Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Passes Preemptive Strike Against Gmail
Technically Inept writes "The California Senate has passed a measure to force Google to limit search capabilities on Gmail to real-time, with no records. What if I want them to search my mail in advance?"
It seems to me that companies ought to have a right to exchange services with people on terms that both sides agree on. If Google wants to offer a gig of email in exchange for being able to stick context-oriented ads in it, they ought to be able to do so -- if you don't like it, buy your own damn email.
Hell, if Google wanted to offer me a gig of email in exchange for being able to read my messages, print out the embaressing ones and pass them around their offices, they should be able to do that, too. If I don't like it, I don't have to sign up.
But no, here in CA we never met a regulation or inhabition to business that we didn't like. God forbid the legislature not spend yet more time not fixing our insane budget problems.
* - Don't kid yourself. We still beat the hell out of your crappy state/country.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Google has yet to actually give us even the slightest notion that they would use Gmail in ways that would invade privacy. This is simply an act, I believe, by worried politicians that something good might dominate the Internet and threaten their pockets.
It's was never designed to do that...
If you don't agree to their terms, then don't sign up.
Google should just say that it's illegal to use their service in California. Eventually enough angry Californians will complain, and the law will go away.
.Mac, your ISP, your own server, etc, etc. It's called a free market...
But what's the point of a law? Nobody is forcing you to use gmail. If you're worried about privacy, don't use gmail. Use Hotmail, Yahoo!, Hushmail,
My other car is first.
You don't have a right to free email. In fact, I would go so far as to say there ain't no such thing -- you're paying for it one way or another. If you find one certain payment method objectionable, don't use it.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The bill, as I've read in other articles is agaisnt any service retaining information about the contents of people's emails. They can still scan it realtime and give ads based on keywords, but they can't store it in a database or share that information with other people.
It is a good thing, in my opinion, because you know as soon as Google announced they were going to do it and let people know about it, hundreds of others figured it would be a good idea to do it and not say anything and then sell email information to advertisers.
And Google approved the legistation as well. It is *NOT* a Bad Thing.
That's the trick... all of the hoopla about Gmail's ads, and they're no different from the ads you see when you search Google normally.
California Legislature: "OMG Google knows I'm searching for pr0n, I'd better pass a law against it!"
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
"The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.
The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties. "
Doesn't Google state that GMail already works this way? So in effect they are legislating it to do only what it already does. Unless Google turns evil and wants to invade our privacy, they won't mind at all.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
This is pretty much what I've been saying.
Google's a good company. They've never done anything that has raised my eyebrows before in terms of violating someone's privacy, or anything really. It's not like humans are going to scan your emails and decide what ads to put next to them. (Side note: the article was misleading in that it said gmail would place ads IN your email. Pure FUD. They're NEXT TO your email, which is way different). The whole system is automated, just like their AdSense program. It figures out what ads to display based ont he content of the web page.
The only argument that I've heard that makes any sense is if someone is against Gmail beacuse of this ad thing, so they dont sign up for the service, but then all their friends do so when they send email tot hem, their emails are scanned for content, even though they're not signed up with the service. Seriously though who cares. Google's not going to do anything like sell your email content to third party's so they can email your ads and stuff. People need to stop getting their panties all in a knot.
Joseph?
Many people commenting on this issue say "If you don't want Google to read your mail, don't sign up." That assumes that the only person who has a potential privacy issue is the recipient of the e-mail. My problem is on the other end: when I SEND someone e-mail I don't want someone else to read it. Why should I compromise my privacy so you can get a bigger mailbox?
I don't understand what the big deal is regardless. I mean, if you're sending plain text e-mails, they're going through multiple third parties anyway. If any of them wanted to keep and read your e-mail, nothing is stopping them now except encryption. What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
I'm all for privacy, but all this hoopla just sounds like a bunch of techno-losers who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but think it's a good "issue" to start screaming at the top of their lungs on.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
How many fields can I pick where your own stupidity would kill you? Chemicals? Insulation in your home? Guess what, you aren't so smart. If not for legislation, think-they're-smarts like you would probably be dead due to misuse of a consumer product that "any idiot" should know how to manipulate.
Playing devil's advocate here:
Now can anyone tell me why should the govt even consider thinking about voting anything concerning General Motors!?
No one is FORCED to use their cars. General motors is private and the users are free to use it or not.
Hopefully you can see from the example above that regulation is legitimate. With any product or service, people should be able to assume that it meets certain base requirements. That most definately includes a reasonable level of privacy.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
It *is* wrong, however, to force a company to abide by certain terms in regards to totally legal activities.
I agree with the point you were making, but this line is pure nonsense. Forcing people (or companies) not to do certain activities that were formerly totally legal is the whole point of making laws. When laws against (say) monopolistic practices were proposed, they were also restricting totally legal activities.
--This is a self-referential sig--
And what if that new cellular service became so profitable that all the other cellular service providers also adopted that as their only business model? How would you like it if you never had to pay for a call again, but you couldn't find a provider who offered ad-free service, or who promised not to listen in on your calls? After all, if 90% of the market loves the free service and doesn't care about the privacy issues, who are you to say they shouldn't have it? And who are you to demand that the service providers go out of their way to deal with your antiquated notion of what their service *ought* to be? Presto, you no longer have a right to choose what kind of service you want, because the service you want is no longer available.
There's a grey area here. The net is infrastructure just like the phone system or the highway system or the mail system. As such, the government (federal government at least, and perhaps the state government too) has not only a right, but also a responsibility to regulate to some degree how it works and what we should be able to expect from it.
E-mail is one of the most widely used services on the net, even if you toss out all the spam. The general public uses it without necessarily knowing how it works, and there's a widespread presumption that even if e-mail isn't exactly guaranteed to be private, it's also generally not parsed and analyzed by the service providers. Given that, it seems reasonable for a government to try to protect that expectation.
I don't know if it'll work or not -- it seems like there's probably plenty of room for a legal challenge. But it also doesn't seem like a huge obstacle, and I can think of a dozen ways to abide by the regulation and still implement exactly the same sort of advertising model that Google is trying to use.
Nobody HAS to use GMail so what is the real problem here? Don't send mail to people with gmail.com accounts if you don't want it archived and scanned. Duh.
I think the problem lies in that Google will be scanning users email, and that includes email sent to them not just by them?
And so, with my choice to not use Google email but the need to send a message to someone who does use Google email that means I don't have a choice whether or not my message is scanned by Google before it reaches the intended recipient.
It's like, any letter you write to your aunt in Town X is read before they deliver it. My aunt may not mind her mail being read, but I do, and so by her choice of no privacy I have no other choice but to not write to her if I want my message to be private.
It's a moot point, as far as I'm concerned. But I do understand the concern. There's no consent from those sending to a google email that their message is to be read by any one or any thing other than the intended recipient.
Read more than the intro paragraph (it is BS), the detailed analysis is quite interesting. The big argument is that even though the Gmail account holder agreed to have their email profiled, the other party(ies) did not.
Now one has to think! If MS tried this, we would cry foul. But Google is one of the good guys...but guess what, they are going public! In a few years, they might be owned by Bill Gates, The Home Shopping Network, or the Direct Marketing Association.
And so, with my choice to not use Google email but the need to send a message to someone who does use Google email that means I don't have a choice whether or not my message is scanned by Google before it reaches the intended recipient.
If you are sending e-mail, assume it is read by a dozen people between you and the recipient. Why do so many people assume that cuz there's no paper trail, there's absolute privacy? Have we learned nothing about technology around here? E-mail is not private, has never been private, will never be private.
It's _VERY_ different from a letter to your aunt that is sealed in an envelope and is strictly private. In fact, it's a federal offense to open said letter if you aren't the authorized recipient. Your letter analogy only applies to encrypted e-mail communication, which is used, I'm guessing, less than 10% of the time.
Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
Google Groups does a wonderful job of honoring "X-No-Archive: Yes" Since X-headers can be just as readily added to email, they could set it up to bounce/discard/pass unmolested (their choice) any email with an "X-No-Gmail" header. That would even take care of issues like email addresses forwarding to xxx@gmail.com
Once you send your email off, it's no longer yours to control. This follows the laws of nature and the laws of the land.