Google Adds Chat To Gmail

Nathan Weinberg writes "Google has added a chat feature to Gmail. It brings Google Talk, minus voice calls, into your webmail client. Gmail now also logs your IMs, whether they originate in Gmail or Google Talk. In the commentary at InsideGoogle, I note that Google recommends you disable Firefox's AdBlock, which can block Google's ads, if you want Gmail Chat to function properly."

Comments

Live!

[immorak]

I can't wait for it to go live. At this point there is a button in my gmail account but just talks about "coming soon". I guess the google talk chats can now be saved on my gmail account starting now.

Re:Live!

[netkid91]

It's already activated on mine. It's really nice. Your chat histories are now saved and you can even use GTalk right from inside your GMail :)

Re:Live!

[Andrewkov]

Make sure your language is set to English US, if it is set to English UK, the option is missing (and no delete button too, weird).

Re:Live!

[balevine]

Wow....is this Google's first vaporware??? I don't ever recall Google saying a product is "comming soon".

Re:Live!

[vboulytchev]

Hey, do you need google talk for this? i use gaim and log into the jabber network. :)

Re:Live!

[lordscotus]

I just tried it from the Gmail web interface. It vamped all the addresses from my gmail jabber server. (I guess they were there to start with.) I suspect the root of this is just another way to get more info about us. I tried the logging session to gmail. Kid of neat, but then again ... just another way to get more info about us.

"Once a chat is saved, however, it becomes just like a Gmail message."

Looks like then it's fair game for their scanning to serve ads. So, does Google log and snoop in *all* google talk sessions - evne those not saved in gmail? If so best stick with other jabber servers -- maybe even off shore to US?! ... looks not, but .. http://www.google.com/talk/privacy.html It logged chat between psi and kopete, contra:

"You can choose whether to store text chats in your Gmail account. ... Also, the feature is available only if both you and the other person are using the Google Talk client, Google Talk in Gmail, or a third-party client that enables this feature."

Re:Live!

[rm69990]

Lol, at least you put the ....s to show you left part of it out, despite completely mangling what Google was trying to say.

You can choose to NEVER save information in Gmail, irregardless of the client you use.

It is the off the record feature that you have to have a certain client to use. This feature is only used if you save chats in Gmail, but choose not to save a specific chat in Gmail.

Nice try though, FUD mongerer.

Re:Live!

[lordscotus]

>You can choose to NEVER save information in Gmail, irregardless of the client you use.
and you can be sure i will!
but concerns for security persist. The *potential* for Google to ab/use info gleaned from chat sessions is there.

Re:Live!

[Rolfje]

For me, it's live! And it works terrific in both IE and FireFox!

Logging

[Silas is back]

Just to mention, logging of chats is turned off by default. You have to turn it on manually.

I think this thing is a good idea (not the logging, the chat-inside-mailapp). I wonder if you get marked as "online" whenever you check your Mail on mail.google.com...

Re:Logging

[AKAImBatman]

I think this thing is a good idea (not the logging, the chat-inside-mailapp). I wonder if you get marked as "online" whenever you check your Mail on mail.google.com...

I think both features are good. Logging can be incredibly useful when you're using IM for online meetings and collaboration. (Such as in OSS projects.) To date I've been using a ChatBot to collaborate and record the conversations. This would free me to just record all my conversations, then move the interesting parts to the wiki as necessary.

Way to go Google!

Re:Logging

[zephos]

IM logging is indeed a handy feature especially within the context of your example.

I think people's concern might be that if Google is logging your chats then any conversation you have [even confidential conversations] are stored and controlled by Google, forever.

In your business setting the logging is basically like having a stenographer in a meeting and you own and control the notes. I think you'd want that same control if using Google's technology. After all if you discuss something confidential you'd want it insure it remains that way.

Re:Logging

[guildsolutions]

Yes but google is the search giant.. Would you want to be able to search other peoples IM's to find out who likes pink, cherry flavored popcicles? We all know that google logs what you search for, I just fear that google, without you knowing, would log what you chat about!

Trillian Secure IM -and- Off-the-Record Messaging are your friends.

Re:Logging

[Anonymous Coward]

This would free me to just record all my conversations, then move the interesting parts to the wiki as necessary.

Pathetic is not a strong enough word.

How about going out and having an interesting conversation with a real live person, flesh to flesh, and then recounting that interesting conversation later to another person, flesh to flesh. That way you are not a just a pathetic meat puppet who moves stuff to and from his wiki.

Coming soon, all your person info posted via anonymous proxy.

Re:Logging

[AKAImBatman]

Well, if you read the article, it states that the logging is completely optional. You can turn it off at any time, preventing a record from being kept. Of course, there's always the possibility that Google would log your IMs anyway. Since they can already do that, though, this feature doesn't really change anything.

Re:Logging

[woobieman29]

'I wonder if you get marked as "online" whenever you check your Mail on mail.google.com...'

I wonder also what will happen when I logon to gmail.com and I already have GAIM running with the Google Chat plugin....

Most IM protocols only allow you to be logged in from one client at a time - will I get auto-booted from one or the other? Admittedly, I am not sure whether or not the Jabber protocol works this way (Google Chat uses the open Jabber protocol - hooray!).

Re:Logging

[somersault]

I think if there was an option to search for chats, then you would actually know about it yourself. Did you not think that google also has all your email but doesnt make it searchable to other users? IANAL but wouldnt it be illegal for them to provide a facility for anyone other than the specified recipient to read email and IM messages?

Re:Logging

[Anonymous Coward]

Please GOD someone metamod this unfair...you can already log all the GTalk you want in things like Gaim.

Re:Logging

[AKAImBatman]

I just fear that google, without you knowing, would log what you chat about!

What's to stop them from doing this now?

Re:Logging

[guildsolutions]

THAT my friend is my entire point and why everyone should be using encryption of some sort if they wish their chats read by only the parties invited!

Re:Logging

[Spy Hunter]

Anyone who thinks logging in an IM client is not useful has never tried using it. The only problem I've had with it in the past is that logs are tied to one computer and one client, so they're not always available. Google's logs are of course online and searchable, and integrated with email as IM should have been from the start. And if you're already using GMail, you should have no problem with Google storing your messages.

I haven't tried it yet, but if it works at all this could be the best development to come out of Google since Google maps. And dare I hope that they won't be able to block it at work without killing GMail too?

Re:Logging

[xtracto]

Yes, it is like all kind of communication things, if you want privacy you should not use those kind of third party service (Gmail. Yahoo mail etc) or IM> like (Gmsngr MSmsngr, Ymsngr, etc) or, if you still want to use them and *really* want privacy use PGP.

I have used PGP over Gmail for some conversation (with trademark secrets etc) with other people. I use winPGP. it is so easy to use that you can even use it for IM encrypted conversations.

Re:Logging

[Kadin2048]

Maybe this is an impossible question to answer at the moment, if the service hasn't rolled out, but how does a person access their logs?

I assume that it saves stuff, if you request it, regardless of whether you're using the Google Talk web interface (so via GMail) or through the regular Google Talk desktop app (or Gaim, etc.). That's an assumption, but I think it would be pretty useless if it only logged when you used the web interface.

Is the only way to access the logs through the web interface, by logging into Gmail? Or is there a way to access them via a desktop program?

Personally I'm not too impressed if you have to log into the web interface. I use Gmail, but I do it through POP and don't ever actually go to the Gmail.com website (except when I'm travelling). A system that required me to go to a web site to get my chat logs wouldn't be particularly helpful, although I like the idea of being able to pull them up from anywhere if I want them.

Frankly I guess I'm just not really down with the idea of the web browser as the way in to traditional desktop services like Gmail and IM. Gmail's interface is great, don't get me wrong -- but it's "great" for a webmail interface. Compared to a real desktop email program, it sucks. I like being able to access stuff everywhere, and I like Gmail because it doesn't force me to use their web site when I'm at home. I hope that they keep up with that duality as they implement new features.

Re:Logging

[AKAImBatman]

I use a ChatBot with GTalk to run a recorded chatroom that allows the programmers I work with from around the world to collaborate in developing new software that will take Linux (and Desktops in general) into the future. Software Development, I might add, of which my wife is very supportive of.

So what in the world are you doing on GTalk to where "freak the girls out" would have any meaning? On second thought, scratch that. I really don't want to know. :-P

Re:Logging

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"What's to stop them from doing this now?"

After doing a little bit of research on the world's most popular search engine, I've discovered that they do no evil.

Re:Logging

[Anonymous Coward]

His is married. A couple kids as well If I remember correctly.

I was able to get every bot of person info abotu him from his email address. I wonder if he still gets the gay porn subscriptions.

(Although i haven't done it in over a year)

Re:Logging

[mrchaotica]

You know, a friend and I were having a conversation about that just the other day. He told me that with the Jabber protocol, the servers can't actually log your conversation because it's either encrypted or a direct connection (I forgot which).

Re:Logging

[SirTalon42]

Or you could use Gaim with the Gaim-Encryption plugin and use real encryption with _very_ little effort.

Re:Logging

[j-cloth]

Google chat will allow you to be logged on multiple times (I often forget to log off at home then log on at the office).
It seems to route messages to the most recently activated client (this is a problem for the situation above when a cat walks across the keyboard at home and makes the unattended client active). I have noticed that some jabber clients (PSI?) will let you select which instance to send a message to when a user is logged on more than once. How this ties into gmail/gtalk? I'm not sure.

Re:Logging

[SirTalon42]

"Pathetic is not a strong enough word."

Pot meet kettle.

Re:Logging

[MrCopilot]

I've been using a ChatBot

How do you think that makes her feel?

Seriously, what a hassle, with Kopete and AMSN, AFAIK they both have the ability to transcribe your chats at click of a button.
Good luck with you bot relations though.

Re:Logging

[quantum bit]

No, they definitely can. Jabber doesn't use direct connections for normal chat, and even with an encrypted connection to the server, the server still can read what you're sending.

The only way to be sure is to use end-to-end encryption, which is usually client-specific.

Re:Logging

[Anonymous Coward]

If one of my colleagues is correct, it doesn't matter anyway... NSA for one can decode anything you encrypt.

Now, I'm no expert here... but if this is so, why bother?

Re:Logging

[mustafap]

>I wonder if you get marked as "online" whenever you check your Mail on mail.google.com...

I hope not. I prefer fewer chances of people 'knowing' I am online, so I can pretend to have 'only just read their email'.

Re:Logging

[arodland]

Or you could use Gaim with the OTR plugin and use real encryption that's actually suited to an IM environment with equally little effort ;)

Re:Logging

[arodland]

XMPP isn't broken like that; a given ID is able to have multiple "resources", which can represent different client instances, among other things. Even AIM allows multiple connections these days, but since it doesn't have any facility like this, things get a little hairy sometimes :)

Re:Logging

[thedman]

I am always amazed at what people really think they need to hide. So what if someone wants to read my casual conversations, even my personal ones. Does it somehow reduce my quality of life, or how I interact with people. NO. If Google thinks they can provide me better service by knowing me better, I say so be it. If you think you have something to hide, I say check your conscious, and see if you really have a moral reason to be concerned. I personally have a hard time coming up with a good exception. (Although I admit a few and rare occasions exist.)

Re:Logging

[bhiestand]

I have used PGP over Gmail for some conversation (with trademark secrets etc) with other people.
I thought the whole point of a trademark was that it's uh, well-known to the public... And if you meant to say "trade secrets", you really shouldn't be in the position to decide how to trasmit them.

Re:Logging

[xtracto]

Puta madre guey disculpame, la verdad se me fue la pinche palabra "trademark" en lugar de "trade" puta neta cabron disculpa, yo se que no soy digno de que tu leas mi comentario.

Por otro lado, me siento alagado de que hayas corregido mi error, oh gran señor conocedor de las lenguas y la gramática!.

En resumen, espero que te vayas a chingar a tu madre.

You, have a good day Sir.

Re:Logging

[geschild]

Nothing can stop Google from loggin everything you do over their servers. What you can do is make it pointless:
- use Gaim with
- OTR for all your chat, routing it via
- TOR by TORifying Gaim

Furthermore you better create a fresh account for this, using an invite that you got through a non-traceable route (for instance using Firefox with the Switchproxy plugin according to Tor's guidelines.) Don't forget to install Privoxy for this and configure your browser correctly or your DNS requests are still going over open channels. For more information you can refer to the documentation on the TOR website.

Yes you miss out on the new coolness, yes you have to have alternative channels to verify fingerprints to really be certain there's no man-in-the-middle and yes I'm really paranoid.

Questions?

IM Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

another thing that will be banned for school/work

Re:IM Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... haven't heard of http://www.meebo.com/ yet, have you?

IM with AJAX goodness :)

Re:IM Banned

[mystic_mushroom]

Hmmm I doubt it, when e-mail became popular did it get banned from work/school. Ya IM is a socializing medium, but it's benifits far outway it's drawbacks. It's way easier to just confrence people from the westend office the southside office and the downtown office all through IM than having everyone go to there respective boardrooms and setup a confrence call.

Re:IM Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... haven't heard of http://www.meebo.com/ yet, have you?

No, we hadn't. But we do now and will add it to our blocked site list...

Re:IM Banned

[Phroggy]

another thing that will be banned for school/work

That depends on where you work. At some places, using IM is mandatory.

Re:IM Banned

[mzungu]

MOD PARENT UP!

In the corporate space, uncontrolled communications are a problem.
Adding this IM feature to GMAIL will be the final nail in the coffin for corporate users.

While this is can be very useful, it can be very dangerous.

While IM is similar to E-MAIL, once you turn off logging of the chats, it becomes epemeral and there is no longer any auditable trail.

I can see this as being the driver behind corporate policies that will lead to the banning of gmail.com.

Re:IM Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it any different than using your ISP at home to IM people and tell them secrets about your company?

Re:IM Banned

[C0rinthian]

I love you.

Re:IM Banned

[mzungu]

The difference is in time-sensitive information - think stock and currency traders for example. Essentially anything that is valuable for a short period of time is at risk.

I'm sure there are other cases out there where it's not so much the information that is disclosed, but the timing of such that makes a huge difference.

Re:IM Banned

[Anonymous Coward]

You stink.

Re:IM Banned

[tftp]

Where I work we have an internal Jabber server and Psi/Exodus/Kopete clients. When people want to ask a simple question they don't walk to the other person; even if the question is not simple and requires a meeting it's still easier to find out if the other guy is here and free to talk, and not on lunch or already in another meeting... saves time and stops this wasteful walking, which can lead to exercise :-)

Re:IM Banned

[tftp]

I can see this as being the driver behind corporate policies that will lead to the banning of gmail.com.

Another, more apparent, reason is that corporations don't like to pay people for chatting with their friends. That applies to Webmail too, but IM is more addictive and more disruptive to the work schedule.

Chat sites and advertising

[ModernGeek]

I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted. One thing I noted was the fact that in the past google would not let chat sites advertise because they could not parse the chat text and bring relevant ads to the page. I used to run an IRC Network that was big into web integration (think AJAX gateway to IRC), and I wanted to implement google ads, but they didn't seem content on any solution for us, no matter what we brought to the table. Maybe now that they have targeted advertising for their chat service, they will allow targeted advertising for other chat services. Either that, or they will want to keep a monopoly with their Gmail + Talk service.

Re:Chat sites and advertising

[PornMaster]

The question is wholly one of whether or not they can parse the page content. There's no question that they can parse the content of their mail and chat clients, server-side.

AdSense on your site requires that the Mediapartners Googlebot be able to retrieve your page, parse it, and deliver relevant ads. If you're doing real-time content changes and there's tons of Javascript in the page, the challenge to figure out what anyone's talking about isn't worth the fight.

Bitching about it being a monopoly is whining.

They can do what they need server-side when it's on their servers. Google, on their own services, don't do the Javascript includes, the ads are part of the page.

Re:Chat sites and advertising

[j-cloth]

This is from http://mail.google.com/mail/help/chat.html

8. Are there ads?

There are no ads in your chat sessions or your Quick Contacts list. Once a chat is saved, however, it becomes just like a Gmail message. And just as you may see relevant ads next to your Gmail messages, there now may be ads alongside your saved chats. Ads are only displayed when you're viewing a saved chat, and as with all ads in Gmail, they are matched entirely by computers. Only ads classified as Family-Safe are shown and we are constantly improving our technologies to prevent displaying any inappropriate ads. One of the things many Gmail users have told us is how much they appreciate the unobtrusive text ads in Gmail, as opposed to the large, irrelevant, blinking banner ads they often see in other services, and many have even cited the usefulness of the ads in Gmail.

So they're not putting adds into live chats, just into the archives. Presumably a system like this could work with adsense for any archives you would put up.

Use AdBlock Plus

[Lawrence Ho]

I have AdBlock installed, and can't load Gmail
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=30926&topic=1523

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[slavemowgli]

Lovely - the link they provide doesn't even work. I would've expected something better from Google (like, maybe, a link to the Adblock Plus homepage)...

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[Surt]

Interesting, I wonder why it's not consistent. I use adblock and gmail works fine for me.

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[ThePhilips]

Wokrs fine for me. WinXP/sp2, Ff 1.5.0.1, AdBlock 0.5.3.42

There are several addon filtersets for AdBlock. I wonder could they be the problem. e.g. "AdBlock Filterset.G Updater" - https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=1136

P.S. Thou I recall spotting report on Bugzilla report about Ff crash related to AdBlock. I thought it was fixed in 1.5 - it seems not. Bug like that: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31650 7

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[Lozay_2k]

The whitelist is now available in adblock too. So no need for a pro version.

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[barzok]

Even more inconsistent - on my home PC, I can't use GMail with my Firefox installation (been a problem for a long time, just can't get past their "loading" message), yet PortableFirefox on my USB stick works fine. I think they're the same AdBlock, same filters.

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[neema]

I had the same exact problem: after weeks of working with Gmail and Adblock with no problems, suddenly and without warning Gmail would just get stuck at a blank page or the "Loading..." page infinitely. The only way to get around it would be to force it into plain HTML mode (no amount of the clearing of the cache would help). The Google help page, as linked above, recommended Adblock Plus and that has worked fine since then. Basically, I doubt this is an attempt to stop people from blocking their ads (my Google Customization and Adblock Plus, the latter as recommended by them, do that fine), but instead is the result of a genuine and ongoing bug between Adblock and Gmail.

Re:Use AdBlock Plus

[frdmfghtr]

I had the same problem once, it turned out that I added something to the AdBlock Plus filter that stopped the Gmail script or something, I never figured it out...kill off the most recent filters added to the list and try again.

I noticed

[dtfinch]

This morning I came to my computer to find that Google Talk had popped up five identical dialogs asking if I wanted to send my logs to my gmail account.

Excited

[Donniedarkness]

Not to sound like a Google fanboy, but I absolutely LOVE GTalk for its nice clean interface and lack of smilies.

Can't wait to see what this turns out to be like. Here at school, I can't install Gtalk, so my girlfriend (off at college) communicate through email. This will make this a lot easier.

On a side note, I wonder if Adblock will really screw this up, or if they're just trying to get people to stop blocking their ads.

Re:Excited

[garcia]

Not to sound like a Google fanboy, but I absolutely LOVE GTalk for its nice clean interface and lack of smilies.

Yes, because that's the reason to use Google's client... The lack of emoticons! A feature that every client I have ever used allows you to disable anyway.

Re:Excited

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I've never come across an IM client that didn't have the option to disable smilies. I use GAIM because I can still talk to my friends that don't want google talk, and it too is ad free, simplistic, and generally quite nice.

Re:Excited

[Phroggy]

Not to sound like a Google fanboy, but I absolutely LOVE GTalk for its nice clean interface...

Perhaps it wouldn't surprise you to learn that GTalk looks nearly identical to Apple's iChat. Google didn't come up with that look you like so much.

Re:Excited

[cynetix]

But you don't get to REALLY disable emoticons in other clients.

Sure, I can avoid seeing them on my IM application, but that doesn't stop or guard against

1. My old-skool emoticons such as :o) getting parsed incorrectly as :o, the "surprised fool" look, plus an out-of-place end parenthese. Don't even try parsing my signature "demented ballerina",

   ;>-|= (tm),

2. My chatting partner who's using emoticons thinking that they'll display on my end as cutesy yellow ball faces,

...both problems which lead to a very serious communication chasm. In the world of IM, the nuances of each letter speak volumes. What if it's important to me that everything I type, and my partner types, shows up exactly how we've intended?

So, no, not really that insightful.

Re:Excited

[Donniedarkness]

Is it really? Is iChat available for Windows, though? I'm not saying that I love Google for inventing it, though, I'm saying that I love them for making this thing available to me. Thanks for the suggestion, though =)

Re:Excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - ICQ used to have a nice clean interface too. Way back.

Just wait until Google "enhance" GChat/etc with revenue generating "features".

Re:Excited

[garcia]

So, no, not really that insightful.

You're 100% correct, you weren't insightful. People that have emoticons enabled might not fully understand your "old-school" smiley. So you might still have the "dreaded chasm" that you speak of.

Get over yourself.

Re:Excited

[cynetix]

But then *I* take responsibility for a gap in communication. It's not left up to a piece of software. That's the rub. I'm fully willing to be the accountable party for a lack in understanding during a conversation; however, I don't want to not know that what I was saying was not getting through how I intended. It's NOT clear when you turn off emoticons in, say, MSN messenger, that they're still being parsed on the other end into graphical flourishes--except to the slightly observant user. From an application designer's point of view, in terms of the services an IM client should provide, that's misleading.

Off-topic: I never asserted that I was insightful; in fact I thought my comment was just an observation in conjunction with some facts. Your urge to point out that I needed to "get over myself" was kind of an assumption that I was into myself, but we all know what happens when you assume...

Further off-topic, feeding the troll: I pointed out that your post wasn't really all that insightful not based on assumption or desire to "take you down a notch", but based on its moderation. So, in actuality, my comment was directed at your comment's reception more than the comment itself. Calm down.

Re:Excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down.

I know what your unnecessary comment about your displeasure with the appropriate moderation to my comment was. What I was saying is that you are a raving dickweed that made no sense and that *you* should be moderated in a negative manner for trolling about moderation.

Go sit the fuck down.

Re:Excited

[cynetix]

But I'm the one that presented meaningful, relevant facts while you have done little more than cop attitude and use vulgarity :)

Re:Excited

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, they were only relevant in your own little useless world. Vulgarity is a way of life, douchebag, get over it. Take your conservative views and go settle yourself in the Middle East where you (and your worthless ultra-pointless views) belong.

Fucking dumbfuck.

Re:Excited

[cynetix]

It's neat how you're getting progressively more hostile and making increasingly presumptuous judgments. As for the relevancy, emoticons are relevant to everyone and more than one person I know (as well as someone I don't know, namely the one whom you originally replied to, somewhat sarcastically as it were) has lamented the obligatory nature of the presence/pervasiveness of emoticons in IM communication.

(Off-topic) I have no problems with your use of redundant adjectives, but here's a tip: when you start doubling them up (for example, "worthless" followed by the redundant "ultra-pointless" (where, incidentally, the "ultra" is itself redundant due to the absolute quality of something being "pointless"), it's a good indication that

1. You've run out of relevant rebuttal, or even meaningful things to say (also evidenced by the heavy vulgarity which, hey, I don't have a problem with, but sort of shoots yourself in the foot considering you're becoming increasingly unsuccessful with your "arguments" and have started posting "anonymously").
2. You've run out of effective rhetoric (if there was any to begin with) to cover up the lack of meaningful things to say.

Re:Excited

[Phroggy]

Take a look.

Re:Excited

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT moron. I mean, seriously, did you think it was anyone other than a troller?

Am I the only one?

[faloi]

I'm sort of concerned about the logging of all my IM's. I suppose I know on a logical level that all that stuff is being stored, regardless of the IM client. But I prefer to live in the cloud that tells me my IMs are private and if I don't log 'em, they don't get logged.

Re:Am I the only one?

[skiman1979]

well your IMs aren't really private unless you use some form of encryption. Even then, it would depend on the type of encryption you use.

Re:Am I the only one?

[sheepoo]

Use settings to turn Chat history off

Re:Am I the only one?

[KilobyteKnight]

I'm sort of concerned about the logging of all my IM's. I suppose I know on a logical level that all that stuff is being stored, regardless of the IM client. But I prefer to live in the cloud that tells me my IMs are private and if I don't log 'em, they don't get logged.

It asks if you want to log the chats when you first set it up.

Just tell it you don't want to log chats and have fun in your cloud.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Donniedarkness]

You have to enable logging (at least right now). It's an opt-in service. By default, your stuff doesn't get logged (at least, as of last night).

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are truly worried about your email and your IMs being logged, don't use it. I use gMail all the time but nothing important is ever sent over it.

If you want it kept secret, use encryption.

Re:Am I the only one?

[thelem]

As with all the IM clients I've seen, logging is optional (but extremely useful in my experience). In the case of GMail/Talk it is off by default so you must enable it before it actually starts logging.

Of course the person you are talking to may have logging enabled.

Re:Am I the only one?

[MadMoses]

RTFA.

1. You can choose whether gmail logs your chats when you first use the feature, and you can change this option in the settings menu at any time.

2. There is even a feature that let's you get "off the record" during a chat. So even if you're having logging enabled, you can go "off the record" during a chat, and what you type afterwards will neither be logged in your gmail account, nor in your chat partner's gmail account.

Sounds good to me.

Re:Am I the only one?

[diegocgteleline.es]

Surprise, IM networks are centralized (that is, all what you say goes through a central server, there're chances that IM networks have been grepping into conversations for ej: conversations about people trying to convince people to go to another IM network). In fact, even IRC is centralized. Do you want security? Use end-to-end encryption.

Notice that unifying email and IM DOES have a lot of sense. IM and email are the SAME THING (send text and ocasinally some files), except that IM is instantaneous and email isn't. But there's no reason why you couldn't add a jabber extension which allows you to receive emails, your jabber client would just move them to a MUA. Email is just a particular case of the idea behind IM.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Wallslide]

Even encryption won't matter if the person you are chatting with decides to copy/paste your conversation elsewhere. The human side of the equation is always the most troublesome.

Re:Am I the only one?

[jheath314]

In TFA, they say:

a) you have to enable logging (it is off by default)
b) you can always request an "off the record" mode, which turns off logging on both sides of communication.

Of course, "off the record" is easily defeated by "copy, paste", but whatever.

Re:Am I the only one?

[imsabbel]

Do you think this will make a difference?

To google, who store every email you ever get, no matter if you delete it or not, for advertising and profiling reasons?

Re:Am I the only one?

[gmuslera]

Is disabled by defaul, you must do very specific actions to enable that logging.

Now, if you think that one of the advantages of gmail was exactly remember and be able to do good and relevant searches in all your email, adding that to your chat, and even combined with mail (so i.e. you can check if someone said you something from either way), the potential is high.

If watching previous chats worries you, same could be thinked about previous messages, and as with them, you can or not have history at all, or delete the ones that you dont want to save or potentially expose in a future.

I take advantage of searching past gaim chats, but is not very comfortable to search if someone said you who knows when something, joining all in gmail looks like a good idea.

Re:Am I the only one?

[n00tz]

OH NOES! I was certainly expecting to see some FUD about Google's power behind having conversation logs, and it took me a little while to find it. Thanks for breaking my concern. Doesn't anybody else think that AOL and Yahoo do this without telling you? Seriously, the FUD around Google is starting to be annoying. If you are so concerned about google and the things they can use with your data DON'T USE THEM. Altavista still works. MSN search still works. MSN Hotmail has similiar features in all of their stuff. and there are multitudes of ways to IM without using GOOGLE. sheesh.

Re:Am I the only one?

[DigitalJeremy]

Nope, you're not. I realize Google-wariness may not be popular here, but I'll say it: do you REALLY want Google indexing your chat logs, among SO many other things?? I have a hard enough time with the fact that all my e-mail is being indexed; to the point where I'll be implementing my own email server in the next month or so. Privacy is what you make it, if you're proactive about it. If you make Google your e-mail provider, you run the risk of loosing some/all privacy. Yes, I've read their privacy policy. Sorry to be the anti-fanboy, but Google is simply running away with development, nifty toys coming out every other week (yes, with very good features - they do some fine work, to be sure) that are also indexing EVERYthing. Has anyone been following the news? Bush is leaning toward Internet regulation. We're talking about the most powerful nation on earth with the most paranoid of presidents who is NOT interested in a global village. It's only a matter of time before a somewhat simple court order allows access to Google (or other records) indexes. Sure, it might be 5, even 10 or more years away. But that's 10 years of indexing.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Kadin2048]

Of course, that mode is more a false sense of security than anything, since your buddy could be using some client other than the Google one, which would blithely ignore the instruction. (Unless this feature is part of the standard protocol, which would be news to me.)

So unless you're absolutely sure what the person on the other end is using, you really can't trust such a thing. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are corporate IM clients developed (perhaps they're here already) that have logging that cannot be defeated.

Re:Am I the only one?

[SirTalon42]

Thats why you don't give them the key, nothing better than removing the human element from security!

Re:Am I the only one?

[TheLink]

"my IMs are private and if I don't log 'em, they don't get logged."

Uh, if you don't just talk to yourself, the other party could log your IMs too.

Anyway, anyone in between (ISPs, company, wireless provider, 3 letter agencies) can log the data.

Practically all popular IM's send messages in plaintext. Even if you use encryption, the other party may wish to save it in plaintext...

Re:Am I the only one?

[pembo13]

Well you would be the only one if despite your concern you still enable it.

Re:Am I the only one?

[skiman1979]

And what do you do when the person that you are chatting with copy/pastes your conversation to another window? There is always the human element.

Re:Am I the only one?

[MadMoses]

Of course, you are right, but you cannot prevent logging on the chat partner's computer regardless of what IM software you are using. If your chat partner can read it, he is able to log it.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA.

RTFHB (Read the F#@$%'in History Books) -- Power Corrupts.

You can choose whether gmail logs your chats when you first use the feature, and you can change this option in the settings menu at any time.

Then Google won't have a problem with letting me download their source code so I can verify that they, in fact, aren't logging my chats, unless I request it (who would even do such a thing?). Oh, wait, Google only uses F/OSS -- they don't contribute back. I guess I'll just have to take their word for it. Well, at least I know they're not evil. I mean, their motto even says.... Oh, Please.

Re:Am I the only one?

[halr9000]

Unfortunately, the majority of the populace is in that cloud and doesn't know it. I wish that we'd get a real implementation of end-to-end encryption in Jabber/XMPP already!

Re:Am I the only one?

[bigpat]

only peer to peer IM's should be considered "private" Otherwise you are passing off your messages to a third party, like considering a post card as a "private" message.

Re:Am I the only one?

[bigpat]

except that IM is instantaneous and email isn't.

No it isn't, it has just about the same potential for latency as email. Just with email you usually have to "open up" the message to read it. With IM it is just a different UI. IM is very simiilar to the way gmail treats conversations already, so it is an easier transition for them.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, McFly. He doesn't give them they key. They can't decrypt them. They can paste the encrypted messages if they like. I guess the only drawback is the recipient can't read the message, which was part of the joke, but since you didn't get it anyway it doesn't really matter.

Re:Am I the only one?

[zenslug]

Surprise, IM networks are centralized...

Skype isn't.

Do you want security? Use end-to-end encryption.

Skype has end-to-end encryption.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Temporal]

Even if Google released their source code, they could easily release a version which is slightly different from what they use in production. Releasing the code proves nothing.

In any case, if you don't like the service, don't use it; it's not like you paid for it.

Oh, wait, Google only uses F/OSS -- they don't contribute back.

http://code.google.com/projects.html

Re:Am I the only one?

[baadger]

Not to disagree with what you said...

IRC servers form a tree like structure, on most networks there is no SINGLE machine which can log all conversations on said network. Each branch can function independently if need be. The same goes for IM like MSN and Yahoo I suspect, although IRC servers are run by lots of different admins working in colaboration, not giant corporations.

IRC is more transparent in that you can choose which server to which to connect and easily run a LINKS command to see the network structure and there are more tangible admins to talk to. On top of this direct client-client communication (DCC) has been apart of IRC for a long time for both files AND chat.

IMO IRC is the most trustworthy mainstream IM system out there atm.

Re:Am I the only one?

[diegocgteleline.es]

When I say "centralized" I mean "people doesn't send messages one to eacha other, but through servers". The servers can log what you say regardless of it's one or two hundred servers

Re:Am I the only one?

[Hockney Twang]

What I find interesting is the "off the record" feature(http://mail.google.com/mail/help/chat.html #offrecord), where if you don't want the chat logged, gmail won't log it for the person you're speaking to or you. This doesn't preclude them from logging chats with a 3rd party client, but it does iprevent a record from existing on gmail.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is even a feature that let's you get "off the record" during a chat. So even if you're having logging enabled, you can go "off the record" during a chat, and what you type afterwards will neither be logged in your gmail account, nor in your chat partner's gmail account.

I think this is a bad idea, since it will serve only to instill a false sense of security in those who think this will actually do anything. You can just copy and paste into a text file, fer crying out loud!

Re:Am I the only one?

[guardian-ct]

Yep, but it's much easier to search the log of one server, than it is to search the logs of 200 servers in multiple countries in a loose coalition.

Ugh - Already blocked on my machine

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Google!

Now, how do I turn it off?

Re:Ugh - Already blocked on my machine

[rebill]

I wonder what the bounty is for the 0-day exploit?

No, wait. I *shudder* to think about what the 0-day exploit will be.

Re:Ugh - Already blocked on my machine

[Snap E Tom]

You must live in China!

In other news

[i kan reed]

TV companies recomend you don't skip commercials with Tivo.

I foresee....

[LnxAddct]

I foresee a web based api to embed GTalk into your site. This web based chat interface is exactly what I've been waiting for, in fact I personally think they should do away with their desktop counterpart and do voip through an open source plugin of sorts. Using a desktop app just doesn't feel googly, no matter how well ddesigned it may be. Now if only they'd throw in support for GPG signing and/or encrypting in GMail(yes I know it'd kill their compression ratios). If everything was done client side in javascript, I'd imagine the security concern would be fairly low, the only thing I can think of is maybe other programs crawling the browser's memory after you've decrypted your private key client side (does anyone know if this would be an issue?)
Regards,
Steve

Re:I foresee....

[endrue]

I know that I have said this before but if you want a web-based chat client you really ought to check out meebo. Quite impressive really...

Re:I foresee....

[Xeth]

Now if only they'd throw in support for GPG signing and/or encrypting in GMail(yes I know it'd kill their compression ratios)

Most encryption schemes (especially those operating on text) involve compressing the data first to avoid detectable language patterns. I suppose it still depends how much overhead encrypting a particular chunk of text involves.

Re:I foresee....

[Kelbear]

You bring up a fascinating point. It's been discussed before, but since time has progressed, it seems we may be getting closer and closer to the implementation of such a thing. If only we had the resource/security/broad user base necessary:P

It would be an amazing thing to see embedded chatrooms in webpages. It'd allow for "bumping into strangers" on the internet, vastly increasing social potential. Chatrooms already allow for those of similar interests to meet, and so do forums. However, by placing it directly on the same page, you lower the amount of initiative needed to go to these places to find those with common interests.

Subject material could immediately be dissected amongst fellow readers. They may have access to information beyond the scope of the article itself, and can provide additional insight into the subject. Obviously, Slashdot provides a similar service through a threaded forum. It'd be fascinating to see a similar thing appear on other websites in a chat format(minus the inane beowulf references).

Forums like slashdots do provide features that cannot be easily mimicked by a chat interface. Nevertheless, I wonder when(if ever) we'd be able to see something like this.

Re:I foresee....

[Fnord666]

Now if only they'd throw in support for GPG signing and/or encrypting in GMail(yes I know it'd kill their compression ratios)
From a business perspective I don't see this happening anytime soon. The key idea behind Google Mail is the ability to parse your email and data mine it for relevant advertising data. The ability to target advertising accordingly is their revenue stream. Implementing a feature that directly cuts into that would seem like a really bad direction to go.
You can do this yourself of course using POP3 and a plugin for your mail client or use cut/paste for the message content in a standalone PGP/GPG application.

Re:I foresee....

[zeank]

Use http://jsjac.jabberstudio.org/ to build your own web-based jabber client or use derived work like JWChat or MUCkl.

Quite a good idea...

[GillBates0]

...though not the first. Yahoo messenger does provide an ageold and rudimentary "Java Pager" that runs within a browser, but it's woefully out of date and buggy.

And frankly, Google Talk didn't bring anything new to the table...I am one of those people who installed it just to give it a spin, and reverted back to Yahoo Messenger (which btw is also available in a little outdated Unix Version) and Gaim, since the "Voice Call" functionality was just overhyped functionality which already existed in all other popular messengers.

A seamless integration with GMail is something that could certainly get them a userbase...if properly implemented. The reasons for using GMail Chat as they state in the FAQ are certainly valid, and archiving/searching the chat archives like email would certainly boost my ability to pull up relevant conversations...the current "Archiving" feature in Yahoo Messenger and the like has plenty of room for improvement.

Re:Quite a good idea...

[Bert64]

Well i communicate with gtalk users through jabber. I like the idea of having my own personalised domain, like i do with email, and it's much easier if people only have a single address with which to contact me. I wouldn't like to be known by blah432432432@yahoo, blah432423432@gmail and blah321321311@hotmail.

Anything which gets more people using an open messaging system like jabber is a good thing. And if google can provide value-add features to their service while still maintaining compatibility with the rest of the network, just like they do with email, that's great!

Re:Quite a good idea...

[kkiller]

To quote Yahoo...

Linux: Yahoo! Messenger runs on the Intel chipset and has been tested on RedHat 6.2, 7.2 and 8 and 9; Debian Woody

I wonder if it even works now..

Re:Quite a good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so not new. Lotus Notes and Websphere Portal have been "Sametime aware" for quite some time now.

Re:Quite a good idea...

[Phroggy]

And frankly, Google Talk didn't bring anything new to the table...

It brings Jabber to non-technical people. Signing up for GTalk is just as easy as signing up for any other IM service. You don't have to know anything about the protocol, the different clients available, the different servers available, or how to configure anything.

How many GTalk users do you think even know what Jabber is?

Re:whatever!

[sinucus]

"AdBlock often interferes with Gmail's chat features, causing Firefox to crash. Our engineers are working hard to fix the problem, but in the meantime, disable AdBlock for testing purposes, and clear your browser's cache. Then, log back in to GmailAdBlock often interferes with Gmail's chat features, causing Firefox to crash. Our engineers are working hard to fix the problem, but in the meantime, disable AdBlock for testing purposes, and clear your browser's cache. Then, log back in to Gmail"

Well, after I actually RTF, I found that quote. So it appears that the blurb of this article was just FUD and that Adblock is just a temporary glitch and the services will work just fine in the future! Now I can happily go back to google worshipping.

Check out Meebo

[bigsmoke]

Meebo has already been offering AJAX access to AIM/ICQ, Yahoo IM, Jabber, GTalk and MSN networks for some time now. You should go check it out now.

How to Block Chat but not Mail

[TrebLib]

I wonder if it is possible to block google talk within google mail.

Re:How to Block Chat but not Mail

[ClearlyPennsylvania]

Depends what you mean by "block". At the bottom of the screen, you can disable it.

Re:How to Block Chat but not Mail

[TrebLib]

whoops !! I meant with a proxy (ie squid).

Re:How to Block Chat but not Mail

[zipwow]

Why would you want to do this? What is it that's dangerous about IM that doesn't also apply to email?

Re:How to Block Chat but not Mail

[TrebLib]

company policy to not allow instant messengers.

Re:How to Block Chat but not Mail

[zipwow]

So, the answer is "no, there isn't a good reason"?

I know a lot of companies have this "policy", but I think it's pretty stupid, unless you're also blocking email and webpage access too.

What the world needs now...

[butterwise]

...is another chat client. Yeah, like I need a whole in my head.

Re:What the world needs now...

[digitaldc]

"Yeah, like I need a whole in my head."

That is a wholly flawed argument.

Re:What the world needs now...

[68K]

A whole what?

Re: What the world needs now...

[butterwise]

A whole 'nother chat client. Duh!!!

Re:What the world needs now...

[JazzLad]

Mod parent funny!

I laughed my @$$ off!

chat with people or advertisers?

[Anonymous Coward]

AC: Hey! What you been up to? :-D
GCA: same old same old. workin 9-5 sux teh bawls :-\
AC: tell me about it! i hardly have time to utorrent warez anymore :-P
GCA: Hey, I've got a quick and easy site you can go to for warez if you want. 8-)
AC: nah, that's okay, I've got to go make dinner.
GCA: whatcha makin? ;-)
AC: just some chicken and some veggies :-$
GCA: you could spice up that chicken with some worchester sauce :-D
AC: No... I'm good thanks. :-\
AC: What's up with all the links, Allison?
GCA: Allison?
AC: Aren't you Grand Canyon Alli? From the spring break trip?
GCA: ... yeeeeaaaah.. I just wanted to help you make dinner ;)
AC: OMG You're a Google Chat Advertiser!! :-O

Re:chat with people or advertisers?

[thijs_w]

Luckily, Google isn't that smart that it can decrypt OTR-encrypted chatlogs: My Gmail Chatbox

Re:chat with people or advertisers?

[giantsfan89]

Ali? Ali? Ali's sister?


DELETED!!!!


Come back Ali! Come back Ali's sister! You mean everything to me!

Disable Adblock?

[verloren]

You can unblock my ads when you pry it from my cold...no, wait...I'll uninstall Adblock when I pry it from your...no, that's not it...I'll pry Adblock from...

Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Disable Adblock?

[Ninjy]

From what I've seen from one of the links somebody else pasted to Google Mail's FAQ, all you can install AdBlock Plus and whitelist mail.google.com which is, apparently, enough. I haven't found a "BLOCK OUR ADS AND SUFFER" anywhere yet.

Re:Disable Adblock?

[verloren]

GMailTalk - now with no cold dead finger prying required!

Re:Disable Adblock?

[Syberghost]

It's temporary. Google says it's a bug and they're working to fix it. Nothing nefarious to see here, move along.

Re:Disable Adblock?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's gotta be your bull...

Way more than "partial excitement."

[brian.glanz]

I don't see this as incremental, while it is a step in a longer path. I expect users to be more than partially excited.

Time was when we debated whether IM would subsume email; think we called them "instant messaging" and "e-mail" at that point 8)

IM and HTTP/HTTPS, different protocols, different Subnets, architecture which in classic Geek fashion precipitated different end user apps for each.

Welcome again to 2006, some say "the year of user experience" in what is clearly, at least a minor era thereof. Different protowhats? Try explaining to users why IM and email have been kept apart until now.

These apps had to change, had to merge, for users have been forced to keep vague, human mental track of what was said when and where and to whom. Until and even with Google Desktop, we had little hope of "keeping straight" what we had typed to each other through our machines. From a user's point of view, this is absurd! What should be simpler?

Google's founders were 15 and 16 years old (Brin, Page respectively) when "Field of Dreams" introduced the iconic phrase "If you build it, they will come." In software, this mantra has never been more true than when "they" are users -- not clients in the B2B case, users. Maybe that film hit the Googlers at just the right, impressionable age.

Let their corporate motto, "Don't be evil" extend to "don't be greedy." The greedy engineer, nee the greedy corporation, puts its own, short term interests first, followed closely by its clients' interests, followed somewhere after by its users' interests. We all know that happy B2B users lead to happy clients lead to happy software businesses and happy engineers. Under market pressures though, few of us software businessmen, middle managers, and engineers have the nads to invest in the idea. What could be worse than knowing better and still acting greedy, if not evil?

The cliche's are irresistable, I'm sorry; let's try: "give, and ye shall receive." Or, how about a metaphor: The User King. A testy, unpredictable ruler when misunderstood and/or abused, when well treated he is a benevolent king who will stay with and guide you. You need only build for him a castle, provide him servants and society, influence in court, importance and so on.

If the engineers and businessmen submit to their User King despite short term expenses, they will find themselves well cared for in return. "Leveraging" this, to "utilize" in your "solutions" of course, is only as difficult as letting go of your ego. Let the "participation age," the Web 2.0ness wash over you. Speak softly to yourself "I am not the user, I am not in control, The User is my King." Let go of your pet features, your opinions about graphics and cuteness. Let go of everything visible in the application.

Make no assumptions about what King User wants or needs. Take some time and ask him, not your boss or your executive leadership or your shareholders or your clients, accept no substitutes. Ask your User, then include not one more feature than your users need: remember Google.com, circa 1999? One or two interesting touches, like a looser-than-most corporate logo policy and some casual, entertaining wording like "I'm feeling lucky," that's fine. Be Geeky, but whatever you do: "don't be difficult." Don't be a Geek. Don't be the Geek you know you are; rather, be only what King User wants you to be, not one thing more.

I like the "coming soon" type announcements when we can believe the company saying it. Coming soon to free, minimalist, searchable, 3 Gig accounts near you: "IM and email, what's the difference? and could RSS be any easier?"

Couldn't have come from a more usual suspect.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[op12]

Of course this is yet another way for Google to aggregate additional information about you, and also brings about the concern when you're relying on a company for everything, what happens when it goes down for an extended period? I'll admit I'm also excited about this, but it's not all a corporate utopia. I do like the increase of transparency to the end user.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[somersault]

well a basic difference between email and IM is that you can still send email while the other user is offline, though I like that Skype buffers up messages you type and sends to the recipient when they come online

And while I agree that you have to think about the user when you design/build your software, very often users dont even know what they want, and will change specifications as you work on a project, so it is better to actually try to get into the mindset of the user and anticipate what they want while drawing up design specs. If you go for the approach of giving exactly what was asked for and no more, then you could always add in more later at extra cost, but that will make the final code more messy and likely to have bugs.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

That was one of the most rambling posts I've ever tried to read. Pimping a blog or something? Get to the point already.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[diegocgteleline.es]

well a basic difference between email and IM is that you can still send email while the other user is offline, though I like that Skype buffers up messages you type and sends to the recipient when they come online

Jabber allows you to store messages offline. Those messages could be very well well-formatted messages which are sent to a different app but downloaded through your IM connection including files

Imagine the implications for OSS developers: instead of a mailing list (the equivalent to a IRC "channel", except that IM servers doesn't seem to store channel data when you're offline) you send IM messages. If the developer is online, you can start a IM conversation - or even a VoIP conversation - which makes discussions much faster. Imagine some developers trying to patch a security vulnerability.

If the developer is offline, the messages are stored in the server and will be pushed to your IM client (which will pass them to a special MUA-like gui)

Of course that would mean you've to unify both protocols: POP3/SMTP/IMAP and jabber. I gues you could implement email as a jabber extension. Jabber sucks quite a bit (It's amazing the amount of XML crap that you need to say "hi" to somebody, it's overbloated protocol) but it'd work.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[sznupi]

And there's one very neat thing about Google's mail/IM service - they both use the same adress. So if somebody doesn't know what Jabber is, he'll assume that thing is mail.
And overall...nice to see features that I suggested (relax, I know it's certain that I wasn't the only one) right after GTalk launch implemented.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[Phroggy]

Apple has had e-mail/IM integration for a couple years now. Mac OS X's Mail client shows a little colored dot next to each e-mail you receive, indicating whether the sender is currently online; in iChat, Cmd-Opt-E opens an e-mail to the person you're chatting with; Address Book integrates your e-mail contacts with your buddy list.

Good to see Google is bringing this sort of thing to other platforms.

Re:Way more than "partial excitement."

[op12]

There's a bigger bonus. Google's doing this in a web interface will bring this to *all* platforms, which is key as you can go from one platform to another and still have all your friends and all the functionality whether you went from a mac to linux to windows depending on where you're at (work, library, etc.).

Gmail display language

[Anonymous Coward]

I changed my Gmail display language from English (UK) to English (US) and got "Chats" in my sidebar. Odd.

Re:Gmail display language

[Anonymous Coward]

As stated in the FAQ, changing the interface to US English will enable the Chat folder, and the chat interface when it rolls out to you. It might be worth mentioning that although your interface is in US English, you can change your spell checker back to anything you please. Especially handy for those of us in UK English.

However, those changing across will notice Web Clips (an annoying little thing at the top of your email list) has been activated, this can be disabled in the Settings panel.

The whole point of email is to avoid "instant" IMO

[bbzzdd]

The whole reason I use email is that I don't want to talk (chat) with people realtime. I like to respond on my terms. Now my gmail contacts are going to want to up and chat with me all of the time?

Hopefully this feature can be disabled. I love gmail for it's simplicity, but now they are encroaching on feature bloat.

What if chat is against Use policies?

[Pozican]

I know my school, for example only can block the live chat version of yahoo. The only reason they could block myspace was because of the live chat. Looking at the current way gmail works, I'm pretty sure they are too stupid to find a way to block JUST the instant chat (like they did with yahoo) without blocking the entire service (like they did with myspace, which wasn't a bad thing) Seems, like I could have to move away from gmail, when they put this into use :( On a side note, I'm betting I could EVEN MORE time on gmail now!

Re:What if chat is against Use policies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure it isn't because MySpace is not "school related"? I find it hard to believe they would just block something on the basis of being a chat service alone but allow you to waste time on MySpace otherwise if it didn't have chat.

Re:What if chat is against Use policies?

[787style]

Where I work doesn't allow instant messanging programs to be used, I am curious how this will be affected.

Re:What if chat is against Use policies?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Google will demand you rise up and slay your fascist overlords. For the good of the proletariot.

Re:What if chat is against Use policies?

[pembo13]

How exactly do people block live chat? There are so many ways to implement it.

MeeBo

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how many other people use IM on a webpage... but I have been for a while through Meebo. Check it out, you can do your GTalk on there as well as AIM Yahoo MSN etc.

Nice addition though, one less page to launch in Safari.

Calvin K.

I've never had Gmail crash with Adblock...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used various versions of both Firefox and Adblock and never have I had it crash. Maybe I am lucky.

Using GTalk to Connect to other networks?

[Vicsun]

Ever since GTalk was released there was talk of the ability of the jabber protocol (which Google Talk is based on) to connect to other networks such as MSN, AOL or Yahoo. How has this progressed? Is it currently possible?

Re:Using GTalk to Connect to other networks?

[galdur]

Yes, they had an announcement lately.

and for me, finally web-based Google IM my prediction came true ....

Re:Using GTalk to Connect to other networks?

[jaseuk]

It's now possible to talk to other jabber servers, although nothing as yet to bridge other incompatible IM networks.

Re:Using GTalk to Connect to other networks?

[pyros]

There was talk that Google would allow open server-to-server XMPP chat, and they have. You can add users from non-Google jabber servers to you contact list (provided they have the right DNS records and their server allows s2s). Integration with AIM should be coming soon. But I haven't heard anything about Yahoo or MSN.

Re:Using GTalk to Connect to other networks?

[sznupi]

Nothing? For your information - transports don't have to be on the same server as your "main" jabber account. You can use transports from other servers (ones that allow this). As a matter of fact, the only IM launched on my computer right now is GTalk, and I can talk to few of my ICQ and GG (local thing) contacts without a problem. (GTalk is not the only onr installed - I have also Psi; the reason is because GTalk doesn't have "register at transport" functionality, so I have to log in to GTalk server with Psi to do that - after that transports are seen simply as another contacts)

Re:Correction from paranoid

[SolitaryMan]

Just to mention, logging of chats is turned off by default. You have to turn it on manually.

It should be:

Examination of chat logs is turned off by default. You have to turn it on manually.

It is not that I'm so obsessed with it, but there *is* a difference. Remember it. One day it can matter.

Re:Reimplementing AOL

[Nevenmrgan]

In the course of this morning, I logged on to four different computers, three of which aren't mine. I visited just one page on each computer - google.com/ig. I logged in and was able to check my email, news, the weather, movies for tonight, comments on my Flickr photos, a few friends' blogs, some cool quotes, and now this story. And soon, IM.

If AOL ever offered, currently offers, or is planning on ever offering this level of user-friendliness, content consolidation, and ease/speed of use, all for free, all without the need to install anything on the client computer, I will buy you a beer, sir.

Re:Reimplementing AOL

[ScentCone]

Many AOL subscribers use ONLY the web-based front end to the service (including mail, news, file transfer stuff, etc). Actually works pretty well, including the mail front end, which is very similar to the interfaces provided by the big three portals.

GTalk Chatting = 2 People

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course your IMs are logged! And not necessarily through a computer service of some kind but due to the fact that you are chatting with some other person. They remember what you said no matter what kind of blissful ignorance you float upon.

And since their desire to say and forget might not mirror yours, you should remember that they might index and search your conversations with them.

I forsee no more gmail access from work...

[ncttrnl]

Thanks to people generally not being able to control themselves with chat programs, I forsee a fairly swift blocking of gmail through most corporate firewalls to protect productivity.

Re:I forsee no more gmail access from work...

[szembek]

If protection of productivity was their motive, I think they'd block /.

Re:I forsee no more gmail access from work...

[big ben bullet]

If protection of productivity was their motive, I think they'd block /.

shhhhh! don't give 'm any ideas!

Re:I forsee no more gmail access from work...

[Thomas Miconi]

Thanks to people generally not being able to control themselves with chat programs,

As opposed to people being able to control themselves with surfing the web and wasting time on /. ?

Thomas-

AWESOME

[DizzyDanMD]

If this is as good as everything else google does, its gonna be a good time. What do you guys think of AIM and MSN(cough cough gaggle choke) integration?

Daniel Zubairi
http://www.choosedan.com/

Logging where?

[everphilski]

Logging can be incredibly useful when you're using IM for online meetings and collaboration.

Logging on *my* computer is fine and useful. Logging on *their* server is not.

Re:Logging where?

[AKAImBatman]

Logging on *my* computer is fine and useful. Logging on *their* server is not.

1. It's optional. Turn it on as you see fit.
2. You keep all your GMail on their servers. How does this differ?

Re:Logging where?

[imess]

2. You could setup your mail client to download all the messages and delete them on server

Re:Logging where?

[STrinity]

2. You keep all your GMail on their servers.
 
Speak for yourself. I use Gmail as just another pop3 provider.

Re:Logging where?

[AKAImBatman]

What's to stop Google from keeping the message in their archives? Just because the POP3 session says it's deleted, doesn't mean it actually is. That's just a false sense of security. By allowing your email to pass through Google's servers, you are effectively trusting Google. If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using their servicess, not using POP3.

Re:Logging where?

[everphilski]

Last time I tried using it as a pop3 (with it set to delete downladed messages) , I then logged into gmail to find my messages still there. Just cause gmail fakes an implementation of pop3 doesn't mean they follow the rules. YMMV and they may have changed it (perpetual beta applies)

Re:Logging where?

[drinkypoo]

Logging on *my* computer is fine and useful. Logging on *their* server is not.

Any time an unencrypted message passes through someone's server, you should assume a copy is being made.

Actually, you should assume the same thing about encrypted messages, although you should be less worried about it. Not unworried, but less worried.

If email is a postcard, what's unencrypted IM?

Re:Logging where?

[AKAImBatman]

If email is a postcard, what's unencrypted IM?

Shouting across a crowded room.

Re:Logging where?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Logging on *my* computer is fine and useful. Logging on *their* server is not.

> 1. It's optional. Turn it on as you see fit.

They say it's optional. And I see no reason to believe it.

PS And, yes, I am not using gmail, gtalk and have google cookies blocked.

Re:Logging where?

[shellbeach]

Logging on *my* computer is fine and useful. Logging on *their* server is not.

So don't use it. Don't use Gmail, for that matter, unless you're using gnupg and pop3. Encrypt your hard disk, and make sure you're using anonymous proxies when you're posting to /. ... Hell, don't use computers at all - can you really trust that the people you're corresponding with are as concerned with security as you are??

Do what I do - put on a trenchcoat and sunglasses and conduct all interactions with other people in Hyde Park, whispering in ancient Babylonian. With my hand in front of my mouth, in case of lip readers ...

Re:whatever!

[kevin_conaway]

Stop being a leech. You're using their services for free. The least you could do (besides absolutely nothing) is look at their ads

Whitelist Google in Adblock Plus?

[guspasho]

I'm using Adblock Plus which has the whitelist feature.

1) Couldn't one just whitelist anything that comes from Google? I haven't been "rolled out" yet, I don't see any indication of Gtalk in my Gmail account, so I can't try this for myself.

2) Can someone who does try it let us know what we need to add to the whitelist to make it work? Thanks.

Re:Whitelist Google in Adblock Plus?

[cham31e0n]

Filterset.G, when used with Adblock Plus, has a whitelist rule that allows Gmail to work properly. At least I haven't encountered any problems.

Re:Whitelist Google in Adblock Plus?

[cham31e0n]

...or, if you don't want to use Filterset.G, here's the specific rule used:

@@/\.google\.\w{2,3}/search\?/

Re:Whitelist Google in Adblock Plus?

[Louisville_Clark]

If you use the Adblock Filterset.G Updater, you can go to Tools>Adblock>Whitelist this whole site to disable Adblock for Google only.

Google policies

[alexmipego]

We must not forget google policies. If you let them to log your chats then you're giving them even more information about you.

At first, all that information can, and will be used, to make target advertisement. No big deal since they already analyse our email.

Second, all that information can, and will be used, in case of any "law" problems with them. The have in their policies that rules, so if you come to be from a rival company they will use all the information they get from your email, and not the chats too, to play dirty.

Be carefull boys!

Re:Google policies

[Radres]

Yeah, they can then sell that information to your ISP!

Oh, wait...

Re:Google policies

[brunson]

Not if use use a client like Psi to connect to GoogleTalk and enable GPG encryption.

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Be carefull boys!

Meh... The feds are already listening to your phone calls and reading all your eamils without judicial over-sight. And here we are *worried* that Google might have to comply with a court order to turn over your chat/email logs.

Get your priorities straight.

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second, all that information can, and will be used, in case of any "law" problems with them. The have in their policies that rules, so if you come to be from a rival company they will use all the information they get from your email, and not the chats too, to play dirty."

Those with nothing to fear, fear nothing.

Re:Google policies

[cashman73]

I just got a notice in my Google Talk account just now with updates to Google's Privacy Policy. This page actually has their privacy policy, with the old text they removed today in RED STRIKEOUT and the new stuff they added in GREEN UNDERLINE.

Re:Google policies

[CPUFreak91]

Ah, well, I'm not too worried. If I need to send anything personal I'll use GPG.

Re:Google policies

[desertrat_it]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, all that information can, and will be used, in case of any "law" problems with them. The have in their policies that rules, so if you come to be from a rival company they will use all the information they get from your email, and not the chats too, to play dirty.

I call bullshit. When GMail came out, Google was always saying "Oh, our computers read your email to show ads, but we won't read your email individually." And now you say unequivocally that if you use their service and work for a competitor they'll use your chats against you? I don't think anybody, except the FBI or NSA, has the patience and resources to read your email.

Can you find somewhere in their Gmail privacy policy or the general Google Privacy Policy that says they allow employees to read your email?

Re:Google policies

[j.blechert]

There are many ISPs but only one google. Supposing anyone (which is quite clearly what the idea of "mainstream" is about) uses google as his virtual desktop they could concentrate -a lot- information. Surely there are a lot of corps who would love to get this bulk of information from one trustworthy source....

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Those with nothing to fear, fear nothing.

Yeah, right! Tell that to the 1500+ US citizens of Arab decent who were locked up incommunicado for 18 months. They too had nothing to fear.

Re:Google policies

[baadger]

all that information can, and will be used, to make target advertisement. No big deal since they already analyse our email.

Not necessarily, IMO email tends to be:

1. More formal - There is a plethora of personal information brought up casually and spontaneously in live conversation you just wouldn't get in an email. I personally don't want what I talk about with friends being used to try and sell me crap... after all I probably use IM (and Skype) more than I do my land line. Sure this information is only processed by machine, but still Google more granular baadger metadata for analysis than I would like.
2. More full of noise and not under my control - As a consumer analysing my work related mail or all the junk mail (not necessarily spam or unwanted) I receive is useless for them. The emails I receive aren't under my control or tailored to me to a great extent so why should assumptions based upon them be? Personally, I've noticed most of the ads I get while on Gmail are totally uninteresting

I'm not paranoid about Google's systems learning my favourite colour or what I like to eat for tea, what irk's me is just how much detail and how many logs these systems have to make before the ad's start becoming interesting and relevent.

For webmasters running a topical websites, I think text or near text only auto-tailored ads was a great idea. I'm just not convinced for those of us with ad blindness and like to think we have some consumer smarts, but might actually be interesed in good products and services, that it's yet useful to an extent worth everything _we_ give to the big G.

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously they did have something to fear. They just didn't realize it until it was too late.

Re:Google policies

[szrachen]

FUD... Keep the logging turned off...

Re:Google policies

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help noticing how the Privacy Policy refers to the optional logging as being stored in the user's Gmail account. Are the contents of text chats being stored somewhere else that the user doesn't have an option about?

Re:Google policies

[lxw56]

Showing all the changes in the privacy policy - they really are "not being evil".

Re:Google policies

[TheRaven64]

I don't suppose you've ever looked at the Jabber PGP 'protocol.' It was deprecated for a reason, namely that it is horrendously cryptographically insecure. Your public key is announced by your server, so it is very easy for your server (or the other person's) to implement a man-in-the-middle attack. I am not saying that they do this, but they could very easily and you would not spot it unless you exchange keys out-of-band.

Re:Google policies

[takeya]

I've got nothing to hide... from google >:)

I keep my sensetive email, which is rare these days, encrypted and I send it through my ISPs mail server.

Re:Google policies

[Louisville_Clark]

When you use Google Talk, people included you have chosen to include in your contact list may be able to see your online presence, username, Gmail address, and any information that you choose to add to your profile, including images, links, and custom status indicators.

How do you add "images, links, and custom status indicators" to GTalk?

Re:Google policies

[Barryke]

That is like.. the cutest thing i ever saw!

Re:Google policies

[EternityInterface]

What is evil? There isn't much except greed, and when they went public everything went to shit.

Yeah, right...

[gfxguy]

They'll peel AdBlock from my COLD DEAD HANDS!

Re:Yeah, right...

[Wardie]

It's a worrying trend that more and more people want to block all ads on sites and web services, as people seem to think they have some right to get stuff for free. Hate to break it to you, but without the ads, great free services like GMail will cease to exist - companies are there to make money, at the point when they are no longer making money off web advertising they will either pull the product or start charging a service fee for it. I know which I would rather have....

Re:Yeah, right...

[gfxguy]

Not only was my posting redundant, it was tongue in cheek; but I take exception to your "take it or leave it" attitude... slashdot, at a fraction of the size of google, somehow manages to have both a subscription and advertiser based solution. For what it's worth, I have a very seldom used gmail account and very rarely use IM or chat... I suppose if I were getting some benefit, I might feel obligated.

Re:whatever!

[Bungopolis]

Google has every right to do whatever they want to make sure you're paying for their service by way of viewing their ads. It was part of the deal when you registered your account. Ads are increasingly a part of our world and they don't look like their going to go away anytime soon. As the industry grows it will become harder and harder to employ technology to hide them. The best solution, however, will remain our own brains, which are the best spam-filters known to man. So get your own personal Bayesian ad-recognition database populated as soon as possible by disabling Adblock!

Re:The whole point of email is to avoid "instant"

[ClearlyPennsylvania]

See bottom of screen - "Standard with Chat" vs "Standard without Chat". You can disable it entirely. Or, you can just sign off on the chat window.

Only Windows?

[zorgaliscious]

Worked in Firefox on PC.. but doesnt on MacOS X. Using latest FF.. and I even tried disabling AdBlock. no go. Also Safari no go. However chatting through Adium still logged the chat...

Re:whatever!

[gkhan1]

You don't have to disable adblock completely , you could just whitelist the page. Don't be such a fuddy-duddy :P

Hideous

[ozziegt]

Has anyone even looked at the screenshots? The UI is cluttered and confusing. On top of that how do they PUSH new IMs to you in a web-based client?

Re:Hideous

[Anonymous Coward]

"The UI is cluttered and confusing."

Compared to what! Good grief, have you installed an IM client in the last 8 years? I use Miranda with a very minimal UI setup and Talk is about on par with that.

"On top of that how do they PUSH new IMs to you in a web-based client?"

Probably the same way other people have been since 1999.

Re:Hideous

[Spy Handler]

"On top of that how do they PUSH new IMs to you in a web-based client?"

Same way Java IRC chat applets started doing 5 years ago?

Re:Hideous

[ozziegt]

If it's a java based client, yeah that's fine. Basic socket programming. But I had assumed it was DHTML just like the rest of gmail.

Re:Hideous

[ozziegt]

"Compared to what! Good grief, have you installed an IM client in the last 8 years? I use Miranda with a very minimal UI setup and Talk is about on par with that" Compared to just about any other IM client out there? Have you ever seen an IM client that has your email at the top and then has your IM's tacked at the bottom so you have to scroll down to view them? "Probably the same way other people have been since 1999." OK genious, why don't you explain how you do this with DHTML only and without a timer firing off every 100ms.

Re:Hideous

[cbiffle]

For the past, oh, two years or so, there's been this marvelous thing called AJAX. The first A is for Asynchronous.

As for the UI, I don't like the idea of a browser-based IM client in the first place, but for such a monstrosity it seems okay. Not that I'll use it. (Yay, I have to keep a browser window open at all times, and not have context menus or drag and drop or audio alerts! Woohoo! It's like ICQ from ten years ago!)

Re:Hideous

[Alderin1]

There are methods in ECMA scripting (formerly "Javascript", a big part of DHTML) that allow you to asynchronusly load web data (which is any data that can be loaded by a browser from a web addressable source) into document objects. I did this several years ago, but I wasn't motivated enough to make something any more useful than a regular poll of a CGI script to see if I had new mail. Yes, it would need a timer (IMO, I could be wrong, haven't kept up with DHTML since my polling thing), but it isn't a refresh-of-the-whole-page timer, and because of that it can be quite short and very close to what most would consider real-time chatting.

Re:Hideous

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting viewpoint about having browsers open. Am I the only one who keeps Firefox open all day at work and at home? Where is the bother here for me? Just one more tab. :) If it weren't for having gaim already, I would be drooling all over this idea. Maybe Google can do like gaim and just connect everything! :)

Re:Hideous

[Ndiin]

It's javascript, but I'm willing to guess that it is probably handled similarly to how CGI:IRC does. Or even better, poll for "updates"/messages every X milliseconds -- even 1 second would still seem sufficiently responsive.

Re:Hideous

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what annoys me about "AJAX"--people think it's brand new. I've been writing "AJAX" applications since 2001 and the XMLHTTP objects weren't even new then. Sure, apps like GMail popularized "AJAX" recently, but their use of it is not revolutionary at all.

Re:too-much-contact-with-contacts

[ClearlyPennsylvania]

Or... you can just disable the chat part at the bottom of the screen. Or... you can just sign off to the chat part. Seriously, relax. If you don't want the chat part, you don't have to use it.

Re:Reimplementing AOL

[v783650]

The google.com/ig interface is pretty sweet, but why isn't there any SSL? I don't want my Gmail transferred in plaintext!

BCC

[jaaronc]

Actually, this was technology that google had to incorporate in order to get Google Talk into China...all chat logs are BCC'd to the chinese government...

Web Clips?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for web clips on my UK account. Doubt I'll see this chat either..

GREAT feature is everyone is using Google Chat.

[doublem]

From the web site:

"Go off the record when you're chatting so nothing gets saved to anyone's Gmail account"

In other words, not only can you disable logging of your chat sessions, but you can prevent any other Google Talk users form logging a chat session in which you are a participant.

This is great for the slimy bosses who want to screw other other employees, "NO, I NEVER told you you would get a 20% raise if you worked 80 hour weeks to complete the project on time, certainly not in a chat session!"

It's also a great feature for cheating spouses who don't quite trust their lover to NOT keep chat logs and other "evidence."

It's also cool for those of us who just don't want our poor spelling saved for all time.

I use GMail for IM since the beginning

[Juiblex]

It's user interface is *made* for IM... I exchange "instant" e-mails with my girlfriend through it, it is so much easier... and, as e-mail, it does not have that annoying thing from IM's -- people interrupting you and demanding quick answers, when you are in the middle of a job.

Re:whatever!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Ads are increasingly a part of our world and they don't look like their going to go away anytime soon.

Um, adblock would appear to disagree with you

Re:whatever!

[HappyDrgn]

Interesting. I tested this thing out last night, without any problems. It works incredibly well btw. I have Adblock enabled, and never thought to disable it. Maybe only some people are having this trouble?

Yes?

[hummassa]

Actually, your IMs are only private if you are talking to yourself, which defeats any usefulness of IM altogether :-)

Off the record nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

We know that sometimes, you don't want a particular chat, or chats with a specific person, to be saved. Most existing IM services give no indication of whether the person you're chatting with is saving your conversation. But when chatting in Gmail or Google Talk, you can go "off the record," so that nothing typed from that point forward gets saved in anyone's Gmail account.

Am I missing something obvious here? A simple copy/paste will bypass this seemingly pointless feature.

Re:Off the record nonsense

[mopslik]

Am I missing something obvious here? A simple copy/paste will bypass this seemingly pointless feature.

Well, since the chat logs are stored on Google's servers, I imagine that it would be awfully hard to "paste" your OTR text into said chat log.

Sure, somebody can make a local copy of the chat log with the OTR text pasted into it, but if you were to compare it to the version stored on Google's servers, you'd see that the local copy was a "fake" -- as in, "I never said that".

Or so I see it...

Works fine for me

[Kadin2048]

I have AdBlock (vers. 0.5.2.055) and Filterset.G installed on Firefox 1.0.7, and it seems to work fine for me. Unfortunately I don't know the version of Filterset.G that I'm using, but it's not more than a few months old.

I don't understand what exactly would break GMail -- AdBlock doesn't filter out Google's text ads (at least mine doesn't), and wouldn't do anything anyway unless Google was in the block list. So I'm not sure why they're recommending that people remove it, as opposed to warning people not to blacklist Google.

I'll be interested to hear what the reasoning behind this is.

Re:Works fine for me

[kevmo]

Many adBlock filters look for the phrase "ad" or "ads". GMail uses a version ID for some reason in many of their URLs. In recent versions, they have had "ad" be part of the hexadecimal version ID, probably to prevent people from using adBlock. However, I just added GMail to the whitelist.

With gin flavored tears streaming down my face

[dbzero]

I realize; I love Google.

MSN and ICQ in Google Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

I have put all my MSN and ICQ contacts in Gtalk using the Jabber gateways.
The method (albeit a bit convoluted) is described here:
    <URL:http://www.bigblueball.com/forums/google-talk -news/33739-connect-google-talk-aim-msn-yahoo.html >

Not quite true...

[ninja_assault_kitten]

They're *going* to be adding chat functionality to GMail. Currently all they offer is the ability to save GTalk conversations in GMail.

Re:Not quite true...

[ClearlyPennsylvania]

No, they already have it... it's just not being turned on on everyone's account immediately.

Jabber bridges

[Kadin2048]

Well, that's not exactly the whole story.

There are jabber servers around which act as bridges to other networks, like AIM, MSN, Yahoo, etc. You still need to have accounts on those services in order to use them, though.

A while back there was an article in one of the Mac mags on how to use a system like this so that you could use iChat as a multi-protocol client -- get MSN and Yahoo Messenger functionality within iChat. It was sort of a neat hack ... I gave it a shot, but eventually I just switched to Adium and haven't looked back. (Except when I want to transfer files, which is shaky in the Gaim-based programs if one person is behind a firewall.)

Re:Jabber bridges

[jaseuk]

Grandparent was about the Google Talk system and not the Jabber Network in general. Originally Google Talk was Jabber compatible but closed to connections from other servers, they have now opened it up, but there is still no way to talk using a Google ID and the Google Client to users not on the Jabber Network.

I'm well aware that there are ways to bridge the gap between Jabber and other networks.

It's all about the Lloyd Dobler attitude....

[Alpha_Traveller]

I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to gtalk-advertise anything bought or processed, or buy anything gtalk-advertized or processed, or process anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed, or repair anything gtalk-advertized, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.

Yes, you are.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Besides, if you don't like Google parsing your chats for Ads, there are other options for chatting... (most of which are not "private" either...)

Linky linky

[Kadin2048]

http://allforces.com/2005/05/06/ichat-to-msn-throu gh-jabber/

An article on how to set up iChat to interoperate with MSN and Yahoo Messenger, using a Jabber server as a gateway. Mac-centric, obviously, but it gives an overview of what you'd need to do. The MSN-Jabber translation is all done by the server -- there's nothing really interesting going on at the client end. I think the MSN stuff is handled by this piece of software.

At one point I found a site which listed Jabber servers and showed what protocol-gatways they had running, but I can't find that list anymore. The examples used on the link above are in the Czech Republic, kind of a long haul for a US-originated and -bound packet.

Thinking outside the box.

[iamlucky13]

This is definitely another example of Google taking an existing, established service that most people wouldn't think could be improved on to the point that significant numbers of people would switch to a new rendition from their old provider, and approaching it in a new way. Map service? Give users the ability to "fly" dynamically around the map. Email? Give them a buttload of storage and handle common operations client side to give the impression of blazing speed. Chat? Integrate it almost seemlessly into their email so users don't even need a seperate program. Talk about effective thinking outside the box.

When rumors started floating around that Google was working on a chat service, I yawned. "Another service, another client, a handful of friends using it." Looks like Google managed to get around that block. I don't think I'll stop using GAIM (especially not if it supports this), but I'll definitely be giving this a try.

Moot point now - GMAIL cookies

[texaport]

Gmail now also logs your IMs, whether they originate in Gmail or Google Talk

Lately, Google wants you signed-in every bit as bad as Microsoft does with PASSPORT.
Otherwise a GMAIL website doesn't even exist -- any more than a HOTMAIL portal does.

Earlier this year it was still a valid question why you can't block GOOGLE's cookies
for some semblance of search privacy, but allow GMAIL cookie to at least use webmail

--
Scratches chin
Scratches head
Scratches ass.

Re:Moot point now - GMAIL cookies

[msbmsb]

"Google wants you signed-in".
Yes, and this new chat functionality will ensure that. People don't generally log out of their chat/IM application very often, remaining available for friends and others to send a message. This way, you'll be logged in while searching normally, etc, and they can track your search habits more easily.

Re:whatever!

[Nathan Weinberg]

Just because they say after a bug that "Our engineers are working hard to fix the problem" doesn't make it fixed. You actually have to fix it before you get credit for that.

Alphabetical ordering?

[salimma]

I have two in-use Gmail account, the older account starting with 'M' and the newer one starting with 'L' .. the 'L' account has Chat support, the 'M' one, not yet.

Re:Alphabetical ordering?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is a fluke. My 'K' account has no chat support.

50's SciFi Horror Movie

[iamlucky13]

A William Shatner special!
Date With the AdBot

The gripping tale of love, lust, and betrayal. When James T. Picard (Shatner) meets and falls in love with Grand Canyon Alli (Loken) over internet chat, he thinks he's found the cyber love of his life. After hearing her sing the Rice-a-Roni jingle one too many times, however, he begin's to suspect something is terribly wrong. Frightened, he tries to break it off, but instead finds she's taking over his life: his email, his chat client, even his myspace page! Suddenly, the supreme court supoena's his web search records. Desperate, he tries to delete his Google tool bar history and chat logs, only to discover they're stored, not locally, but on the main server cluster, a formidable array of 30,000 processors protected by one obsessed web-spider: Alli.

Coming soon to an email account near you.

Feature Creep!

[metternich]

Am I the only one who has absolutly now need/use/desire for chat in my email client? If I wanted a chat client, I'd get one. Just let get my fucking email without being bombarded with ;-p and the like.

tun Off Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe this means, that google wants to force the user to disable adblock, because they get lesser and lesser money from adblock..

Re:The whole point of email is to avoid "instant"

[jxyama]

I don't see this. What am I missing?

Why trust google at all anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has firmly abandoned its Do No Evil granola crunchiness for the soggy flakes of totalitarian collaboration. Why would you trust them with anything personal at all?

Crapware in Gmail

[dantheman82]

If I want to read news, I'll go to Google News myself (or Drudge Report if I want to hear it sooner). If I want chat, I'll use GAIM/Trillian and log in when I want to and log chats locally. I'm sorry, but if you really want to make Gmail nicer, work on adding folders, better filtering, and better desktop-like UI. Good thing for the POP3, because I could care less about the additional "features".

Is Google stagnating already? I was waiting for RaiseTheDead(TM) anytime now from Google, but apparently investors are looking past the hype...one month, and a net loss of 23% on the stock price (currently around 365).

Optional on users' side only

[msbmsb]

1. Just like logging in to see your search history, it's optional on your end, not Google's. They will likely store the chat logs on their servers no matter what, and therefore...
2. It should be approached with the same caution as warranted by gmail usage.

RE: Encrypting Gmail

[Anonymous Coward]

Since google offers pop3 access to your gmail account, there is little problem with using encryption/digital signatures in any email. The advantage to the pop3 access is I'm able to use my prefered email client under any desired operating system and retaining full access through any net access while traveling.

Another advantage that gmail offers is compliance with current/pending/future regulations in regards to email retention and since it's on their servers, I don't have to worry about the damn hardware aspect. Now combine this with their gtalk client integration and I'm really beginning to appreciate their efforts in regards to compliance with Sab-Ox regulations. I think this may actually be a direction that Google can go that offers great profit margins with little to no additional investment on their part.

Re:Correction from paranoid

[retrosteve]

More than that, see the privacy policy changes posted above .

It looks like all the privacy reassurances from before (we won't record, we won't store, your private conversations), have been deleted and replaced with:

# During a particular chat, you can go off the record with your conversation. This means that you can prevent the person you are chatting with from automatically storing the chat as a message in his or her Gmail account. This feature does not prevent that person from copying and pasting text chats or otherwise manually recording them. Also, the feature is available only if both you and the other person are using the Google Talk client, Google Talk in Gmail, or a third-party client that enables this feature.

It also implies that the copy stored on the Google server will be kept until it's "periodically" removed, where you have no knowledge or control about that.

Check out MSN web messenger

[melted]

It's been out for something like two years now. So before you say that google web based chat is groundbreaking, check out this link: http://webmessenger.msn.com/. Works in Firefox, too.

Re:Check out MSN web messenger

[sud_crow]

This is not about web-based IM clients, its about email/IM integration!
In the last year or so, there are so many web-based im clients for every protocol out there that no-one cares about a new one, but i DO care about having IM/email integrated, also, although i find it a bit disturbing, i think the search benefits of a google engine in my chat logs are something worth to think about.

ps. By the way, ICQ had this loooong before MSN did, i used it around 1999. You can find it here: http://go.icq.com/
It used to be a Java app. now they have that as secondary (another option) and a Flash version as primary.

Re:I foresee.... YakAlike

[Dave21212]

There's a FireFox extension call YakAlike that does chat per-website. It's still a bit new and could use some enhancing, but if you want to get an idea of what something like this might be like... try it out.

WHERE IS THE CALENDAR?!

[Bushido Hacks]

I've said this a million times already! G-mail needs a calendar application! Forget this chatting crap! I need help with time management!

Adblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock is say, 2000 times more valuable to me than this feature. I'll happily live without it rather than turn all the ads on.

Technical specs, please

[harris s newman]

As a security administrator, I would like to know how this works, what ports it uses, etc. Can someone please post this info, I can't find it on their website.

Does it work on Linux?

[Phoe6]

I know there is no gtalk in linux. Does the Pop up win brings gtalk like thing for linux?

Um, read the FAQ

[Spaceman40]

"11. Wait, how come I don't see these chat features you keep talking about in my Gmail account?

We're rolling the new chat features out in stages, so you may not have them in your account quite yet. Thanks for being patient while you wait for your new and improved Gmail account. And unfortunately, the chat features work only in the US-English interface for now. We know, we know... we're getting to the other languages as fast as we can."

adblock

[wwmedia]

to all of u who dont want to uninstall ADBLOCK :)

just right click on the adblock icon and select "whitelist this site"

thats my 2c ;)

How to block kids from using it

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, another service to block from my kids. Before you
bitch about anything about rights, my 10 year old daughter
with "issues" has none as far as the household IT Department
is concerned.

Wow!

[iamlucky13]

Over-rated? I didn't realize it was a sin to use my Karma bonus. Sorry to whichever mod I offended!

multiple identities

[etheriel]

There should be a way to manage multiple identities/screen names under gmail, so that i don't have to give out the same email address to everyone

Re:multiple identities

[Anonymous Coward]

invite yourself and forward mail to a common account with separate from/reply-to's or add a +parameter. ie your.address+slashdot@gmail.com

Why this is important

[superultra]

I've been using Gmail since 2004, and it has radically changed the way I maintain contact with people. It's clear to me that The integration of Google Talk into gmail is just another step Google is taking that characterizes their approach to email. Microsoft and Yahoo just don't get it, and they've spent their time merely trying to bring the desktop GUI to email. Google, on the other hand, is redefining email.

Not that they haven't already. The conversation view means that I can email, "What did you think of last night's Battlestar Galactica?" to five other friends on gmail, and each person can respond without flooding each other's inboxes. Emails through gmail tend to be shorter, a kind of proof of presence more than anything else. Some of our conversations distribute to 10-20 other friends with gmail, and we've broken the 150 message ceiling more than once. I'm not being trite to say that Gmail has brought me closer to friends I would not have otherwise had regular contact with. For example, we have some friends teaching in Thailand, and while the rest of us sit at desks, we can include them in our gmails knowing that instead of plowing through 100 new emails, they will see only one highlighted thread. The search and labeling/flat-hierachies enable us to send out entire cut and pasted articles from the web, with the potential of being able to find reference these later.

And now, Google is blurring the line between email and IM (aka "proof of presence") by adding in-browser google talk. It's brilliant. Meanwhile, Yahoo and Microsoft think they're cool because users can right click in the web interface.

Lots of people are complaining about privacy, and rightfully so. But we should also be discussing how Google is changing the way people perceive and use email.

Probably been said, but...

[RomulusNR]

Google recommends you disable Firefox's AdBlock,

Oh, well fuck that then.

Re:whatever!

[anotherone]

FUD? on slashdot? I never!

GMail in the UK

[zing22]

Has anyone else noticed that since the GMail trademark squabble that no new features have been added to UK GMail accounts? I haven't seen webclips or any of the new things that have been added. Is this because of the trademark problems (so they have halted development) or am I missing something?

Re:GMail in the UK

[SmilingBoy]

You need to set your language to English - US. This will enable all advanced features.

Solutions

[mrraven]

So what chat services don't log conversations? Anything other than irc? Along the same lines is there a pop accessable web mail service that doesn't scan e-mails? I'm thinking of ditching gmail if google continues it's privacy and human rights slide. Sigh "do no evil" was only more corporate propaganda, I should have known...

Sounds redundant to me

[Bogue]

Hey Carl,
I was wondering if I can borrow your truck to move some furn-

Carl:hey warez that email you wur gonna send me?
Me:go away i'm sending it now.

ya so I need to move some furniture and I was wondering if I can borr-

Carl:hey when are you gonna get that gross couch out of ur garage.
Me: DAMMIT!!!

Scam! Its all lies I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet this is just Google's way of forcing you to turn off AdBlock.

I'm still waiting

[WormholeFiend]

for GoogleDating

Re:I'm still waiting

[leipzig3]

>>>for GoogleDating

Orkut?

Must disable Gmail for ad-free browsing

[Animats]

Gmail often interferes with Adblock's ad blocking features, causing Firefox to crash. Our engineers are working hard to fix the problem, but in the meantime, disable Gmail for testing purposes, and clear your browser's cache.

If disabling Gmail resolves the problem, but you'd still like to use it in conjunction with Adblock, you may want to contact Gmail's support team for help customizing your settings so you can still access your Gmail account after re-enabling the extension.

Encryption

[roman_mir]

So, I am thinking about a layer of encryption on top of the chat interface, that can be done even now with my Leet Key FF extension (DEC for now,) but I am thinking of modifying the extension to allow the encryption to work on the fly, like the other transformers/editors that are part of that extension.

Hmmmmmmm.

Re:Google policies and profit motive

[drDugan]

Privacy interests and profit motive will set Google against it's users, and it will limit it's growth. Reading *on* the redlines shows that plainly.

Simple, but true.

Why does it take several weeks to reach everyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't a new feature get applied to everyone immediately?

Nettoie les régions qu'une brosse á dent

[bhiestand]

atteindre.

Un simple brossage ne permet pas d'atteindre toutes les régions difficilement accessibles où la plaque s'accumule. Grâce à son léger revêtement de cire et à sa texture résistant à l'effilochage, la soie dentaire Oral-B EssentialFloss glisse aisément entre les dents et sous la ligne des gencives pour aider à enlever la plaque difficile à atteindre.

Utilisée matin ou soirs lors du brossage, la soie dentaire EssentialFloss aide à garder les dents et les gencives saines.

Thought I'd give you some instruction in an easier language for you and waste your time like you wasted mine. I wasn't critiquing your use of the language so much as correcting you calling it a "trademark secret", and saying that if you meant to say that you communicate trade secrets over PGP-encrypted email you really shouldn't be. Even if it didn't have any known flaws today, ten years from now breaking it would be a joke. I wouldn't recommend storing OR communicating trade secrets digitally. Or are your trade secrets the kind that only need to remain secret for a few years?

Re:whatever!

[EternityInterface]

The best solution, however, will remain ...just directly paying for the service?