Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

8/14/2013
05:15 PM
Thomas Claburn
Thomas Claburn
Commentary
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem

Is there really informed consent among Gmail users? The real privacy issue is we're all getting by on a lot of trust.

Microsoft computers do the same thing, as the company acknowledges in its Terms of Service: "[W]e may occasionally use automated means to isolate information from email, chats, or photos in order to help detect and protect against spam and malware, or to improve the services with new features that makes them easier to use."

The only difference is that Google is using automated means to deliver relevant ads in addition to ensuring security and quality of service.

Eric Goldman, professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, in an email acknowledged that Google's attorneys could have worded things a bit more delicately but stressed that Gmail privacy claims have gone nowhere for years.

"Unfortunately, Google's poor choice of words gives the legions of Google-haters another chance to take another whack at it," he wrote. "I find the whole fracas baffling given that we have nearly a decade of experience using Gmail. The scare-mongering was a lot more persuasive in 2004, when the future was unknown, than 2013, when we basically know how the story turned out, i.e., Gmail is a great service and no one has suffered any harms due to Gmail's automated email processing."

Yet, Simpson's objection to Gmail has a kernel of merit: He takes issue with the notion that there's really informed consent among Gmail users and those sending email to Gmail users. Fair enough: click-through agreements suck. Online disclosure and contractual terms could be much more clear.

But ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignorance about the realities of online life shouldn't be an excuse either, as long as there's no meaningful deception going on. Terms of service agreements, contracts, computer technology and the law are all hard to understand. If we were really to insist on informed consent, there would be no Internet because almost no one bothers to read click-through contracts and few among those who do really understand what's going on at a technical level. We're all getting by on a lot of trust.

The Internet is a surveillance state. If that bothers you, if Gmail's automated scanning is too much of a privacy violation, do something about it. Brush up on PGP and start encrypting. Push for stronger data protection rules. Block ads. Communicate by tin-foil-clad carrier pigeons. Conduct your social networking in person. Vote for regime change. But don't say that you didn't know.

Previous
2 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
MarioD578
50%
50%
MarioD578,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/17/2013 | 6:07:09 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Great post. I suggest you read this: http://blog.mdsolutions.pe/201...
24/7Uplift
50%
50%
24/7Uplift,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/16/2013 | 7:26:08 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
The simple act of password protecting an email account is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' Quite like snail mail when the mailbox is under lock & key. Regardless of whether it is locked once a mailbox is put into use, it is considered federal property. As such, federal law states that it is a crime to tamper or vandalize a mailbox or its contents. Anyone found guilty of such crimes can be fined and incarcerated. So Google can consider it Google Property but should abide by the same standards for tampering as the U.S. Postal service where any type mail processing, routing & delivery comes with an expectation of privacy decreed by law.
cbabcock
50%
50%
cbabcock,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/16/2013 | 6:49:44 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Several readers say they don't mind Google opening their email to serve them ads. Where in Google's email agreement does it say they will restrict their snooping to that purpose? On the contrary, Google assumes your information, once submitted via Gmail, is their information. It's for your good that Google brings you the world's information; also for your good that it brings your information to the world. This is a company-centric view of privacy, one that overrides individuals, and one that I remain highly uncomfortable with, Hence, I pay for my Ymail service..
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/16/2013 | 6:17:50 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
I'm really not surprised that Google has this attitude. I'm also not bothered that Google is scanning my email so it can send me targeted ads-- but I am a little bothered by the possibility the data might be used for more than that. I agree with Tom's overall point: If you don't treat the Internet like a surveillance state, you proceed at your own peril.

But this is the part that caught my attention. The Guardian pulled this quote from Google's argument:

"Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be
surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who
use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications
are processed by the recipient's ECS [electronic communications service]
provider in the course of delivery."

Asinine. In this metaphor, Google somehow equates to a colleague's assistant? Google's more like the mail carrier.

This relates to Tom's problem. If Google wants to scan data and isn't breaking any laws while doing so, that's fine. No one makes you use Gmail, so Google can do what it wants. But if they're going to explain their policies, they should do so in a way that makes sense, and that is transparent about the implications of collected data. This half-assed metaphor is pretty much the antithesis of that.
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
8/16/2013 | 5:25:39 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
As ham-handed as Google's WiFi data gathering adventure turned out to be, I can't help but think much of it was overblown. So far as I can tell, no one was harmed in any way by the data collection. Moreover, Google was collecting data that computer users failed to secure, much as one might listen in to an open police broadcast on an unsecured radio channel. It's not as if Google was hacking anyone's encryption or tapping cables NSA-style.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/16/2013 | 12:04:43 AM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Well, there's no free lunch and even if very few would choose to pay, surely Google has a few spare, one-time developer cycles that could easily and quickly add a "do not scan" list to their mail mining operation. IMO, such an option would squelch most detractors whose current complaints have merit -- especially after Google's rather trite response.
GHCro
50%
50%
GHCro,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2013 | 10:59:46 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Right on, Tom. It's useless and stupid to say "I'm shocked, shocked to learn what Google's Ts and Cs say." Right on again, about what to do if you don't like it. Use self-help. Start using tools like Tails & TOR for browsing, Textcrypt for text messages and Cellcrypt for mobile phone calls. Then, take everything off of Dropbox, Instagram, iCloud, etc, and stash it all in a Cloudlocker (www.cloudlocker.it) which works just the same but stays in the house where they still need a warrant to get inside.

I'm sure we're going to seem more and better tools like these appear soon as good ol Yankee ingenuity revs up. Unless, of course, everyone gets lazy again and leaves themselves wide open until
the next big expos+.
Shane M. O'Neill
50%
50%
Shane M. O'Neill,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2013 | 8:35:29 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
I was saying to someone the other day that Google and Facebook are best things that ever happened to the government.
Shane M. O'Neill
50%
50%
Shane M. O'Neill,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2013 | 8:35:17 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Not a bad idea to have free and premium Gmail services. But not sure many users are willing to pay for web-based email. It would just make them angrier at Google for forcing them to pay $$ for peace of mind.
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/15/2013 | 8:17:25 PM
re: Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem
Google's "just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague" metaphor was absolutely ham-handed. Or to use another food metaphor, comparing apples to oranges.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/20/2020
Ransomware Damage Hit $11.5B in 2019
Dark Reading Staff 2/20/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-17274
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
NetApp FAS 8300/8700 and AFF A400 Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) firmware versions 13.x prior to 13.1P1 were shipped with a default account enabled that could allow unauthorized arbitrary command execution via local access.
CVE-2019-17275
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
OnCommand Cloud Manager versions prior to 3.8.0 are susceptible to arbitrary code execution by remote attackers.
CVE-2020-3169
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the CLI of Cisco FXOS Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying Linux operating system with a privilege level of root on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient validation of arguments passed to a spe...
CVE-2020-3170
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the NX-API feature of Cisco NX-OS Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an NX-API system process to unexpectedly restart. The vulnerability is due to incorrect validation of the HTTP header of a request that is sent to the NX-API. An attacker could expl...
CVE-2020-3171
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-26
A vulnerability in the local management (local-mgmt) CLI of Cisco FXOS Software and Cisco UCS Manager Software could allow an authenticated, local attacker to execute arbitrary commands on the underlying operating system (OS) of an affected device. The vulnerability is due to insufficient input vali...