3 ms·

What constitutes "Sharing with a third party" though? Using a 3rd party email service like outlook or gmail? Using a third party docs service like google docs?

What constitutes "Sharing with a third party" though? Using a 3rd party email service like outlook or gmail? Using a third party docs service like google docs? It doesn't seem right that google docs would be privileged, but if you use the fancy spellcheck button, it no longer is.

jeffbee 7mo ago
Right, exactly. It is also too much to expect that if a user enabled the "personalization" button in the Gemini app, for unrelated reasons, they now can't expect to compose a privileged email to their counsel. It's a minefield.
- lokar 7mo ago
  Well, at Google people get legal advice from in house lawyers via Gmail. Are they not sharing that with at least some of the Gmail team (who could read the email)?
  - jeffbee 7mo ago
    Gmail users (correctly and reasonably) do not expect the "gmail team" to read their emails, except using glass-breaking incident response privileges that leave audit trails and trigger review. Users expect that email is private. Anyway, both Google's privacy policy and American jurisprudence segregate things like emails, voice calls, and video calls into a separate "communications" category, while Google's privacy policy treats Google Docs as "other content you create", even though the difference seems immaterial if you know how these systems work.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7mo ago
      Google originally declared that they read all emails. That was semi-changed with the Workspace rollout but there is nothing preventing them from reverting to the old policy. They already do it anyway for reminders extracted from email.
      - lokar 7mo ago
        To me, "read" means by a human. Humans read, computers process.
      - jeffbee 7mo ago
        No normal person believes that systems delivering and classifying messages amounts to "gmail team reads my emails".
shimman 7mo ago
The onus is on the companies to make this clear, if they aren't willing to tell users the dangers of using their own tools that kinda tells you everything you need to know (they don't care about their customers, only $$$). Be upset at Google for not taking privacy seriously, they never have and never will.

jeffbee 7mo ago

Right, exactly. It is also too much to expect that if a user enabled the "personalization" button in the Gemini app, for unrelated reasons, they now can't expect to compose a privileged email to their counsel. It's a minefield.

lokar 7mo ago
Well, at Google people get legal advice from in house lawyers via Gmail. Are they not sharing that with at least some of the Gmail team (who could read the email)?
- jeffbee 7mo ago
  Gmail users (correctly and reasonably) do not expect the "gmail team" to read their emails, except using glass-breaking incident response privileges that leave audit trails and trigger review. Users expect that email is private. Anyway, both Google's privacy policy and American jurisprudence segregate things like emails, voice calls, and video calls into a separate "communications" category, while Google's privacy policy treats Google Docs as "other content you create", even though the difference seems immaterial if you know how these systems work.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7mo ago
    Google originally declared that they read all emails. That was semi-changed with the Workspace rollout but there is nothing preventing them from reverting to the old policy. They already do it anyway for reminders extracted from email.
    - lokar 7mo ago
      To me, "read" means by a human. Humans read, computers process.
    - jeffbee 7mo ago
      No normal person believes that systems delivering and classifying messages amounts to "gmail team reads my emails".

shimman 7mo ago

The onus is on the companies to make this clear, if they aren't willing to tell users the dangers of using their own tools that kinda tells you everything you need to know (they don't care about their customers, only $$$). Be upset at Google for not taking privacy seriously, they never have and never will.