

Google’s legal counsel says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy - emhart
http://www.techspot.com/news/53618-googles-legal-counsel-says-gmail-users-should-have-no-legitimate-expectation-of-privacy.html

======
tjr
When I started using email in the 1990s, I was advised that plain-text email
was no more private than sending a postcard: most likely, nobody besides the
intended recipient would bother to read it, but a number of people in theory
could read it. The idea of blithely sending private information over
unencrypted email never made sense to me.

But on the other hand, neither did I expect to learn that the U.S. government
is collecting, analyzing, reading our email. Even though I might have assumed
they _could_ do that, it's alarming to discover that they _are_ doing that.

------
anxious
This is like the 10th submission of this nonsense: 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)

~~~
emhart
That was significantly informative. Thanks for the context. I actually was
about to delete my submission as you mention it's been posted previously and
while I personally didn't realize that, I'd prefer not to contribute to the
decline of HN. Anyway, I missed the deletion window, but hopefully more will
see your comment to provide context.

~~~
anxious
What is really troubling is how many outlets are picking that piece of
propaganda as is, with no attempt to even look at the source - both the
original text of the motion the people who are spreading the misinformation.

------
Lasher
It hasn't been a good year for "expectations of privacy".

