so let's go with a recent favorite: "<insert BigCo
here> is violating _your_ privacy! What are you gonna do about it?! Get
angry!"

~~~
regis
That may be true, however, we may understand that google has been doing this
since day one but many people have no idea about this kind of stuff. Not
everyone understands the Internet and how everything works... to some people
I'd imagine this could be quite shocking.

But I do agree that this is definitely part of a trend and this could have
been reported on at any time over the last couple years.

------
skyjedi
Holy shit still? This is a misquote
[http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-
sa...](http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-say-that-we-
cant-expect-privacy-in-gmail/)

~~~
denzil_correa
Thanks for posting this. I was looking for the quote in the document [0] and
was surprised to see no such quote by Google but rather a reference to a past
case.

[0] [http://www.scribd.com/doc/160134104/Google-Motion-to-
Dismiss...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/160134104/Google-Motion-to-
Dismiss-061313)

------
anxious
For the umpteenth time to the umpteenth submission, this is not true, Google
never said that: sections of this legal motion have been deliberately taken
out of context to mislead readers.

If anything that quote is about non-Gmail users and even then it’s in response
to a certain aspect of the complaint.

The lawyer cited a 1979 precedent (as lawyers wont to do) to counter a
specific allegation:

 _“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he
voluntarily turns over tothird parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735,
743-44 (1979)._

The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies
applicable to email, and Google’s lawyer is counter-arguing accordingly. They
are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text,
that particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-
Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS, Google
counters the mail providers’ "automated processes" are analogous to assistants
that are allowed to open mail for their employers (the recipient). The "third
parties" here aren't necessarily Google but the recipients of your email who
happen to be using Gmail. As since you've turned over your information
voluntarily to the email recipient they can apply “automatic processing” to
it.

Link to relevant page: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-
Motion-061313#pag...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-
Motion-061313#pag..).

The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing
(rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it,
and that "automated processes" are necessary for spam filtering, full-text
search, etc.

The entire motion, read it and make you own conclusions:
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-
Motion-061313](http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-Motion-061313)

Shame on the guardian for publishing this (although it's their dubious tech
section), the author evidently haven't read the motion, consulted a lawyer or
bother to ask Google for comment.

------
t0mas88
Pfew, The Guardian seems to be trying to win the Biggest Bullshit Of The Year
award for 2013? Google mentions that automatically scanning Gmail and showing
relevant ads has been standard from the start and is part of their privacy
policy. The Guardian makes this into a vague NSA reference to link-bait...
Terrible journalism, if you could even call it that.

------
ganeumann
This is, obviously, obvious. Have to wonder why the plaintiffs thought they
did not have to pay for this service. TANSTAAFL.

I've talked to plenty of businesses that are subject to privacy rules or laws
(because they handle confidential personnel or health information) that
preclude them from using Google for email or data storage. I argued that this
data was probably safer on a Google server than on a server in their office
being taken care of by a outsourced sysadmin. They completely understood these
issues before I explained them, and they were not more computer-savvy than
your ordinary citizen.

------
niuzeta
this may be going too far; as far as I know, Google has always been frank
about their _processing_ of the e-mails. Heck, who here hasn't been reminded
by gmail that _you said you 'attached' something, but you don't have
attachments_?

There's always a tradeoff, and in case of gmail, we trade off waivering
content-based automatic process with convenience. If you wouldn't like to
trade anything with privacy, go find something else. There's a reason why
Lavabit attracted a decent amount of users.

Having said that, the google privacy policy[1] tells of exactly what sort of
information they collect, and to what ends they use. The problem I have with
the whole NSA debacle _concerning_ Google is with this exact phrase:

> We will ask for your consent before using information for a purpose other
> than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy.[1]

I'm fine with waivering some rights, albeit limited, for an exchange with my
enormously convenient service. If you do stuff which we never agreed in the
first place, and which you had told me to ask for my consent, behind my back,
I'm not fine with it.

[1]
[http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/)

~~~
betterunix
"Heck, who here hasn't been reminded by gmail that you said you 'attached'
something, but you don't have attachments?"

Is this something that requires Google servers to inspect your mail? Pretty
much every email client I have ever used does this even if I have no Internet
connection. It is really a matter of matching a regular expression and
checking if there are any attachments to a message being composed.

------
diggum
I don't care what Google says in their filings, we absolutely SHOULD expect
privacy and confidentiality. Whether Google cares to honor and fulfill that
expectation is up to them.

Now what they're really saying is "Google has no intention of helping keep
your email private and confidential" which is a very different thing from
insisting users have no expectations of privacy. They cannot speak for me.

~~~
thezilch
That's not what they're saying at all; they're saying, as agreed to in the
TOS, they will require "read, copy, and modify" permissions to messages. They
need to read to provide world-class, spam filtering, virus protection, etc.
They need to copy to distribute messages across redundant storage, so you
don't lose your messages and they are readily available around the world on
any device. They need to modify to display your messages in a sexy fashion.
Among other reasons to require these permissions. You are very welcome to not
agree to the TOS, and it's unlikely they are going to make exceptions to be
able to turn off these features and need for the subsequent permissions,
because most people won't give a crap about a non-human "reading" their
messages, and everyone +/-1% will do a worse job at securing their own email
service.

------
da_n
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. You're using a web based email
service and you're sending postcards when you should be sending letters. Both
this and Lavabit feel like distractions.

~~~
betterunix
1\. You are assuming that everyone understands what "web based" means.

2\. You are assuming that everyone understands that email is like a postcard.

I have even met technically competent people who were surprised to discover
how easy it is to forge email headers. When even people with years of
accumulated knowledge about computers carry bad assumptions around, what can
you expect out of people with little-to-no understanding of computers? For a
lot of people a computer is a magical box that is beyond their comprehension.

~~~
da_n
I am not assuming and I agree about the magical box, but I have little
sympathy for user ignorance and tire of this as an excuse. In the UK we are
facing massive internet censorship because the masses of 'computer is magic'
users are outraged about Facebook and Twitter posts, and accept filters to be
put in place etc My mum thinks it's a great idea. It is complete bullshit
caused by utter ignorance and failure to comprehend what is at stake etc.
Sorry to rant but I get upset that this is somehow an excuse.

