Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Complaint Against Google's GMail Service
CRCates writes "Privacy groups in the UK have filed a complaint against Google over its new Gmail service. Privacy groups said they were concerned about Google's ability to link a user's personal details, supplied in the Gmail registration process, to Web-surfing behaviour through the use of a single cookie for its search and mail services. "
If someone has a problem with the way the advertising is done, then they shouldn't use it. It is not like Google is hiding all of this information from their users.
All of this complaining and bickering for a service that is not yet released...
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
I will note, however, that at least in the United States we went ahead and outlawed indentured servitude, even though (a) it was usually entered into voluntarily (b) it often had a net benefit to the indentured party. Still, we felt that the moral and social cost of the "servitude" part was too high to allow individuals to enter into that sort of contract.
Perhaps the privacy advocates are arguing along the same lines here.
I will also note that while Google claims that one of their corporate policies is "don't be evil", they also absolutely refuse to discuss or explain almost any facet of their operations. Just a thought.
sPh
"Residual copies of email may remain on our systems, even after you have deleted them from your mailbox or after the termination of your account," Google's Gmail says in its privacy and terms of use sections.
/you/, but not to /us/.
:)
/that/ different in Europe?
snip
"If a person deletes an email, he should be confident that email is actually deleted," said Maurice Westerling, co-founder of Bits of Freedom, another privacy interest group, based in the Netherlands.
MS Exchange has settings for the email retention period. If you delete something from your mailbox in Outlook, then empty your Trash folder, it's effectively gone from your view and you've no way to retrieve it. It is however stored in Exchange for as long as the administrators wish to hang onto it (and that "deleted" email is, indeed, backed up and restorable).
If you shift-delete an object out of your Inbox, using that wonderful permanent-kill technique that the tech-savvy thinks protects and anonymizes their email... it's stored for the email retention period listed by the sysadmins, is backed up, and is restorable. It looks very dead to
(fyi, the only real way around this is to edit your Outlook client so that you can get the Recover Deleted Items option on every object in your inbox [as opposed to just the Recycle Bin], then habitually view -- and purge -- that information on a schedule that is more frequent than the one used for our backups. That'd work.)
Anyway, the shorter point is, this kind of thing happens. The reason is happens is liability. If a criminal organization is using Google's GMail system for planning a robbery, or if a terrorist group decides they want to attack rail systems in Europe and wants to do so by using random public terminals to sign into email accounts that someone else hosts, it's a problem. If law enforcement comes looking and Google has to say "Oh, sorry - we respect privacy so much that we absolutely and permanently delete all traces of all email the second you touch the delete object!", it will not be a pleasant thing. The investigators will not be happy.
Alternate question; do you really think that your email is permanently gone from Yahoo! and Hotmail?
Do you really think they can't restore to an arbitrary point in time?
Do you think they wouldn't turn that info over to law enforcement in a heartbeat if a court order came down?
Are the rules
Am I the only one with ZERO sympathy when users of FREE services whine?
--- Ban humanity.
Erase the cookie.
Doesn't do anything if I voluntarily sign into an account.
Heck, if Slashdot partnered with DoubleClick (and I didn't block ads), it'd be pretty easy to track whatever I do on the Web as well.
Don't use the service.
Doesn't mean it's not a legitimate complaint, though, about the service.
How do you know Yahoo! doesn't read all it's mail?
We don't, though it seems like the whole Yahoo Mail thing is at least as intrusive as Google -- and Yahoo tries to handle all manner of services as well.
I use Google on a "session cookies only" basis, and block ads, which makes it at least somewhat difficult to tie different online personas together.
I do have one (IMHO) legitimate privacy grievance with Google's operation. Google does not let you save preference options in the content of an URL -- language, results size, image content filtering, etc. It is technically possible (and really, pretty easy) to do so, but they prefer to force me to retain a permanent cookie on my system if I wish to use these features (or set the content each time I visit their site). There's a constant nag to give the degree of privacy that I *do* have, which I'm less than thrilled about. I consider search engine cookies pretty much unacceptable based on the sheer amount of data they hand out. You don't have to be searching for how to defraud your employer or for child porn to be uncomfortable with someone having a complete record of everything you're looking for. I view search engines as a tremendous data leak out of companies. Do you Google for things that you're doing research on, or companies that you might be doing business in, or areas/markets that you might be entering? That's sensitive data. What about having a "terrorist keyword red flag list"? Search engines would be an incredibly rich resource for fishing expeditions to find suspicious folks, simply because of the sheer amount of data involved. You think you ever mind wind up in politics? Do you want your opponent to ever be able to dig up the fact that you searched for images of a gay porn actor fifteen years ago? There's an awful lot of very nasty things that can be done with search engine data. Google, on the whole, might be currently playing nice, but that's no guarantee that they will do so in the future, post-IPO, when shareholders are demanding more profits and a partnership with DoubleClick could net Google a loooot of money...
May we never see th
I got excited about this almost ten years ago. I installed PGP in my email client, made my keyring (or whatever it's called) and sent a few test messages to myself. After a couple of years in which time I never found anyone who even understood the idea, I gave up, never bothered to reinstall when I moved to a new PC.
Why do you get to decide unilaterally when the deal is off?
"Defending Google" here is defending the right to enter into agreements. You, apparently, want to be protected from your decisions by being able to change the terms of service if you don't like them at a later date and you want the force of law, through regulation, to enforce your preference.
You don't need regulation, you need to be responsible for your decisions.
Your concerns might be valid, I don't know. But, and I know you are sick to death of this, if you feel this way, "DON'T USE IT THEN". That would be a way of 'telling a company what the consumer wants'. But, you don't really want to tell a company what the consumer wants, you want to force the company to provide a service that you want.