Slashdot Mirror
Yale Switching To Gmail, Not Without Opposition
PwnSnake writes "While it makes sense for small (and large) corporations to move to Gmail, something seems amiss when a top private university decides to hand everything over to Google. Although most in that community seem to welcome the change, several organizations on campus have joined forces to call for a transparent process and get students and faculty thinking about the downsides of the switch. The problem is choice (users can already forward mail to Gmail; it doesn't make sense to force that option and not have a backup or opt-out mail server)."
Anyone ignorant of the possible problems of things like this need to become educated.
Ugh, idiots.
I was a grad student there, and most of the people I knew hated the Horde webmail interface. I practically never used it, since I've always set up IMAP.
My current university also outsources most of their student e-mail services to Google... again, I almost always access it through IMAP. The main downside I've run into is that the university version of Gmail doesn't have access to Labs features that you get with regular Gmail.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
If you bothered to read the second link (like that'd happen but whatever), it isn't as much a staunch "we never want to use Gmail" as a request for more transparency/information about what the agreements and options being discussed/setup by Yale's IT administration and Google. It includes requests for more information on such things as where the data is going to be stored, why Google is 'generously' providing this service free of charge and without advertisements (i.e., how much privacy/rights do you have with your e-mails), what happens if Google changes their mind down the road and wants to start charging Yale, and a few other similar concerns.
You don't like your email being read by someone else? Then why are you sending it as a postcard? And if you don't care about that then who cares if Google reads it and sells the information to advertisers?
FireGPG and others make encrypting webmail easy, and PGP/GPG and SMIME have been integrated into most mail clients for years.
Deleted
Anybody doing any sort of human research, say from the medicine, biomedical and psychology faculties, shouldn't be using GMail, because it involves sending privileged information to a third party corporation and, in this case, a corporation that has a vested interest in using the information they're gathering.
Outside of that, many people like to protect their own privacy.
I looked at that FAQ, and it says that Google employees will never have access to your email unless access is explicitly grated by your admin. It also says, in the same answer, that Google employees may delete things which violate their ToS, which seems to directly contradict this (how can they delete things without write access, how can they know it violates the ToS without read access?). The answer about whether they complied with EU data protection laws was a very round-about way of saying 'no'.
What did I not see on that page:
It always amazes me when people read a puff-piece full of buzzwords and devoid of any content, yet come away completely reassured.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm an IT manager at a major University.
okay... so the thing is, everyone loves gmail. They love it because it's a pretty, intuitive interface, they have good spam filtering, it's free, plenty of storage, hugely distributed servers for good and reliable performance, nifty features, lots of happy fun time. Why *wouldn't* you switch your whole IT mail system to gmail?
You wouldn't do it because google's entire business model is based on profiting from the content of your data. Mining that
data for targeted advertising (yes, even if they're not displaying ads in your gmail, they are mining your data for useful stuff to sell to advertisers), gleaning useful tidbits about your behavior and buying practices, etc., etc. They *own*
the content of your email.
If you are working on potentially profitable research, you'd be insane to collaborate on it through google.
If you are handling privacy-sensitive data (such as student records), you'd be insane to communicate that data
through google.
If you are handling any other sensitive information (like passwords to financial accounts, potentially embarrassing
internal memos, career- or relationship- destroying office gossip), you'd be insane to communicate it through google.
GOOGLE READS YOUR EMAIL. When you sign up with google, you AGREE TO LET THEM DO IT FOR FUN AND PROFIT.
They are providing this service for free -- if something goes wrong and they lose a bunch of your data, they'll have
a minor public relations black eye and move on. You'll be out a bunch of valuable data. You can't fire anyone,
you can't take tangible measures to make sure it doesn't happen again (or that it doesn't happen in the first place), etc.
There are lots of reasons NOT to take your IT mail to google. It's mostly about data security, privacy, and accountability.
You are surrendering all of that when you go to google. If those things aren't important to you, then by all means, switch to google.
And I'm not saying this just because I'm not anxious to have my job outsourced. I'm saying it because after 20 years of
being responsible for this sort of data, giving it to google is one of the worst things you could do with it. It's not all about "Easy interface, low cost", but unfortunately anyone who ISN'T responsible for managing the data only sees those two things.
Oh, yeah... and universities don't generally prioritize storage/systems/personnel for student email. TFA talks about saving 12 TB of space, which these days I could install new (and reliably) for well under $10k, if someone was willing to spend the money on it.
If google provided free software to run a webmail system locally, now THAT's something I could get behind. THAT is what
Universities should be trying to get google to provide. Let them provide the interface, and let your local guys set it up and manage the data, keep the storage servers local.
YMMV, especially if your local IT guys just suck. :)
I work for a higher-ed institution, and we recently provided a university-sponsored GMail option. We heard this issue about sending private data via GMail, from some folks in our health departments.
Our response was: why are you emailing anything with private data in it!?
Email of any kind, whether run locally at the department level, institution-wide at the central IT level, or outsourced to someplace like Google ... Email is an inherently insecure transport method. You don't send private data over the Internet. Period.
So, let me amend your statement:
Anybody doing any sort of human research, say from the medicine, biomedical and psychology faculties, shouldn't be using email, because it involves sending privileged information over the Internet.
Maybe someone better informed than I could say whether or not if using Gmail corporate services would also expose you to randomly-applied 'great ideas' such as the screwup that is Buzz?
In a word, No.
When my university moved to GMail, the central IT folks get to administer the university GMail system. [Disclaimer: I work in our central IT, but am not part of the GMail team, although I am in the same overall unit.] That means the university central IT gets to choose what new add-ons our users get access to. So, central IT gets to be the gatekeeper for new stuff that appears in Labs, or new bolt-ons like Buzz. In our university, I believe we use a pretty vanilla GMail. This is (mainly) to help with support issues, but privacy concerns like Buzz probably play into this too.
Incidentally, it's the same with corporations that use GMail, IIRC. Except in that case, the corporation is paying $$$ to Google to be hosted on GMail. But the corporate IT staff still manage the featureset for things like Labs and Buzz.
Email is an inherently insecure transport method.
This statement was true in the mid 90's. It is no longer universally true.
Using techniques such as opportunistic SMTP over TLS, a.k.a. SMTPS, it is possible to provide link-level encryption of email without requiring any special configuration on the part of the end user. This setup is more common than you think, especially in universities. I would estimate that about half of all US universities already deploy SMTPS. Email traveling over SSL/TLS is not that bad from a security point of view -- the only way to intercept it is to compromise a mail server or one of the end users' machines, and if a hacker has that level of access, you have much bigger problems than email.
SMTPS will not encrypt the link between the MUA and the MTA. For that, the end user needs to explicitly configure IMAPS or POP3S. However, this link is one of the easiest links in the chain to secure, even without cryptography. Ethernet switches (not hubs) and physical access control will prevent the vast majority of local sniffing attacks, and WPA2 is good enough for WiFi links.
You don't send private data over the Internet. Period.
I disagree with this statement. At the very least, it is almost impossible to function in modern society without sending private data over the Internet in some form. For example, if you never send your credit card number over the internet, then e-commerce is almost impossible, and if a merchant subscribed to this philosophy, he would not remain in business. As another example, you almost certainly had to send your slashdot password over the internet in order to log in, and you probably consider it to be private (if not, feel free to tell me what it is).
I agree that you should never send unencrypted private data over the Internet, but I would stop well short of recommending a complete ban on sending even encrypted private data, which is what you seem to be saying.