3 ms·

Google lawyers are presenting a clever argument, which on the surface looks quite sensible. But the accusation is not about scanning, but wiretapping, which, as

by znowi 13y ago

Google lawyers are presenting a clever argument, which on the surface looks quite sensible. But the accusation is not about scanning, but wiretapping, which, as the judge notes "primarily used to create user profiles and to provide targeted advertising". It is not the same as sorting out email or looking for virus signatures in attachments. If you follow Google's notion of implicit consent to such practices, then any traffic online can be lawfully intercepted and profiled. When you send data over a third party router, you give permission to spy on yourself. I don't think so.

deathanatos 13y ago
> If you follow Google's notion of implicit consent to such practices, then any traffic online can be lawfully intercepted and profiled. When you send data over a third party router, you give permission to spy on yourself. I don't think so. I disagree. Google is not intercepting traffic willy nilly: you _sent_ the traffic to Google, when you emailed john.smith@google.com. Comparing Google reading traffic that was transmitted to it with a wholesale "any traffic online and be lawfully intercepted and profiled" is exaggerating the scope of what is going on here. Also, what is the prosecution hoping to gain here? If they win, and Google can't serve relevant ads… are we out of a good email service? (I suppose Google could still try to serve ads, but they just would be in the dark w.r.t. the email content.)
- dingaling 13y ago
  > you _sent_ the traffic to Google, when you emailed john.smith@google.com How about when you emailed @guardian.co.uk? @specsavers.com? Under the covers they're using Postini + Gmail. Did you consent to sending that traffic to Google? Wat about people living in LA, who have no option but to send their traffic to Google when they e-mail their local Government at @lacity.org? NOAA, State of Wyoming.. the list goes on. http://www.google.com/intx/en_uk/enterprise/apps/business/customers.html http://www.google.com/intx/en_uk/enterprise/apps/business/cu...
cynwoody 13y ago
Google's Gmail business model has been common knowledge ever since they surfaced it as a new, invitation-only beta. This whole debate about the appropriateness of a content-driven ad-supported business model has been front and center all along. It should be sorted out in the marketplace, not the court room.

by znowi 13y ago

deathanatos 13y ago

> If you follow Google's notion of implicit consent to such practices, then any traffic online can be lawfully intercepted and profiled. When you send data over a third party router, you give permission to spy on yourself. I don't think so. I disagree. Google is not intercepting traffic willy nilly: you _sent_ the traffic to Google, when you emailed john.smith@google.com. Comparing Google reading traffic that was transmitted to it with a wholesale "any traffic online and be lawfully intercepted and profiled" is exaggerating the scope of what is going on here. Also, what is the prosecution hoping to gain here? If they win, and Google can't serve relevant ads… are we out of a good email service? (I suppose Google could still try to serve ads, but they just would be in the dark w.r.t. the email content.)

dingaling 13y ago
> you _sent_ the traffic to Google, when you emailed john.smith@google.com How about when you emailed @guardian.co.uk? @specsavers.com? Under the covers they're using Postini + Gmail. Did you consent to sending that traffic to Google? Wat about people living in LA, who have no option but to send their traffic to Google when they e-mail their local Government at @lacity.org? NOAA, State of Wyoming.. the list goes on. http://www.google.com/intx/en_uk/enterprise/apps/business/customers.html http://www.google.com/intx/en_uk/enterprise/apps/business/cu...

cynwoody 13y ago

Google's Gmail business model has been common knowledge ever since they surfaced it as a new, invitation-only beta. This whole debate about the appropriateness of a content-driven ad-supported business model has been front and center all along. It should be sorted out in the marketplace, not the court room.