FSTDT Forums
Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Askold on August 15, 2013, 08:42:30 am
-
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/GOOGLE-If-You-Use-Gmail-You-Have-No-Legitimate-4730587.php
The important bit:
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 provider in the course of delivery. Indeed, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). In particular, the Court noted that persons communicating through a service provided by an intermediary (in the Smith case, a telephone call routed through a telephone company) must necessarily expect that the communication will be subject to the intermediary’s systems. For example, the Court explained that in using the telephone, a person “voluntarily convey[ s ] numerical information to the telephone company and ‘expose[ s ]’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.” Id. at 744 (emphasis added).
I repeat: “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”
If you send an email to someone using Gmail then you should not act suprised if/when they turn it over to third parties. So it's not just that "Yeah, we hand out people's private messages." It has already progressed to "If you are suprised that we hand out people's private messages then you are an idiot."
-
Oh, good thing I never hopped onto the gmail fad.
-
I only really use gmail for my school email...I hope they enjoy those fascinating emails about homework questions.
-
So much for "Don't be Evil", looks like I may need to find a new decent email provider. Except I've been using Gmail for years so it would be a huge pain.
-
A counter-point. Turns out things have been exaggerated (http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/14/4621474/yes-gmail-users-have-an-expectation-of-privacy)
-
*sigh*
Okay, I'm officially getting tired of this stuff. Sensationalist internet articles claiming this or that, and people jumping on bandwagons. Myself included.
People have become so absolutely fucking paranoid about privacy that they're seeing spy cameras everywhere. The internet is becoming Boyd from Psychonauts.
Do you want to be Boyd?
-
Given all the recent issues concerning privacy of US citizens, I certainly don't blame people for being outraged over this, or for believing it.
-
My problem is, I don't know what to believe anymore. Anyone can say anything, even about the NSA, and people will jump all hogwild over it. It's becoming hard to tell the truth from the sensationalist bullshit now.
-
A counter-point. Turns out things have been exaggerated (http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/14/4621474/yes-gmail-users-have-an-expectation-of-privacy)
Well if that article I linked was misinformation I apologize for it.
Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.
Exscuse me if I no longer am believe that "Google's normal processes" mean that they won't scan my email. I don't care if it's done by a bot or a person, those contents are private and using them for market research is no better than giving them to an espionage organisation.
-
My problem is, I don't know what to believe anymore. Anyone can say anything, even about the NSA, and people will jump all hogwild over it. It's becoming hard to tell the truth from the sensationalist bullshit now.
[Mulder]Trust no one[/Mulder]
It's very easy to get crazy about this shit now, but I guess all we can do is be careful and find out more before freaking out about something.
-
I have never had any expectation that any digital communication is private. Just like with the Snowden leak, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised by this (whether it is true or not).
Does that make me paranoid?
-
I have never had any expectation that any digital communication is private. Just like with the Snowden leak, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised by this (whether it is true or not).
Does that make me paranoid?
No, it makes you reasonable.
...What would make you paranoid is doing what the internet is doing now.
-
Most of us have probably known that this kind of technology would make it easier for corporations, the government, etc to snoop on our communications so, I'm not surprised by all of this, perhaps a bit shocked, but not horribly surprised.
-
Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.
Exscuse me if I no longer am believe that "Google's normal processes" mean that they won't scan my email. I don't care if it's done by a bot or a person, those contents are private and using them for market research is no better than giving them to an espionage organisation.
A bot reading my e-mail to to target ads seems to be preferable by far than giving it to a person or an espionage organization. Not a good thing on absolute terms, but to say that it's 'no better' seems hyperbole.
-
This is the important part...
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979). In particular, the Court noted that persons communicating through a service provided by an intermediary (in the Smith case, a telephone call routed through a telephone company) must necessarily expect that the communication will be subject to the intermediary’s systems. For example, the Court explained that in using the telephone, a person “voluntarily convey[ s ] numerical information to the telephone company and ‘expose[ s ]’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.” Id. at 744 (emphasis added).
-
So wait, the government's been able to spy on our phone communications since 1979?
-
So wait, the government's been able to spy on our phone communications since 1979?
Only if they own the phone companies.
-
So wait, the government's been able to spy on our phone communications since 1979?
"Exposed to the intermediary systems" is not the same as "available to anyone who wants it".
-
So wait, the government's been able to spy on our phone communications since 1979?
Not on the actually phone calls, but who you have called and who has called you, yes. That information is not yours, it is the companies.
So it is not a stretch to think that who you email is not in any way protected, even if the countenance is.
Only if they own the phone companies.
Or the phone, or now internet, companies turn over the data willingly.