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

[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.

Amazon Does this too

[gishzida]

Google isn't the only one that reads your mail.

If you have a Kindle Fire or Fire HD they are reading it too. I had the upsetting experience of reading an email on my Kindle Fire HD that announced my father's death and then not more than a few hours later was served a "recommendation" on my Kindle a book on how to write a Eulogy.

I deleted my email account information from the kindle and shut down the recommendation system on the device... and I told Amazon how creepy they were... At least Google hasn't served creepy ads like that... so far...

Maybe Amazon should learn from Google and adopt "Don't Be Creepy" as their motto. Are you listening, Mr. Bezos?

[By the way I tried at the time to put Amazon's actions up as a news story on Slashdot... but it was not picked up as a story...]

Re:Amazon Does this too

[Internal Modem]

You weren't published by Slashdot because you didn't have a blog that quoted another blog that linked to the original blog which had a link to a news aggregation site pointing to the original story.

Informed consent? Really?

[satch89450]

"But people who send e-mail imply consent..."

I'm a long-time Google Apps user, and my company's domain is on all mail receipents' mail, not "gmail.com". So how can you have implied consent when the sender doesn't know that the mail is being sent through Google?