View Full Version : gmail
Privacy Group Files Google Gmail Complaints
Mon Apr 19, 9:54 AM ET Add Technology - Reuters Internet Report
By Lucas van Grinsven and Bernhard Warner
AMSTERDAM/LONDON (Reuters) - Google Inc.'s free e-mail service Gmail came under fresh fire on Monday, when an international privacy rights group said the soon-to-be-launched service violated privacy laws across Europe and elsewhere.......etci'm unaware that the world's gonna be forced to use gmail
eclectica
2004-04-19, 23:46
Here is what the Gmail is going to do:
Google is planning to scan e-mail and add advertisements that it thinks are relevant to the messages. Additionally, the Gmail privacy policy warns that messages, even if "deleted" by a user, may still be stored in the system, even long after users have closed their account.
Sure it's not a problem if you're not one of the bad guys. But the power behind it, to be used for advertising, could also be used for other things. Do you think Condoleezza would be interested if my emails have a lot of words like "ammonium nitrate, flight 223, white house"? Keep in mind that there are laws protecting the privacy of older technologies like the telephone, but a newer technology like the internet has little privacy protections, due to legislative ineptitude. If Google or your ISP wants to cooperate with the Feds then there is nothing to stop them from doing so. It would be unethical but not illegal of them to do so.
slx, you say that because it is not forced on anyone and free that you think people really can't complain, but I believe that they have standards to uphold even though they are providing a free service. To me what they are doing is crossing the line and going too far. We have to look at the bigger picture and not see just a web service giving away a huge amount of free storage, but the erosion and lack of vigilance towards our privacy and the broader implications it has on our society.
It's kinda obvious Google is gettin' a gov subsidy, (or looking for one)
wouldn't they like to track our searches.
slx, you say that because it is not forced on anyone and free that you think people really can't complain, but I believe that they have standards to uphold even though they are providing a free service. To me what they are doing is crossing the line and going too far. We have to look at the bigger picture and not see just a web service giving away a huge amount of free storage, but the erosion and lack of vigilance towards our privacy and the broader implications it has on our society.i know all that dude....but what i'm saying is, google told the world what they were gonna do....
and anyone that wants to use gmail under thoses conditions is aware of what's going on.....anyone that doesn't like what they're offering doesn't have to use it...
all of the bitchin, complaining and various agencies comin unglued are absolutely out of line....it's a choice the consumer makes, not google
my bottom line is....no regulation on the web....google wants to do what they're planning...more power to them, i don't have to use google mail
at least they announced the plan, unlike too many other progs that are covert regarding their use of "spyware & adware" and who knows what else
i wonder how many tracking cookies you've pick'd up in your lifetime on the web that weren't disclosed to you in advance?
lol nic....maybe they are dude
compare googles openness...their full disclosed, in advance of the gmail to the following crap......read on
Spyware's Victims Spread
Emily Kumler, Medill News Service
WASHINGTON-- Spyware and adware are rivaling viruses as online pests, but not only consumers are concerned: Vendors and ISPs, who field the brunt of complaints, are gearing up for a fight.
"In the past 8 months we've counted 40 million incidents of nonviral 'malware' and since March, 11.4 million cases have been detected," said Bryson Gordon, senior manager in charge of antivirus vendor McAfee's line of consumer products and services. Like many antivirus vendors, McAfee has added spyware protection.
"With 4.2 million Web dialers, nonviral threats are very serious concerns for consumers."
Gordon joined a panel of vendors and experts on spyware, adware, and privacy at a Federal Trade Commission workshop Monday. Participants aimed to define and understand the security risks and industry costs of such programs, which are proliferating.
Draining Resources
Nonviral threats were the number one reason consumers called Dell's tech support last year, said Maureen Cushman, one of three primary legal contacts for Dell's consumer business segment.
"They represented 12 percent of all tech support," she said. "Data shows that spyware calls are longer and require much more troubleshooting. Usually the complaint is that the computer is performing slowly. This slowness is often perceived as a hardware problem, which hurts our brand."
Consumers do not understand the differences among adware, spyware, worms, and viruses--and the lack of knowledge costs ISPs huge amounts of money, said Austin Hill, executive vice president and cofounder of Zero-Knowledge. The company works with ISPs on security issues.
"The typical 25-minute calls mean a difference in cost of $15; that can wipe out an ISP's entire margin," Hill said. "People call their ISP angry and frustrated that their Internet is doing something unexpected. They assume it is the ISP's fault. Some are moving away from broadband and back to dial-up because they feel they didn't have the same problems with dial-up."
John Gilroy, columnist with The Washington Post, called the lack of consumer awareness the most frightening aspect of the problem. While cleaning out a friend's computer, he discovered a spyware file holding 3GB of information.
"Anti-spyware in the machine can appear to work properly, and then in the background there's this file, three gigs of information stored away, just sitting there," Gilroy said.
Fighting Back
Consumers are at a greater disadvantage at fighting spyware than businesses, panelists agreed. That's because companies usually have technology departments that can address spyware problems.
"Is it worth it to pay someone to fix it? I've talked to people who think they need a new computer because their machines are so loaded with this stuff," Gilroy said. But the average consumer searches Google for anti-spyware software will find a bewildering selection of thousands of possibilities, he added.
"But what they don't realize is that a ton of those companies are actually spyware," he said. "The typical consumer solution can be harmful itself."
Roger Thompson, vice president of product development at PestControl, suggested part of the problem is a new type of hacker.
"Viruses are normally written by one of two types of guys. One of those guys usually grows up, gets a job or a girlfriend and they stop. But guess what? The adware type is backed by a whole company. This is profit-driven, so when will they stop?"
Gordon called that type of work "worms-for-profit."
"There is a new type of motivation," he added. "It's not to show off to friends. Now it is to send out spam, fishing scams, Internet worms, and to hijack pages for profit."
But adware "is trying to be a legitimate application," Thompson said, answering critics and skeptics.
Gordon agreed with Thompson, but cautioned that the increasing dissemination of adware will make it a target for hackers and viruses.
"With more than 100 million installations of adware, and we see those numbers increasing, I guarantee we see virus writers taking notice," Gordon said.
eclectica
2004-04-20, 10:30
The net should be unregulated in regards to content and governments need not get involved with blocking or regulating Gmail. Keeping it at the level where privacy advocates raise concerns is good enough. Many privacy advocates want government intervention, but that really contradicts their mission in the long run. A campaign of public education and lobbying to the ill effects of Gmail would be the best thing for them to expect to do.
I support net regulation or government intervention when it is in the manner of the FCC regulating ISPs, but not in regards to content. I think the government should try to foster broadband growth in rural areas with their policies, for example.
Lately the government has been trying to regulate or develop a standard for VoIP because they want to have the ability to wiretap it. And they also want to wiretap cellphones when they are used as walkie-talkies, push to talk, or instant radio contact between two phones that doesn't use the network. I think in the case of wanting to wiretap that aspect of cellphone use, that they are going too far. When new technologies come out the government tries to claim the right of spying and control over them as well. The government will be opposed to encryption which they don't have the ability to crack. But because strong encryption such as OpenSSL (http://www.openssl.org/) is open source and international, they no longer can stop it or control it.
eclectica
2004-04-20, 10:53
From this CNET article (http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5194417.html), is this:
Privacy International argued that the communal nature of e-mail renders that "consent" defense meaningless.
"Consent can only be given by a Gmail account holder," the organization said. "Those who send e-mail to a Gmail customer will have no opportunity to consent to having their e-mail read for keywords."
Do you agree with them?
From this CNET article (http://news.com.com/2100-1024_3-5194417.html), is this:
Do you agree with them?how could i disagree...i've read that
my point remains.....
hypothetically....if you want to write me @ my gmail aaddress.....do you have a choice?
i know that you could possibly be one of us inbred, toothless, missippi bubba's that can't read the news much less knows what's occurring around us....
there are warning labels on smokes and most foods too
eclectica
2004-04-21, 00:46
There's a saying from a disease standpoint that whoever you have sex with, you're sleeping with their partners as well. That's to put the fear into you and have you wear a condom. Now apply the "consent" ideas of the privacy advocates to that, and that means that actually in order to have sex with one person you would require the consent of all the partners the person has ever slept with as well. Which is of course ridiculous, and shows the limitations of the analogies.
Lance Ulanoff - PC Magazine
The public outcry over Google's plan to have targeted text ads appear alongside your free e-mail proves a point I made some months ago: Google is now officially a target. Individuals, public privacy advocacy groups and even states are nearly apoplectic over the fact that Google's completely automated technology will be "reading" mail received in its still-in-beta Gmail free e-mail service.
The use of the word "reading" is interesting, because computers never really "read" anything. Reading implies comprehension and an understanding of context. As anyone who uses a spell-checking application can tell you, computers are not reading words. If you write "I right many columns these days and plant to write more," most spell-checkers will accept this sentence, since each word is spelled correctly. Supposedly, this will not be the case with Gmail. According to the privacy police, Google's technology is so advanced that it will actually "read" and, I guess, understand your mail.
Some say that this will lead to our privacy going straight out the window. The fact is that this will have no impact on privacy. Google has done its best to explain that it'll adhere to privacy rules and that there are other applications that do this (in fact they have to) to work. Antivirus software comes to mind. It reads the message and subject line and even goes as deep as looking at attachments.
I would like to pause and apologize for the use of the word "looking." I, like just about everyone else I know, have a habit of anthropomorphizing things. We all know that computers and software, in particular, lack biological eyes of even the most rudimentary sort. They "see" and "look" at nothing. Software and computers basically "record" 0's and 1's ad infinitum until they can be interpreted as commands or actions.
Back to applications that look... er... read... or should I say analyze your mail. Spam software, of course, analyzes your mail, too, and, thank goodness, identifies likely spam candidates and removes them from view. The software does this by matching words in the message and subject with those in its own offending word list. There are some heuristics applied that help note a frequency and even order of words that might indicate spam or pornography. Still, none of this equates to actually reading or understanding mail. I don't think this is a privacy issue—people who get technology know better than to raise the privacy flag when an application is analyzing your documents. The real problem is partly, I think, about ads. People hate them. I get that. I tend to hate them, too, especially when they get in the way of what I really want to learn about or view.
Google uses targeted ads in its search results, too, and these are based on the keywords you type into the Google search engine. This is not much different than what's supposed to happen with Gmail, but I do see the distinction. I find these ads only mildly annoying because I know the real results are just a quick scroll away. Interstitials—ads that fill the whole screen before you can visit a site—are far worse. I'm not sure how Google intends to display the ads on Gmail, but I know the folks at the company are not stupid enough to block your view of your mail. Perhaps the contextual ads will be listed above the mail—that's a bit annoying, or—as is my preference—in a column on the right-hand side. They would be out of the way, but available to people that want them.
Yes, there are people who might actually appreciate the service. I could imagine a scenario where a friend e-mails me about Sony's new Sony DCR-HC40 MiniDV Handycam. I'm interested in learning more, and then I notice that there are some text-based ads next to my mail message pointing to online stores where I can buy the digital camcorder or even prices on the tapes that it uses. What's not to like about that?
What really bothers me is that this is about people's fear. Not of someone invading their privacy, but of yet another technology company becoming too powerful. Google has a chance, with Gmail, to become bigger than ever. All the company needs to do is include Hotmail and Yahoo address conversion tools and it will blow the roof off the free e-mail business. The Gmail free e-mail client interface could also, if it's anything like Google, be one of the cleanest around and load 10 times faster than its competitors, even with the text-target ads. There's also environment free of pop-up ads and, of course, the remarkable amount of free storage (1 GB). There are other worthy competitors to Hotmail and Yahoo, including MyWay, which offer pop-up-free mail services (for free, too), but they offer only a relatively miniscule 6MB of storage space.
Here's something else to consider: Without those text-based, contextual ads, Gmail will not come with a gigabyte worth of storage space, I can guarantee it. Try and remember, people, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And don't be afraid. Embrace Gmail. I'm a sucker for free e-mail, so I know I will.
eclectica
2004-04-21, 22:09
What really bothers me is that this is about people's fear. Not of someone invading their privacy, but of yet another technology company becoming too powerful.
What really bothers me are the privacy aspects and not the fact that Google would be too powerful. I doubt they could reach the level of monolithic, institutionalized lameness that Microsoft has reached.
Embrace Gmail. I'm a sucker for free e-mail, so I know I will.
I do not embrace things which are free and I am in fact suspicious of them.
]quote[ slx says....a journey starts with a single step ]/quote[
SHANGHAI, (AFP) - China has stepped up control of the Internet in its largest city Shanghai with the installation of video surveillance equipment and software in public places.
The directive from the Shanghai Culture, Radio, Film and TV Administration was designed to prevent the surfing of banned websites and to stop people under 16 from entering Internet bars, the Shanghai Daily said.
Authorities have already installed video cameras in every Internet cafe in the city so officials can keep track of youngsters' movements, the newspaper said.
The yet-to-be installed software will force users to input personal identification data to log on, while a supervisory centre will monitor surfing and check whether a cafe was illegally operating at night, it said. Foreigners will have to input their passport number.
"The software, which cost seven million yuan (850,000 dollars) to develop, can help supervise more than 110,000 computers at the city's 1,325 Internet bars and spot illegal activities immediately," the paper quoted project director Yu Wenchang as saying.
The measures are part of a six-month campaign by municipal authorities, which began this month, to crackdown on Internet bars.
Fifty-seven net bars have been punished or shut down in the city so far.
The Internet explosion is both a blessing and a curse for the Chinese authorities, who want people to be more tech-savvy without absorbing too many foreign ideas or spreading anti-government messages.
Internet users are frequently jailed for posting articles critical of the government.
eclectica
2004-04-22, 19:29
It's amazing to me that people would put up with that crap in China, but I think it is due to the fact that some cultures accept their slavery more than others. The docile, obedient nature of Asians also allows them to be enslaved easily. I think of China as being an atheistic country, but it looks like they get their dosage of bullshit from the government instead.
eclectica
2004-06-15, 23:07
Here's an article I came across regarding Gmail:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/248
The biggest danger of Gmail to the author of the article is in the attitude and acceptance of having one's privacy invaded by computers. The author Marc Rasch fears that governments will use that same line of reasoning to invade the privacy of people by using computers, and people will accept it because they feel that computers can't invade their privacy the way actual people can.
The author Marc Rasch fears that governments will use that same line of reasoning to invade the privacy of people by using computers, and people will accept it because they feel that computers can't invade their privacy the way actual people can.hopeless paranoia
the gov's been envading our privacy for all our lifetime....
however i agree, that a pc can't envade unless you allow it too....i delete crap all the time, sight unseen, without even a blink of the eye...no compunction
on the other hand, i have to force myself to be diplomatic with rude people...people can't simply be deleted
you can tell them to 'fuck off' tho..why be diplomatic about it?.....
honey/vinegar
i've got one of these accounts..what the hell can I do with it? I mean what's it good for..hoo-hah-(war).
what I want to use it for is storing my movies and transferring large 700mb files between other users gmail accounts..can I do this legally or even illegally using gmails TOS..is it like KaZaA's tos where they say you have to pay but you never pay anything until u get sued. well can i use it for my intended purposes..kind of like an alternative to a slipstream account?beats me dude.....i don't have a clue
maybe try the help file
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.