3 ms·

One is to provide a feature for the end user's benefit. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google. If this bu

by gibwell 13y ago

One is to provide a feature for the end user's benefit. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google. If this business model is allowed, imagine all the other kinds of profile that communications providers would be able to sell about you based on the contents of your email.

DannyBee 13y ago
"One is to provide a feature for the end user. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google." Assume this is true for a second. I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. (I can't really opine on the case itself for obvious reasons)
- Amadou 13y ago
  I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.
- gibwell 13y ago
  According to the judge the wiretapping statutes allow only interception that is 'instrumental' to providing the service to the end user, and she specifically stated the opinion that the exception is not intended to be broad enough to permit any arbitrary business model. That's why people keep mentioning it.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Ah, thanks. Well then, she'll likely be overturned, unless her circuit feels like making another split. Most other circuits (except two I believe) have explicitly held it to be okay for things like behavioral advertising. See, for example, Kirch v. Embarq Management Co (10th circuit) Given ECPA does not define "ordinary course of business" in any way, and the accompanying senate reports do not say anything about the exception being related to "for the benefit of the end user" (and instead talks entirely about the need/desires of the ISPS using the communications) , I would guess the opinion will have some trouble at the appellate level, but i guess we'll see!
    - gibwell 13y ago
      Your example case relates to browsing activity. That is very different from email.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        "That is very different from email." [Citation needed] If they are really different, you should easily be able to find a 10th circuit case where they've said so. (Though any pair of cases where an appeals court has said they are different would be fine!)
magic_haze 13y ago
The _only_ reason they provide the feature is so they can make money. Why is this so complicated to understand? Google isn't a charity. They are not obligated to provide anyone anything (unless you pay them. And you can get rid of the ads if you have a Google apps subscription AFAIK.) Do not equate government with a company: their aims are completely different.
- gibwell 13y ago
  The _only_ reason muggers take wallets at gunpoint is so that they can make money. Not every way of making money is desirable for society. Why is this so complicated to understand?

by gibwell 13y ago

DannyBee 13y ago

"One is to provide a feature for the end user. The other is taking the user's private communication and using it to make money for Google." Assume this is true for a second. I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. (I can't really opine on the case itself for obvious reasons)

Amadou 13y ago
I'm not aware of any legal caselaw that has ever drawn such a distinction for the acts in play here. So I guess i don't get while people keep saying this like it should or would matter. Law is always a distant second to morality. Sometimes it catches up, sometimes it doesn't. But to define what is right by a lack of previously established law is astoundingly naive, bordering on self-serving. Even when there is precedent, it doesn't necessarily define the morality of a situation, e.g. slavery, driving under the influence and women's suffrage among many thousands of examples.
gibwell 13y ago
According to the judge the wiretapping statutes allow only interception that is 'instrumental' to providing the service to the end user, and she specifically stated the opinion that the exception is not intended to be broad enough to permit any arbitrary business model. That's why people keep mentioning it.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Ah, thanks. Well then, she'll likely be overturned, unless her circuit feels like making another split. Most other circuits (except two I believe) have explicitly held it to be okay for things like behavioral advertising. See, for example, Kirch v. Embarq Management Co (10th circuit) Given ECPA does not define "ordinary course of business" in any way, and the accompanying senate reports do not say anything about the exception being related to "for the benefit of the end user" (and instead talks entirely about the need/desires of the ISPS using the communications) , I would guess the opinion will have some trouble at the appellate level, but i guess we'll see!
  - gibwell 13y ago
    Your example case relates to browsing activity. That is very different from email.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      "That is very different from email." [Citation needed] If they are really different, you should easily be able to find a 10th circuit case where they've said so. (Though any pair of cases where an appeals court has said they are different would be fine!)

magic_haze 13y ago

The _only_ reason they provide the feature is so they can make money. Why is this so complicated to understand? Google isn't a charity. They are not obligated to provide anyone anything (unless you pay them. And you can get rid of the ads if you have a Google apps subscription AFAIK.) Do not equate government with a company: their aims are completely different.

gibwell 13y ago
The _only_ reason muggers take wallets at gunpoint is so that they can make money. Not every way of making money is desirable for society. Why is this so complicated to understand?