Gmail and privacy

[fanf]

I still fail to understand the problem some people have with gmail.

(1) It's opt-in. If you don't like it, don't use it.

(2) Email is already scanned to protect users from spam and viruses. Why not scan for advertising?

(3) EU Data protection officers seem to agree.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200404/msg00152.html

Comments

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

I can't prevent emails I send being processed by them - even though I can avoid sending a message to an @gmail address, I can't know if someone is forwarding their mail to it.

I'd have no objection to scanning the message to do whatever, like inserting adverts, but presumably they are going to have to report aggregate statistics to advertisers so they can charge them - and I'm not entirely happy with that. It's a silly and contrived example, but what if someone places an advert for the keywords "Foo Bar pregnant" and waits for an upswing in the number of impressions?

can't know if someone is forwarding their mail to it

[ewx.livejournal.com]

That's true of any email service, though; the recipient could be forwarding to all sorts of things that you dislike and you might never know.

Re: can't know if someone is forwarding their mail to it

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Agreed. That doesn't stop me from wanting to do something about the ones I do know about, though.

[rmc28]

what if someone places an advert for the keywords "Foo Bar pregnant" and waits for an upswing in the number of impressions?

You mean like a company selling pregnancy/baby goods?

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

I mean like someone wanting to know if celebrity Foo Bar is pregnant. It's a crap example; but the point is that even reporting aggregate statistics of keywords from emails is an information leak.

[vatine]

Aye. GMail T&Cs means I'd hesitate getting an account and (possibly, but not probable) would pay attention what I send their way. Do I think it's bad they're phrased as-is? No, I think the "may be kept even beyond account termination" is a cover for "we will delete your account, but there is no automatic account-deleter-magic in place, at least for now, so the mailstore may hang around for a couple of days until one of our admins gets around to cleaning it up" (also makes it easier having everything left when the user goes "no! no wanna gmail!" and three days later says "erm, I do, actually, can I have my emails back too, please?".

I did think the phrasing was unfortunate, though.

[fanf]

Um no, they're more automated than that. Read the Google Filesystem paper for an explanation of why messages and accounts are not deleted immediately.

[vatine]

Yes, that (however) was the impression I got when I saw that part of the T&C. The Actual Technical Reason is to my mind pretty damned irrelevant.

[the-aviator.livejournal.com]

Google == big corporation therefore 3v1L
People complained about Orkut and its T&Cs for much the same reason.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

Of course, "don't use it" isn't much of an option if you want to correspond with someone who has a Gmail account. Google are in a great position to answer the question "which Gmail accounts has this person corresponded with?"

[(Anonymous)]

...as is any mail provider about every account it serves.

--
kat@totkat.org
http://www.totkat.org/