Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
cryptome.org
Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#2That's not what the document says though! Scroll to the end.
It says that one of Google's motions to dismiss has suceeded, striking out part of the case as inapplicable, and that the case is being allowed to proceed. This is nowhere near even a first ruling. And it relates to "spying" in the sense of processing email to show adverts, not the NSA.
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#3no such thing as a free email account
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#4Good. Google shouldn't be able to even "analyze" private communications and data, at the very least not without the user's explicit consent (opt-in). Being in the ToS doesn't count since nobody reads those.
Maybe if they aren't allowed to do it anymore, they'll finally take requests to encrypt their services end-to-end seriously. Because right now they probably aren't even considering encrypting Hangouts if that means they can't analyze it for ads anymore, which is just sad and frustrating.
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#5IANAL but the Court seems to have granted Google's motion to dismiss only for claims under CIPA Section 632 while denying it for all the other sections.
> the Court hereby GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA section 632 claims
This is Section 632:
> Section 632 prohibits unauthorized electronic eavesdropping on confidential conversations. To state a claim under section 632, a plaintiff must allege an electronic recording of or eavesdropping on a confidential communication, and that not all parties consented to the eavesdropping.
However, the Court has not granted Google's motion to dismiss claims related to other sections:
> The Court DENIES Google’s Motion to Dismiss with respect to all other claims.
So one of the sections that still stands is Section 631:
> Section 631 prohibits wiretapping or “any other unauthorized connection” with a “wire, line, cable, or instrument.” The California Supreme Court has held that section 631 protects against three distinct types of harms: “intentional wiretapping, willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit over a wire, and attempting to use or communicate information obtained as a result of engaging in either of the previous two activities.”
Which probably explains the title. I still don't agree with the title though.
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#6no such thing as a free email account
"Free Is The Most Expensive Price"
or another popular expression on these days:
"If You're Not Paying for It, You're the Product"
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#7Good. Google shouldn't be able to even "analyze" private communications and data, at the very least not without the user's explicit consent (opt-in). Being in the ToS doesn't count since nobody reads those. Maybe if they aren't allowed to do it anymore, they'll finally take requests to encrypt their services end-to-end seriously. Because right now they probably aren't even considering encrypting Hangouts if that mean…
So, you're saying that every email provider that does scanning for spam, full text search, auto categorization and other things must stop doing them?
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#8Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#9Good. Google shouldn't be able to even "analyze" private communications and data, at the very least not without the user's explicit consent (opt-in). Being in the ToS doesn't count since nobody reads those. Maybe if they aren't allowed to do it anymore, they'll finally take requests to encrypt their services end-to-end seriously. Because right now they probably aren't even considering encrypting Hangouts if that mean…
Analyzing emails is what email service providers do. If you can classify a message as spam, you can also classify it as being about shoes and target ads against it.
Re: Google Email Spying Ruled Unlawful
#10IANAL but the Court seems to have granted Google's motion to dismiss only for claims under CIPA Section 632 while denying it for all the other sections. > the Court hereby GRANTS Google’s Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend with respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA section 632 claims This is Section 632: > Section 632 prohibits unauthorized electronic eavesdropping on confidential conversations. To state a claim under secti…
Interesting, re: Section 632
> and that not all parties consented to the eavesdropping.
Are they indicating that when someone sends an e-mail to a Gmail account that they are implicitly consenting to the 'eavesdropping'?
As another poster pointed-out on HN a few weeks ago, sometimes it's not even clear if a domain is using Gmail. One would have to check the MX RRs first, before making a decision on sending.
Sounds like a useful postfix plug-in, actually...