
Google: Gmail Users Have No Reason to Expect Privacy - davewiner
http://gizmodo.com/google-gmail-users-have-no-reason-to-expect-privacy-1126390598?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29
======
HarryHirsch
Civilized countries generally have provisions for mail being inviolate - and
for good reason. The republican and constitutionalist movements in the 19th
century that sought to supplant the absolutist regimes were routinely spied
on. Now we have Google arguing with a straight face that email, which has
become a substitute for snail mail should be open for everyone with the proper
connections. It's democracy that's at stake here, nothing less.

------
enterthemist
I am working on a solution to this very problem:
[http://raven.enterthemist.com](http://raven.enterthemist.com)

~~~
HarryHirsch
This is one half. The other half is an amendment to the constitution. Good
luck with that second one, tough.

------
001sky
google: we are not the spies you are looking for

------
anxious
As I've already commented on a previous submission of the RT source, this is
nonsense.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6208521](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6208521)

Wow, talk about taking things out of context, but I guess this is what you get
from "consumer watchdog" via RT.

The "quote" in question is that of a lawyer citing a previous ruling (they do
that a lot) 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, 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 that "automated processing" is part of
webmail.

Link to relevant page: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-
Motion-061313#pag...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-
Motion-061313#page=27)

It's either the author have never seen a court briefing before or he’s just
pushing an agenda.

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 responsible for spam filtering, spell
checking and other features.

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)

Edit: I've also found the PR from consumer watchdog, they are intentionally
removing the distinction between the lawyer's words and the citation, which
exposed their propaganda:

[http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/google-tells-
cou...](http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/google-tells-court-you-
cannot-expect-privacy-when-sending-messages-gmail-people-who-care)

CW:

 _Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised
that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based
email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the
recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has
no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over
to third parties_

Actual document:

 _Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised
that the recipient’sassistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email
today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the
recipient’s ECS provider in the course of delivery. Indeed,“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)._

Even then it's just an out of context portion, of a bigger section of a bigger
case.

