Google's Scanning of Gmail To Deliver Ads May Violate Federal Wiretap Laws

New submitter SpacemanukBEJY.53u writes "In a declaration that could make Google very nervous, a U.S. federal judge on Thursday rebuffed Google's defense of its targeted ad system that scans the content of Gmail. Judge Lucy Koh — who also heard the Apple-Samsung case — found Google's terms and conditions and privacy policy isn't clear to users. Koh subsequently allowed a class-action suit to proceed against the company (official ruling). The plaintiffs in the suit allege Google violates federal and state wiretap laws by scannning the messages sent by non-Gmail and Gmail users."

Comments

Oh for crying out loud

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this shit die already, this is getting tiring.

It is an automatic system.

I bet Microsoft is funding this, AGAIN.

Re:Oh for crying out loud

[Monoman]

You beat me to it.

So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why? Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?

Re:Oh for crying out loud

[MozeeToby]

I agree with you to some extent. An algorithm searching for keywords and displaying appropriate ads? I really don't have a problem with that. Where I do have an issue is where the information gleaned goes into a big database that Google has on me. A big database that can be subpoenaed, or leaked, or stolen. A database that slowly but surely includes information from nearly every act of communication and internet usage. Even if I were to opt out of Google's services, the fact is if I send an email it's likely going to a gmail address, if I browse the internet there are likely Google servers providing parts of the page.

Re:Oh for crying out loud

[Anonymous Coward]

You beat me to it.

So I guess the question for everyone is should Google (and others) be allowed to scan communications if they state clearly in their EULA what they are doing and why? Does the answer change when the communications include a parties that didn't accept the EULA?

"Scanning" can mean very different things. GMail scans and extract the meaning of the communication (as best it can and it is getting quite good) *and* then files this in the permanent marketing profile they have on you and which they continue to build on and reuse. So they are extracting, saving, using and building a database of meaningful content from your email and about you. Other forms of scanning is without actually extracting the content itself, and not storing it in a database on you. This is clearly not exactly the same.

You can still think this ruling against Google is silly, but we should be precise on distinctions like that.

Re:Oh for crying out loud

[Mitsoid]

If i send you an e-mail @hggdfshjd.org, how do i know your storage or e-mail handling policy?

E-mail has no reasonable expectation of privacy or secrecy. If anything, it is nowadays considered standard that your e-mail will be stored for at least 30 days, or until deleted. Unless you send an e-mail to a government address, then it's longer depending on the branch/locality/etc... or if it's to someone in the financial industry.. then it's saved even if it's deleted (until requested by a probe, then it's deleted)... My point is, everyone has a different policy, and no e-mail between two people can be ensured privacy and secrecy on unencrypted messages. when going between two distant servers

Also, when the message does arrive, regardless of service, the message will also be scanned by a junkmail filter. It will also, likely, be parsed by the recipients mail filter setting, and also by their anti-virus, anti-phising, and other anti-whatever systems. What makes Gmail's system different? If i submit a message to my ISP as junk, I'm releasing your e-mail to a 3rd party without your consent, and half a dozen machines will read it, process it, and act on it.

If we block recipient mail systems from "automated-reading" of messages, we effectively make it illegal to filter ALL junk, spam, and phising protections.
With the track record of poorly-worded laws we've had, I'd rather assume privacy/secrecy risks myself with encryption, than allow judges, lawyers, and elected officials choose the wording.

Re:Virus scanning is a service

[gandhi_2]

Somehow I doubt "federal wiretapping laws" take into account how much the person being tapped does or does not enjoy the results.

Re:Virus scanning is a service

[mjtaylor24601]

Virus scanning is a service a provider can deliver to its customers.

Scanning mails for the benefit of the provider for advertising is not beneficial to the customer.

...except in so far as it allows the service provider to make a profit thereby enabling the customer to get access to the service for free.

What about spam filtering?

[NoNeeeed]

If the court decides that mail providers cannot, on principle, be allowed to scan the content of a mail message then I don't see why it wouldn't affect content based spam filtering.

This case could have interesting ramifications for all mail providers if the court decides this violates wire-tap laws.

Re:Federal wiretapping laws

[FatLittleMonkey]

NSA doesn't tap wires. They tap fibre.

Re:How could Google have been any MORE clear?

[Todd Knarr]

No, but the person you're sending the e-mail to has. When you send physical mail to someone, you don't know if they've got a secretary opening and reading all their mail for them. They could even have an outside company doing it (what, you think Hollywood stars and politicians read and answer their own fan or constituent mail?). And the law has absolutely no problem with this, nor with the idea that if this will be a problem for you as the sender then it's your responsibility to sort this out with the recipient before sending your mail.