Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#11

Post by 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.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#12

Post by 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.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#13

Post by denzil_correa »

skyjedi wrote: post #9

Holy shit still? This is a misquote http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-sa...

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...

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#14

Post by 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/

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#15

Post by 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....

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

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.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#16

Post by thezilch »

diggum wrote: post #7

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.

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.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#18

Post by betterunix »

jaaron wrote: post #3

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.

The average computer user cannot be expected to know how GMail has always worked. We do not teach the relevant technical background in school. This is easy to forget when you spend most of your time around technically competent people.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#19

Post by betterunix »

da_n wrote: post #17

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.

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.

Re: Google: Gmail users shouldn't expect email privacy

#20

Post by betterunix »

niuzeta wrote: post #14

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 someth…

"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.

Post reply on HN