[Coco] [Color Computer] Gmail or Google Mail - YOU SHOULD AVOID - BE WARNED

[Neil Morrison]

(I don't pass on phoney virus alerts etc, but this is worth a read)


======================================================================
If You Have Any Concern For Your Privacy When Using A Google Service.
Make Sure You Read This As It Relates To Google.

" We are moving to a Google that knows more about you."
- Google CEO Eric Schmidt, speaking to financial analysts,
February 9, 2005, as quoted in the New York Times the next day

Problem 1: Gmail is nearly immortal

Google offers 1 gig of storage, which is many times the storage offered by
Yahoo or Hotmail, or other 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.

Google has been spinning their original position in press interviews, and
with an informal page described as "a few words about privacy and Gmail."
When we see fresh material from Google, we check the modification date at
the bottom of the terms-of-use page and privacy page for Gmail. If these
dates are still April 6 and April 8, we know that nothing has changed.
Google can modify these pages too, any way they want and whenever they want,
unilaterally. But at least these two pages carry slightly more legal weight
than other pages, because Google should attempt to notify users of
significant changes in these formal policies.

A new California law, the Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on
July 1, 2004. Google changed their main privacy policy that same day because
the previous version sidestepped important issues and might have been
illegal.

For the first time in Google's history, the language in their new policy
makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on
you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this
information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish.

All that's required is for Google to "have a good faith belief that access,
preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to
protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public."

Google, you may recall, already believes that as a corporation they are
utterly incapable of bad faith. Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil,"
and they even made sure that the Securities and Exchange Commission got this
message in Google's IPO filing.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of
Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling
out their nasty policies in detail for years now. By way of contrast, we've
had email from indignant Google fans who defended Google by using the old
privacy language -- but while doing so they arrived at exactly the wrong
interpretation of Google's actual position!

Now those emails will stop, because Google's position is clear at last. It's
amazing how a vague privacy policy, a minimalist browser interface, and an
unconventional corporate culture have convinced so many that Google is
different on issues that matter.

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 and once on their privacy
page. 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.

" We are moving to a Google that knows more about you."
- Google CEO Eric Schmidt, speaking to financial analysts,
February 9, 2005, as quoted in the New York Times the next day


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.

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 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?

The Wichita Eagle is pleased to present Google's recommendation for an alarm
company that can "protect your home and family." One tiny problem is that
the trigger for this ad is an article about an alarm installer who worked
for this company for 14 years, while moonlighting as a serial killer.

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 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.



Brought to you by the 6809, the 6803 and their cousins! 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ColorComputer/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ColorComputer-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/