Gmail Commentary and Responses

Phil Windley writes "In his inimitable style, Tim O'Reilly tells us why GMail matters. The piece is entitled, 'The Fuss About GMail' but that doesn't begin to properly identify the real meat of what Tim's saying. Tim does discuss some of the privacy concerns on GMail and why he's not concerned, but he also breaks new ground on why GMail is not just another free email system. For example, Tim talks about how GMail might herald an era of large centralized computing and calls for APIs to allow GMail content to be move back and forth between it and other systems." Reader chris mansley writes "Google is quietly responding all the flak being given to their new email service. They have added a statement to quell the growing list of concerns. No more keeping email forever is at the top of the list. The reviews have been sparse on details and screenshots, but now Google is providing a sneak peek here and here." The only thing I didn't like about Gmail was their apparent intention to keep your mail forever, regardless of your wishes. Since they've now clarified that they don't plan to do that, it doesn't seem like there's much of a problem any more. Yahoo and MSN already link your searches on their respective engines with your account profiles on their respective free email services, and no one seems to care (maybe because no one uses MSN or Yahoo as a search engine these days, but still).

Comments

We trust Google.... don't we.

[LostCluster]

If you've got a trust-nobody mentality then what Google has to say means nothing, they're going to rip up their privacy policy and send every e-mail that goes through their system directly to John Ashcroft using their PageRank sorting technology to indicate which e-mails are most relavant to his desire to repeal every amendment in numbered order...

Of course, if you're sane, you trust Google because if they really wanted to screw the world over, they simply could decide that since their search engine is so good, everybody needs to pay $25 a month to keep accessing it... or decide to start logging all search queries to a user-specific cookie... or just take their bat and ball and go home. They've already got enough power to mess with us even worse than Gmail could be, and they've yet to be caught abusing any of that power or going back on their word.

That's how trust is really built... by letting them have the ability to screw up and seeing that they don't manage to do so. I'd certainly trust my e-mail with Google more so than I'd trust some of the other major "free e-mail" services out there.

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[afidel]

I trust Google as it stands today, but after the IPO I will trust them as far as I can throw a server farm. Any public company has a fudicial responsibility to their investors, and if times get tough or the shareholders scream enough then it is often difficult for even a well meaning management team to keep the customers interest in focus. That's why I'm not so hot on a Google IPO, they do well as a private company and I trust them a lot more that way. Why would they need an IPO anyways, they have all the money they need to implement any new ideas and none of the founders has said they are itching to cash out (and even if they are the remaining partners could leverage the corporate profits to buy out their share)

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[martin-boundary]

It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.

Look at the Millenium copyright laws: Google takes down copyrignted content as soon as someone sends them an email telling them it infringes. They have to, it's the law. The Church of Scientology uses those provisions frequently.

Do you trust Google to treat your confidential data more seriously than their own survival? Why should you? Ashcroft or the FBI can ask google to hand over any ("terrorism related") information they like, and Google has to comply. It *has* to comply, whether they want to or not.

That's why Google can't be trusted with my personal information. Not because Google could turn out to be bad guys later, but because to be law abiding, they have to give up my data if asked. At least if I keep my data on my own servers, it's harder to access.

Remember, Google is *the* search king. They can't turn to the FBI and tell them "look, you can't do searches across all email account holders' archives, because it's too technically difficult". Instead, the FBI will say "do a search for "bin laden" across all your email archives, and give us the owner's addresses. And they'll comply, not because Google are the bad guys, but because Google are the *good* guys.

No thanks.

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[orthogonal]

It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.

I haven't had mod points since December (despite two years and 1204 comments).

But if I did have mod points, mine would go to the parent.

So should yours.

Putting all your eggs in one basket, as the cliche notes, is bad policy.

Putting all your information in the hands of one company invites extensive profiling of you.

It may even be that Google respects your privacy;
it may even be that GW Bush is voted out of office and Ashcroft (slighty NSFW) with him, and contrary to any realistic possibility, the Democratic Party gets rid of Howard Berman is defeated in the Democratic Primary and Fritz Hollings retires and the DMCA is repealed and no future Herbert Hoover ever leads the FBI into another COINTELPRO;
and it may even be that lions lie down with lambs and meat packers lie down with cows.

But even in such a perfect world, it would take one disgruntled Google employee or one corporate spy or one hacker to make all your data public.

The question isn't "is Google trustworthy"; the question is, given that you backup your data for the day your hard drive inevitably dies, given that you use an UPS because you know that even the best power company has blackouts, why you rush to put all your data in any one set of hands?

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[LostCluster]

Smart investors know that consumer trust is one of those things that fall into the category of "goodwill"... that magical dollar value that represents the difference between the sum of all of the company's worldly goods and the combined worth of all of the issued shares.

In short, if Google betrays the trust customers have in it and therefore is no longer trusted, the company won't be worth as much.

Does SCO have any goodwill left? Doesn't look like it, and that's part of the reason major investor seems to be trying to cash out chips...

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[Xenographic]

And my cookies expire at the end of each session :]

*shrug*

Re:We trust Google.... don't we.

[thdexter]

Do you trust Google to treat your confidential data more seriously than their own survival? Why should you? Ashcroft or the FBI can ask google to hand over any ("terrorism related") information they like, and Google has to comply. It *has* to comply, whether they want to or not.

If you don't trust Google to break the law, then presumably you don't trust any company. This is an argument that's based on the foundation of all email services abiding by US law, not one specific to Gmail. I'm not entirely sure you realize this.

Why the big fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Google's terms/serving ads based on your email... don't use Gmail! It's really that simple, no need for extra laws. Let the free market decide.

Re:Why the big fuss?

[Xoro]

don't use Gmail! It's really that simple,

My understanding was that the controversial features (reading, analyzing, storing) occur with letters you receive as well as send. This means that your correspondence may end up in the pool whether you agree to the terms or not, or even if you didn't know about them. Even if you know the terms and don't send to gmail because of them, you don't know where people end up forwarding their stuff.

So it's really in everyone's common interests to critique what is appropriate for a carrier to do with its mail. Since there are more people involved in each email than the provider and the person who agreed to the terms, the market does not protect all parties in this instance.

two words:

[bersl2]

(maybe because no one uses MSN or Yahoo as a search engine these days, but still)

Yahoo Groups

You'd be surprised how many people use it

slashdot keeps every post you make

[jeoin]

Isn't this true? What is the difference?

I like this approach, it makes you think about what you say. Maybe some emails shouldn't be sent. If you have to worry about it, you shouldn't do it.

They're just being honest...

[LostCluster]

I think they've clarified they privacy policy to a level that us geeks should easily be able to understand...

When you hit "delete", more often than not in computer land, your data is not immediately rendered unrecoverable. In most operating systems, deleted files are ushered over to a "holding bin" for a final clear-out command to really get rid of them in case we want to change our mind. Once the OS finally lets go of the file, the file system often takes the short cut of just removing the index pointers to the file and/or marking the space as "unused", but leaving the data still spinning on the drive until something eventually wants to use that space... let's face it, a "quick format" doesn't have time to hit every track on the drive, it's taking a shortcut and that's what makes it "quick".

So, really, they're just saying that in order to make their magical mega-system work, "delete" isn't going to mean "Expunge it all right away!" but simply "Put in the pile that'll be discarded the next time the garbage collection process comes by." Therefore, they'll need to keep your "deleted" e-mails for an undisclosed length of time... they don't intend on keeping it forever, although they have to word the privacy policy in a way that might be misread that way because to do less just wouldn't be being honest.

If you don't have root access to the e-mail system where you work, you don't really know if "delete really means delete" on that system either. Your boss may in fact have access to your e-mail... you might as well assume that they do unless you know otherwise.

Re:Spam Ideas - An Interesting Look at GMAIL?

[FrYGuY101]

And how quickly after they did this would spammers use it to trash people's pagerank?

Have a gripe with Slashdot? Spam a few billion Gmail users with a link to slashdot, and wham. Instant PageRank death.

Google: Gentlemanly Like Business Practices

[pararox]

I'm really impressed with how Google has handled themselves since their inception. They have certainly been innovative, but most importantly they employ things that aren't seen enough in today's business world: openness and integrity.

I'm inherently paranoid (or, perhaps more appropriately, private) and always take things with a grain of salt - especially when it's coming from a business the size of Google.

That said, I don't blame Google for their desire to recoup costs by generating targeting advertisement. I'm very much impressed with how open they have been about the procedures they will use to actually target the ads. With this recent letter that so quickly and openly answers concerns made public recently, I'm happy to say here is a company that has been widly successful - all while being true gentlemen.

What if it IS just email?

[JelloGnome]

What if it's just 100GB email and nothing more, nothing less? Google wants customer loyalty; that's a good enough reason to do this. Their IPO is coming soon, everyone's watching the company. But what if Microsoft's search engine is actually good? What if Microsoft's search engine comes bundled with all future versions of windows, and windows updates (and believe me, it will). What if Microsoft sets your default home page to its own search engine EVERY TIME you update?

At least with an e-mail service, Google will be standing on two feet when this happens. People will want to check their GMail no matter what search they are using. Google isn't even close to the financial power of Microsoft right now, so it needs to prepare for the attack...

msn and yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

last figures i saw showed approximately

40% of users use google
30% use msn
30% use yahoo
25% use aol
various others have smaller shares...

clearly some folks use more than one engine...

if google charged for search and they would suffer...

as original poster pointed out few complain about msn and yahoo cause they dont give a damn....hysterical ninnys will complain about just about anything so let em.

if you want free email from google, google will have the option of setting some terms...dont like em, dont use it.

move on.

Re:Well it's evident...

[Narkov]

You want Grandma to use a password-protected website or FTP server??!! Hang on...you want Jane User to set these services up??!

I suggest you get out of your cave and realise how the real world works. Jane User and Grandma User doesn't care for SSL/PGP/SFTP..etc. They want something that works and something thats easy - enter email and GMail.

Trust Nobody?

[KrisHolland]

"If you've got a trust-nobody mentality..."

Then what the hell are you doing signing up to use a Free email service, or for that matter being on the internet to begin with?

If you do not trust google, then you really shouldn't trust hotmail or yahoo either.

Re:Instead of screenshots...

[orthogonal]

...I'm not to concerned about my mail privacy. I'm pretty open about my life because I have nothing to hide.... It's hard to have your privacy violated electronically when you don't leave much hidden.... in reality there is nothing to worry about for the majority of potential users [of Gmail].

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!

Do they not teach history at all any more?

I'm Alexander Ivanovich Ladyzhenski. I have nothing to hide; despite my noble origins, I'm just interested in my job, teaching mathematics, in my native land of Russian. In 1937, Ladyzhenskaya was arrested in one of Stalin's purges and in a show trial convicted, for his family's status as minor nobility, an "enemy of the Russian people" and sentenced to death.

I'm Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I have nothing to hide; I'm a minister and a theology professor. I'm just interested in being a good Christian, and keeping Christianity from being taken over by pagan practices in my native land of Germany. In 1943, Dr. Bonhoeffer was arrested by the Gestapo after his opposition to Hitler's racial policies and attempt to take over the German Church lead him to join a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was executed just three weeks before the Allied victory over Germany in 1945.

I'm Matthew Shepard. I have nothing to hide; well, except I'm gay, but I'll confide that to these two nice fellows I'm having drinks with in this bar. The two men Shepard was talking with, Aaron James McKinney and Russel (sic) Arthur Henderson, lured Shepard into leaving with them in their car. They then robbed, brutally beat, and tied Shepard to a fence, leaving him for dead. Found eighteen hours later, Shepard survived five more days before dying of his injuries.

The graveyards are full of people who "had nothing to hide" until a change in government or an encounter with thugs meant they suddenly found themselves outsiders and victims, members of some group considered "ok" to brutalize and oppress.

But of course, this is America, and it can't happen here, right? Matthew Shepard was just an exception, right?

I'm Fred Hampton. I have nothing to hide; I'm a member of the Black Panther Party fighting for civil rights and to end gang violence in Chicago. In 1969, asm part of is COINTELPRO program to suppress leftist dissent, the FBI provided the Chicago Police Department with the floor plan of Hampton's apartment. On December 4, police raided Hampton's apartment, firing automatic weapons. Hampton was found in his bed wounded by the police gunfire and possibly drugged by a police informant. From Wikipedia:

Two officers found him wounded in the shoulder, and the following exchange took place:

That's Fred Hampton
Is he dead?... Bring him out
He's barely alive; he'll make it.

Two shots were heard, which were fired point blank in Hampton's head. One officer then said:

He's good and dead now.

Hampton's body was dragged into the doorway of bedroom and left in a pool of blood.

A later investigation found that of the one hundred bullets fired in the raid, the police had fired ninety-nine; the single bullet fired by a Black Panther had been fired in a reflex spasm as the man died.

But you have nothing to hide.