I have two(2) gmail accounts now. From day 1 when I heard about it, I was
trying to figure out their motives behind giving it out. Don't care much
though since I don't intend to use it for anything important. I have
hushmail for that
_____
From: gatt-admin@gatt.co.tt [mailto:gatt-admin@gatt.co.tt] On Behalf Of
Kayode James
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:41 PM
To: gatt@gatt.co.tt
Subject: RE: {GATT} Gmail is too creepy
Haterism knows no bounds.
-----Original Message-----
From: gatt-admin@gatt.co.tt [mailto:gatt-admin@gatt.co.tt]On Behalf Of
MaxxSeven
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 12:34 PM
To: gatt@gatt.co.tt
Subject: {GATT} Gmail is too creepy
Gmail is too creepy
Presumably you have a Gmail account,
and do not object to Google's policies
But many of us will not send mail to gmail.com ...
Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal
Google offers 1 gig of storage, which is more than 100 times the storage
offered by Yahoo or Hotmail, or any Internet service providers that we know
about. The powerful searching encourages account holders to never delete
anything. It takes three clicks to put a message into the trash, and more
effort to delete this message. It's much easier to "archive" the message, or
just leave it in the inbox and let the powerful searching keep track of it.
Google admits that even deleted messages will remain on their system, and
may also be accessible internally at Google, for an indefinite period of
time.
After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected
communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become
just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a
warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy. Other
countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are
distributed all over the world. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's
unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or
whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other
countries.
Google's relationships with government officials in all of the dozens of
countries where they operate are a mystery, because Google never makes any
statements about this. But here's a clue: Google uses the term "governmental
request" three times on their terms-of-use page
<http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/cgi-bin/nb18/0023> for Gmail and once
on their privacy page <http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/cgi-bin/nb18/0022>
. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to
allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any
official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal
or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion. Why should we send email to
Gmail accounts under such draconian conditions?
Problem 2: Google's policies do not apply
The phrasing and qualifiers in the Gmail privacy policy are creepy enough,
but nothing in any of Google's policies or public statements applies to
those of us who don't have Gmail accounts. Google has not even formally
stated in their privacy policy that they will not keep a list of keywords
scanned from incoming email, and associate these with the incoming email
address in their database. They've said that their advertisers won't get
personally identifiable information from email, but that doesn't mean that
Google won't keep this information for possible future use. Google has never
been known to delete any of the data they've collected, since day one. For
example, their cookie with the unique ID in it, which expires in 2038, has
been tracking all of the search terms you've ever used while searching their
main index.
Problem 3: A massive potential for abuse
If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses,
the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that
spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about
words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can
you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email
addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with
"download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers
and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we
expect Gmail to be off-limits?
Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams
that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts
could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very
lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with
federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for
this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something
that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.
Problem 4: Inappropriate ad matching
We don't use Gmail, but it is safe to assume that the ad matching is no
better in Gmail, than it is in news articles that use contextual ad feeds
from Google. Here's a screen shot
<http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/drugnews.html> that shows an
inappropriate placement of Google ads in a news article. We also read about
a lawyer who is experimenting with Gmail. He sent himself a message, and
discovered that the law practice footer he uses at the bottom of all of his
email triggered an ad for a competing law firm.
Another example is seen in the Google ads at the bottom of this story about
Brandon <http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/mayfield.gif> Mayfield.
There are two ads. One mentions sexual assault charges (sex has nothing to
do with the story), and the other is about anti-terrorism. The entire point
of this article, as well as a New York Times piece on May 8, 2004, is that a
lawyer has had his career ruined due to overreaction by the FBI, based on
disputed evidence. He was arrested as a material witness and his home and
office were searched. The NYT (page A12) says that "Mr. Mayfield was
arrested before investigators had fully examined his phone records, before
they knew if he had ever met with any of the bombing suspects, before they
knew if he had ever traveled to Spain or elsewhere overseas. His relatives
said he had not been out of the United States for 10 years." The only
evidence is a single fingerprint on a plastic bag, and some FBI officials
have raised questions about whether this print is a match. While Mr.
Mayfield will get his day in court, it appears that Google's ads have
already convicted him, and for good measure added some bogus sexual assault
charges as well. Would Mr. Mayfield be well-advised to send email to Gmail
account holders to plead his case?
Our last example shows three ads fed by Google at the bottom of a Washington
Post column titled "Gmail leads way in making ads relevant." The columnist
argues that Google's relevant ads improve the web, and therefore she finds
nothing objectionable about Gmail. These Google-approved ads offer PageRank
for <http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/gifs/walker4.gif> sale, something
which only a year ago, Google would have considered high treason. Yes, these
ads are "relevant" -- the column is about Google, and the ads are about
PageRank. But here's the point: A relevant ad that shows poor judgment is
much worse than an irrelevant ad that shows poor judgment. The ads at the
bottom of her column disprove her pro-Google arguments. She has no control
over this, and is probably not even aware that it happened.
Most writers, even if they are only writing an email message instead of a
column in a major newspaper, have more respect for their words than Google
does. Don't expect these writers to answer their Gmail.
Esther Dyson, queen of the digerati, gets it wrong
"We're not going to have any choice but to send mail to people at Gmail just
to function in the e-mail world," says Daniel Brandt, founder of the
Google-Watch.org Web site. "And what guarantees do we have that all this
won't end up on some bureaucrat's desk at some intelligence agency someday?"
But those who support Gmail say such privacy concerns are not Google issues
so much as constitutional ones, best addressed to Congress and
law-enforcement agencies. "They've got a beef with the wrong person. The
problem there is the FBI, not Google," says Dyson. "And in the scheme of
things, I'd rather have Google than my employer have access to my personal
mail." -- Baltimore Sun, 20 May 2004
The point is this: Some two-thirds of all Google searches come in from
outside the U.S., and Gmail will also have a global reach. We're not dealing
with only the FBI (and yes, the same privacy advocates who oppose Gmail are
dealing with the FBI), but potentially with hundreds of agencies in dozens
of countries. Google has no data retention policies, and never comments on
their relationships with governments. The problem must be addressed at the
source, which is Google. Elitist digerati do a disservice to the entire
world when they assume such narrow points of view.
Garreth Ferguson
Information Systems Specialist
Office of the Parliament
Red House
Abercromby Street
Port of Spain
Trinidad
<mailto:it@ttparliament.org> it@ttparliament.org
<mailto:isunit@ttparliament.org> isunit@ttparliament.org
<mailto:ttparliament@tstt.net.tt> ttparliament@tstt.net.tt
<http://www.ttparliament.org>
http://www.ttparliament.orgtel:
tel2:
fax:
868 627 9603
868 623 7045/55
868 625 4672
<http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Signature powered by Plaxo
<http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this?
<https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=21474892138&v0=103951&k0=1969447159> Add me
to your address book...
