11–20 of 94 posts
There will always be the possibility of a rogue employee who goes out of his or her way to read data that doesn't belong to them.
In the case of Dropbox - to prevent this possibility - we can encrypt our data if we choose to (I've successfully used 'encfs' in the past). In the case of Google's email and document services I don't think this is possible?
It seems for company using third party email hosting, it shouldn't be too inconvenient to set up a company-wide encryption on its emails.
I don't think terms provide too much assurance - maybe they're only really useful if legal recourse ensues. There will always be the possibility of a rogue employee who goes out of his or her way to read data that doesn't belong to them. In the case of Dropbox - to prevent this possibility - we can encrypt our data if we choose to (I've successfully used 'encfs' in the past). In the case of Google's email and documen…
He answers his own question in the article. " https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ... says that the answer to “Is Google reading my mail?” is “No” but doesn’t elaborate ..." So, he's looking for a more elaborate answer? This is PhilG, so I should cut him some slack, but it seems pretty clear to me.
Misleading. What that document actually says is this: No, but automatic scanning and filtering technology is at the heart of Gmail. Gmail scans and processes all messages using fully automated systems in order to do useful and innovative stuff like filter spam, detect viruses and malware, show relevant ads, and develop and deliver new features across your Google experience. Priority Inbox, spell checking, forwarding,…
There is no way for a computer to anything with an email (save it, give it to you etc) without 'reading' it's contents. So the only meaningful thing for people to worry about is decoding the content which IMO means a spam filter does not qualify as decoding. Nor does displaying adds for tires if the word cars shows up in your email.
A few weeks ago I had a situation where Facebook contacted me about a job, and it appeared that Facebook may have been reading (or at the least mining) private messages related to my startup (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3035376). A Facebook employee replied to the thread but wouldn't provide details.
This should be covered by the statement "don't be evil"
If the FBI comes knocking on Google's door and says they have a terrorist under surveillance, and they need to read his email in order to save a busload of schoolchildren from a bomb, should Google let them do it? Is it evil to read a bad person's email, or is it evil not to read it? That's why a clearly stated policy that says exactly when Google will or will not let a human look at your documents and email is impor…
What about Facebook? A few weeks ago I had a situation where Facebook contacted me about a job, and it appeared that Facebook may have been reading (or at the least mining) private messages related to my startup ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3035376 ). A Facebook employee replied to the thread but wouldn't provide details.
I really think that was just coincidence. Considering how many people talk about startups over Facebook messages and how many people have been contacted by Facebook recruiters, there's bound to be at least one person who was contacted by a Facebook recruiter a day or two after talking about startups. It'll seem mighty suspicious to that person, and they'll blog about it. Congratulations, you're the lucky one.
Companies that big just generally don't do things like read private e-mail, because they know it'll get out somehow - disgruntled employee, whistleblower - and the damage to their reputation is totally not worth whatever they can gain from it.
This should be covered by the statement "don't be evil"
If the FBI comes knocking on Google's door and says they have a terrorist under surveillance, and they need to read his email in order to save a busload of schoolchildren from a bomb, should Google let them do it? Is it evil to read a bad person's email, or is it evil not to read it? That's why a clearly stated policy that says exactly when Google will or will not let a human look at your documents and email is impor…
From the Policy:
[When] We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request
About how and when they access your information:
We restrict access to personal information to Google employees, contractors and agents who need to know that information in order to process it on our behalf. These individuals are bound by confidentiality obligations and may be subject to discipline, including termination and criminal prosecution, if they fail to meet these obligations.
That "need to know that information" seems to restrict casual access, with the threat of termination to back it up. All of these are more specific declarations in line with a general "don't be evil" policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the FBI comes knocking on Google's door and says they have a terrorist under surveillance, and they need to read his email in order to save a busload of schoolchildren from a bomb, should Google let them do it? Is it evil to read a bad person's email, or is it evil not to read it? That's why a clearly stated policy that says exactly when Google will or will not let a human look at your documents and email is impor…
It's federal law that Google needs to hand over everything they have when the FBI comes calling on these cases. So Google's only choices are hand over the content or wait 30 minutes until people show up and start dismantling their data-center and then go to jail.
http://www.quora.com/How-many-employees-does-Google-have and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail respectively.
(Although off the top of my head, they do say they will automatically scan all email for the purposes of advertising, spam filtering, etc. and the debate used to be "does this count as reading if no human is involved?").