1 recommendation |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 9:29 am
Google says Gmail users have no expectation of privacyNo surprise to regulars here. quote: As if Edward Snowden hasn't done enough to highlight how vulnerable electronic communications are to surveillance, Google has made it clear that people who send or receive e-mail via Gmail should not expect their messages to remain private.
» news.cnet.com/8301-1023_ ··· privacy/Actually Gmail says in their TOS (Terms of Service) that they'll scan your email. Plus the NSA gets copies. |
|
CartelIntel inside Your sensitive data outside Premium Member join:2006-09-13 Chilliwack, BC |
Cartel
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 10:07 am
said by google : "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. ..." |
|
HarryH3 Premium Member join:2005-02-21 |
to StuartMW
I read somewhere that Google even does a voice-to-text scan of conversations that take place over Google Voice. It's left to the reader to determine why and/or what they do with that info... |
|
kingdome74Let's Go Orange Premium Member join:2002-03-27 Syracuse, NY |
to StuartMW
Is anyone going to trust a company who will bend over to accommodate the Chinese Communists? |
|
dave Premium Member join:2000-05-04 not in ohio |
dave
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 11:46 am
said by kingdome74:Is anyone going to trust a company who will bend over to accommodate the Chinese Communists? Sales above ideology and principle - it's the capitalist way! |
|
kingdome74Let's Go Orange Premium Member join:2002-03-27 Syracuse, NY |
Ah, it's the institutions not the people manipulating them. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI
2 recommendations |
to StuartMW
News flash, no free email provider is providing email for "free". No messages are going to be private. There is no expectation of privacy. |
|
|
1 recommendation |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 3:23 pm
said by Nightfall:No messages are going to be private. There is no expectation of privacy. No argument there. The NSA et al are monitoring all email. However if one uses one of the big free providers or your (big) ISP your email is being scanned for advertising/marketing purposes. That's the point. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
said by StuartMW:said by Nightfall:No messages are going to be private. There is no expectation of privacy. No argument there. The NSA et al are monitoring all email. However if one uses one of the big free providers or your (big) ISP your email is being scanned for advertising/marketing purposes. That's the point. Just saying that this kind of thing has been known for years now. We were talking about the "expectation of privacy" since back in the excite mail days. So it shouldn't be any surprise when Google says something like that. Sure, the company line is that they care about the security of your email, but only from anyone but them. |
|
|
StuartMW
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 4:12 pm
said by Nightfall:Sure, the company line is that they care about the security of your email, but only from anyone but them. Or the NSA. Oh wait.. they deny that. |
|
ashrc4 Premium Member join:2009-02-06 australia |
to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:said by Nightfall:No messages are going to be private. There is no expectation of privacy. No argument there. The NSA et al are monitoring all email. However if one uses one of the big free providers or your (big) ISP your email is being scanned for advertising/marketing purposes. That's the point. Expanding on that NSA generally runs search paterns on E-mail to find key words. If you become a person of interest or have an assosiation with one your E-mails may be read. Google builds profiles of you beyond the NSA's general bleak collection and desires to influence and know you better than yourself. It'not just what you put in Gmail thats the problem either youtube, google searches etc are all stored and added to increase your profilling. Can the NSA get a hold of this....hmmm. |
|
1 recommendation |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 4:21 pm
said by ashrc4:Can the NSA get a hold of this....hmmm. You betcha |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny Yours MVM join:2001-08-03 Grand Rapids, MI |
to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:said by Nightfall:Sure, the company line is that they care about the security of your email, but only from anyone but them. Or the NSA. Oh wait.. they deny that. You can thank the last two administrations that we have had that have set the stage for the current privacy issues that we have now. At the same time though, these privacy concerns are really overblown. I am a firm believer that the gathering of all this information is resulting in the reporting of worthless information. I personally could care less if the NSA knows I love to eat Lucky Charms for breakfast, play hockey, referee hockey, and teach college. |
|
1 edit |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2013-Aug-14 4:27 pm
All the more to fill that Utah datacenter with But make sure you're on the right side |
|
ashrc4 Premium Member join:2009-02-06 australia |
to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:said by ashrc4:Can the NSA get a hold of this....hmmm. You betcha OK maybe your right to some degree. » www.theverge.com/2013/6/ ··· rt-order |
|
dib22 join:2002-01-27 Kansas City, MO
1 recommendation |
to StuartMW
So I have read google's explanation and I think google is correct. quote: a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties
I think that if people really would like email to be secure they should re-write the email standards. The current email system is as insecure as possible as it transits email in cleartext by design. Imagine if every piece of snail mail you sent and received was sent through the postal system page by page, with no envelope... that is our current email standard on the internet. some more on this » www.theverge.com/2013/8/ ··· -privacy |
|
Ian1 Premium Member join:2002-06-18 ON |
to StuartMW
I think what this is, is a PR mishap for Google. The lawyers writing the response probably didn't pass the text by the Google PR dept. There were ways to say what they wanted to say without saying that users had "no expectation of privacy".
Put simply, I have SOME expectation of privacy when use gmail, but not total. I know it's not secure, I know it's in plain-text (unless I encrypt through gmail, which I can, and do), and I know they scan plain-text to put in ads I never see due to ABP or using an IMAP client.
But I have the expectation that humans aren't pouring over the text. I have expectations that they won't turn over plain-text or meta-data to anyone who asks. Or to follow the analogy Google used, if I send a letter to a colleague that is opened by his secretary, I have the expectation that the secretary will not blab the contents or post them on the company lunch-room bulletin board. |
|
Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2013-Aug-15 10:13 am
Poor analogy. The secretary is stopped because she/he doesn't want to get fired. What incentive would stop Google postinge contents on lunch room board or whatever? Nothing. We all already know Google is evil so they wouldn't lose a reputation they don't have if word got out they were blabbling your email contents or profiting in some manner. |
|
Phoenix22Death From Above Premium Member join:2001-12-11 SOG C&C Nrth |
to StuartMW
thanks friend.............we'll take it from here....... |
|
dave Premium Member join:2000-05-04 not in ohio |
to Mele20
The analogy is fine.
The secretary only fears being fired if she works for an employer that has rules against revealing customer secrets.
Google only fears punishment if it operates in a country that has rules against revealing customer secrets.
(Or: if you want 'not evil', you can't just trust to luck, you need regulations that are enforced). |
|
GlennLouEarl3 brothers, 1 gone Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA
2 recommendations |
to StuartMW
And then there's Techdirt: » www.techdirt.com/article ··· cy.shtml(I'd rather rely on Techdirt than "Consumer Watchdog".) |
|
|
to StuartMW
Being on the right side isn't the big problem. Getting there is! |
|
siljalineI'm lovin' that double wide Premium Member join:2002-10-12 Montreal, QC |
to StuartMW
The Space Bunny of the NSA set keeps on running. » venturebeat.com/2013/08/ ··· ts-that/ |
|
SCADAGeo Premium Member join:2012-11-08 N California |
to GlennLouEarl
|
|
scelli (banned)Four More Years! join:1999-08-07 FLOT/FEBA |
to Mele20
said by Mele20:We all already know Google is evil... Nonsense. I'm not particularly a fan of Google and its various subsidiaries, yet it seems we once again have another blatant example of exaggerated and foolish rhetoric from you. Perhaps everyone should take the time to read the following short essay at the link below, which I believe puts things in better perspective. Here's the introduction: Stop spreading manure
Perhaps most importantly, stop believing it.
Once again, theres been another brouhaha. This time, its over reports that Google blatantly admits that you should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever when using their services. The internet went crazy. Many sources seemed to say, How outrageous! We told you so! Google is evil! Mainstream news outlets picked up stories from smaller publishers and they all seemed to confirm the entire, sordid mess.
Except the internet was wrong. Manure, to use a polite term, was being spread far and wide fast.
And thats where things get complicated.The article in its entirety can be found at this link: » askleo.com/stop-spreadin ··· AGsZdfbL |
|
ashrc4 Premium Member join:2009-02-06 australia |
ashrc4
Premium Member
2013-Aug-20 7:15 pm
said by scelli:said by Mele20:We all already know Google is evil... Nonsense. I'm not particularly a fan of Google and its various subsidiaries Stop spreading manure Perhaps most importantly, stop believing it. Perhaps we should engineer from the who is the worst offender of profiling it's users on the size of cross corelation amongst it's subsidiaries. Google wins hands down. On that premise should we use G-mail as apposed to any other E-mail? » nakedsecurity.sophos.com ··· privacy/Google aint championing any duty of care nor clarifying it's methods or function to consumers rather coldly retorting on a mis-quote only slightly out of context. Trust them all you like but they go way outside of the scope that this present issue covers and for that the whole seems to be avioded.....Not by me. |
|
scelli (banned)Four More Years! join:1999-08-07 FLOT/FEBA |
scelli (banned)
Member
2013-Aug-20 8:32 pm
The major thrust of the article covered a broad spectrum of possible situations where FUD is spread around on a regular basis daily by numerous entities on the Internet (including a few individuals on these forums) just like that horse manure mentioned. Google was used as just one of those examples. If you've got a problem with Google and wish to make them your own personal cause celebre, then don't use their services. I couldn't care less. |
|
ashrc4 Premium Member join:2009-02-06 australia |
ashrc4
Premium Member
2013-Aug-20 9:09 pm
recovers from blindsiding said by scelli:The major thrust of the article covered a broad spectrum of possible situations where FUD is spread around on a regular basis daily by numerous entities on the Internet (including a few individuals on these forums) just like that horse manure mentioned. Google was used as just one of those examples. If you've got a problem with Google and wish to make them your own personal cause celebre, then don't use their services. I couldn't care less. Only to be flanked How are your comments relavent to either security or privacy for yourself or others in this instance. If you want to improve a forum it's not issues of personal preference that count more the content of facts and maybe some persuasion. |
|
scelli (banned)Four More Years! join:1999-08-07 FLOT/FEBA |
to HarryH3
said by HarryH3:I read somewhere that Google even does a voice-to-text scan of conversations that take place over Google Voice.
It's left to the reader to determine why and/or what they do with that info... No, actually it's up to you as a responsible poster to provide this group with some kind of credible proof backing up such a statement....and that doesn't include the likes of "I read somewhere..." either. I'm not saying it could or couldn't be happening: I'm saying "Show us the money!"Until such time as you do that, your "info" is nothing more than FUD to me and I'm sure a number of others as well. |
|
scelli |
to ashrc4
said by ashrc4:How are your comments relavent to either security or privacy for yourself or others in this instance. If you want to improve a forum it's not issues of personal preference that count more the content of facts and maybe some persuasion. Don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling on about, so suggest we just agree to disagree. |
|