Google Says Those Who Email Gmail Users Have ‘No Legitimate Expectation of Privacy’

[lomatopo]

Google Says Those Who Email Gmail Users Have ‘No Legitimate Expectation of Privacy’

Legitimate, as Google's using the word, simply means lawful.

By Matt Peckham @mattpeckhamAug. 14, 2013

Lavabit is no more. Silent Circle has shuttered its secure email service. All the major email providers appear to be complicit in one form or another with PRISM, the NSA’s clandestine email surveillance program revealed by The Guardian in early June. And now Google’s legal team seems to be spraying gasoline on the controversy after filing a motion in mid-June that, among other things, argues users who access Google services like Gmail shouldn’t expect their transactions to remain secret.

The salient quote was surfaced by Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit California-based consumer rights group founded in 1985. It’s from a 39-page motion filed by Google on June 13, 2013 in hopes of dismissing several disparate complaints that allege the company violates wiretap laws by poking around in email to engage in targeted advertising.

Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient’s ECS [electronic communication service] provider in the course of delivery. Indeed, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2013/08/14/google-says-gmail-users-have-no-legitimate-expectation-of-privacy/#ixzz2bziV6zE9

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/google-tells-court-you-cannot-expect-privacy-when-sending-messages-gmail-people-who-care

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/googlemotion061313.pdf

Appears to be Google simply covering their back-side for protection against future lawsuit and/or civil suits, see linked Motion to Dismiss, but a reminder nonetheless.

[phil2]

Thanks for that. I would be weighing my options soon, which should include dumping android along with gmail.

[Wavefloater]

When Gmail first started it was on an invitation only basis, and one of my senior colleagues extended an invitation to me to use the services. I registered and sent a message of thanks to my colleague, along with a bit of chit chat in the letter. The next day when I logged into Gmail there was quite a bit of spam in my mailbox and it was very clear from the types of offers that the Gmail reply I had sent was scanned vigorously for keywords, and those keywords were used for aggressive marketing. The reply letter to my colleague was the first and last time I used Gmail. It was clear right away that Gmail offered no privacy, but I think it's not wise to ever assume that any email provider is truly secure.

[Totster]

Get your tin foil hats here... buy one get one free !

totster

[Suradit69]

“When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else.”

David Brin

[jbrain]

Maybe after all those farmers who stopped the Google maps car weren't so uneducated as is suggested in an other thread.

[MilesofSmiles]

If you're not paying for it, you are the product.

[horsewell]

If you really want things private probably shouldn't share, but if you have to, maybe whispering it in someones ear would be much more effective, and allow some plausible deniability.

[BudRight]

You can still send encrypted attachments. Good luck cracking that one bitch.

[Artist]

This is simply untrue. I get really fed up with all this Google bashing. The bit about privacy at the end of the quotation was not said by Google at all.

"What the stories neglected to do, however, was to put the passage in context, and to note that the last words, the ones in quotes, weren't Google's.

The passage is contained in a section that referred to plaintiffs who are non-Gmail users. What Google was arguing, as a source with knowledge of the proceedings said, was that it treats the emails non-Gmail users send to Gmail users the same as every other email that passes through Google's servers.

In short, if you don't have Gmail, but you send an email to your friend who does, the email he receives is subject to the same privacy policy as any other email. And Google's terms of agreement allow the company to scan emails to filter spam and serve ads.

Google wasn't trying to say that Gmail users have no expectation of privacy whatsoever, as the source we contacted confirmed."

Read the whole article to make more sense of it: http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/google-forced-on-back-foot-over-gmail-snooping-claims-20130815-2rxpn.html#ixzz2c0wPx8od

My understanding is that Google's computers scan both incoming and outgoing emails to and from Google users in accordance with their terms of service they do this partly to provide their users with facilities such as Google Now which advises you of things like airline schedules picked up from your email, partly to remove spam, partly to prioritise your emails and partly to better target advertising. Their point is that if you send an email to somebody you can expect them to read it and for it to be scanned by their email service provider's computers. I am pretty sure that all email service provider scan for spam in any case.

If you are obsessive about privacy that might be a problem, but no human being is reading your emails just a computer and not for any nasty reason but to provide you with better services and advertising. Lets face it you are much more likely to have your emails read by the USA NSA than Google, so if you are planning to be a terrorist, don't use gmail. If you are not, just relax and ignore the spin.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Artist

[Issangeorge]

Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient’s ECS [electronic communication service] provider in the course of delivery. Indeed, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.”

 

I consider the email deliverer (gmail) as the same as the post office that delivers regular mail and I sure don't expect the post office going through my mail unless they have a warrant.

 

 

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2013/08/14/google-says-gmail-users-have-no-legitimate-expectation-of-privacy/#ixzz2bziV6zE9

 

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/google-tells-court-you-cannot-expect-privacy-when-sending-messages-gmail-people-who-care

 

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/googlemotion061313.pdf

 

 

 

Appears to be Google simply covering their back-side for protection against future lawsuit and/or civil suits, see linked Motion to Dismiss, but a reminder nonetheless.

 

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[GirlDrinkDrunk]

I consider the email deliverer (gmail) as the same as the post office that delivers regular mail and I sure don't expect the post office going through my mail unless they have a warrant.

i suspect you hold the post office in too high a regard as well.

the fact is is your mail is not safe on ANY server unless you maintain it yourself. and even then not so much if somebody with the right "authority" wants to read it.

this is a condition of existence encrypt every thing or accept it.

[Skygod2000]

If you don't trust them you can always fix it yourself:

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/08/how-to-encrypt-your-email-and-keep-your-conversations-private/

[lomatopo]

I get really fed up with all this Google bashing.

Agreed, this is more about exemptions from liability...to quote, "all Gmail users contractually agree to the scanning of email as part of using Google’s services". Automated scanning, either by Google, or even the NSA with or without a FISA 214, is allowed. Again, this is more about indemnifying Google from future criminal and civil suits when/if potentially illegal activities surface. Telecomms providers have already been indemnified via legislation, retroactive immunity, and Google probably has indemnification agreements with the Government/NSA, which cannot be revealed in a court of law as they are classified, but which might not hold up twenty years from now.

From the Motion:

The wiretap statutes exempt providers of an electronic communication service (an “ECS”) like Google from liability based on conduct in the ordinary course of business and the Complaint confirms that the alleged “interceptions” occur as part of Google’s normal processes in providing the Gmail service;

ECPA precludes liability where a single party to a communication consents to the alleged “interception,” and all Gmail users contractually agree to the scanning of email as part of using Google’s services;

The state wiretap statutes preclude liability where both parties to a communication consent, and case law holds that all users of email necessarily give implied consent to the automated processing of their emails;

The Pennsylvania wiretap statute applies only to the senders, not the recipients of, an electronic communication.

2. Have Plaintiffs stated a claim that Google’s automated processing of email violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), where:

The express terms and legislative history of CIPA confirm that the statute excludes email;

Further:

This case involves Plaintiffs’ effort to criminalize ordinary business practices that have been part of Google’s free Gmail service since it was introduced nearly a decade ago. While Plaintiffs are differently situated (some are Gmail users; others are non-Gmail users who exchange emails with Gmail users), their claims boil down to the same core allegation: that Google commits an illegal “interception” when it applies automated (non-human) scanning to emails involving Gmail users–even though the processes at issue are a standard and fully- disclosed part the Gmail service.

This claim fails as matter of law for multiple reasons.

First, all of the federal and state wiretap laws at issue specifically exempt ECS providers from liability based on conduct in their ordinary course of business. These protections reflect the reality that ECS providers like Google must scan the emails sent to and from their systems as part of providing their services. While Plaintiffs go to great lengths to portray Google in a sinister light, the Complaint actually confirms that the automated processes at issue are Google’s ordinary business practices implemented as part of providing the free Gmail service to the public. This is fatal to Plaintiffs’ claims.

Second, the wiretap statutes also preclude liability where either a single party to the communication (for the federal statute) or both parties (for the state statutes) have expressly or impliedly consented to the practices at issue. Here, all Plaintiffs who are Gmail users consented to the automated scanning of their emails (including for purposes of delivering targeted advertising) in exchange for using the Gmail service, thus precluding any claim under federal law. Moreover, multiple courts have held that all email senders impliedly consent to the processing of their emails by virtue of the fact that email cannot be sent or delivered without some form of electronic processing. This combination of express and implied consent bars Plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, under both the federal and state wiretap statutes.

Edited August 15, 2013 by lomatopo

[Tengu]

There is one and only one way to be secure on the internet: do not use it.

It is true that Google "reads" your email. So does Microsoft, Yahoo, and any other email service, unless you encrypt the contents. How do you think a spam filter works? Yes they do it to serve you "targeted" advertising as well, but there is no free lunch.

Even encryption isn't necessarily secure. Did you write the encryption algorithm? Are you capable, and did you, read and understand every line of code in the open source program that you are using to encrypt your data? How do you know that there isn't a "back-door" in it?

And even if you did and the encryption seems strong today, computers are getting faster and there are lots of crypto people working to find ways to crack what ever encryption that exists today. That's why the NSA stores all encrypted internet traffic. Tomorrow they may be able read it.

[johntren]

We've been here before, no...?

"You Have Zero Privacy Anyway. Get Over It." Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems, 1999.

[tingtongteesood]

This is why the government wants everyone to have so called stupidly named 'smart phones', they make it much easier to track your every single move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU !!!

[BlackJack]

the death of gmail

[Artist]

Encryption just ensures that the NSA will look at your emails. You shouldn't be worrying about Google, they will go broke if people think they are spying on them so they have a big incentive not to spy. You should worry about the NSA as there are virtually no controls on them and a future USA or Thai Administration might decide that looking at naked Thai ladies is illegal. What will you do then?

[Gnasher328]

I used BTYahoo until it was hacked. I had Gmail as a backup and changed it to primary. I do worry about Gmail being connected to G-everything-else though.

I kept the BT account empty as a backup, now they are scrapping Yahoo, who never admitted their vulnerability, so I might go back to them for mail I want to be more secure if the new service is good.

I rarely get spam or see ads in Gmail, poss due to AVG.

[MILT]

You can still send encrypted attachments. Good luck cracking that one bitch.

[sustento]

Email has NEVER been secure even before Google came into existence. It's passed as plain text from sender to recipient. That's how SMTP works. Any machine that it passes through on its way from A to B can read it. It's like sending a postcard, not a letter.

[Artist]

I used BTYahoo until it was hacked. I had Gmail as a backup and changed it to primary. I do worry about Gmail being connected to G-everything-else though.

I kept the BT account empty as a backup, now they are scrapping Yahoo, who never admitted their vulnerability, so I might go back to them for mail I want to be more secure if the new service is good.

I rarely get spam or see ads in Gmail, poss due to AVG.

Why do you worry? Google Now is the key to the future. Personally I want Google's computers to know all about me. I have nothing to hide. Increasingly Google Now works out what I want to know, what I like, where I am going. In five years this technology will be an essential to everyday living. Sure there are some people who will want to go back to nature and the past but I want the future. I want Google to help me navigate my life. Those who accept the future and use it to their benefit will benefit enormously compared with those who try to opt out.

[Mur]

I used BTYahoo until it was hacked. I had Gmail as a backup and changed it to primary. I do worry about Gmail being connected to G-everything-else though.

I kept the BT account empty as a backup, now they are scrapping Yahoo, who never admitted their vulnerability, so I might go back to them for mail I want to be more secure if the new service is good.

I rarely get spam or see ads in Gmail, poss due to AVG.

Why do you worry? Google Now is the key to the future. Personally I want Google's computers to know all about me. I have nothing to hide. Increasingly Google Now works out what I want to know, what I like, where I am going. In five years this technology will be an essential to everyday living. Sure there are some people who will want to go back to nature and the past but I want the future. I want Google to help me navigate my life. Those who accept the future and use it to their benefit will benefit enormously compared with those who try to opt out.

oh no another one of those "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" attitudes. Thing is, and we never learn from history is that human beings will invariably abuse power when too much of it is gained. The NZ govt spy agency broke the law for years by spying on kiwi's. So now they are changing the law to make it legal. What a f###ing surprise. The spying on our emails fone calls and everything else might not cause innocent people problems for a while but you can be sure sooner or later it will. And you can bet our children and grandchildren will be afraid to say anything that could be used against them by govts/employers/police. Our dumb/corrupt PM has even hinted there might be weapons of mass destruction here in NZ. Heard that one somewhere before. Of course he is just doing what a certain large powerful country is telling him to do

[Suffinator]

Google and Privacy simply don't match. It's goal is to dominate advertising through spying on your activities.

Want to know the truth? Read this -

Google States Gmail Users Are NOT Entitled to Privacy

[lomatopo]

I have nothing to hide.

OK. Please post your real, full name; national id number, all bank accounts with PINs, mother's maiden name....

Not sure why people think this silly argument - "I have nothing to hide" - is sustainable?

[MichelBangkok]

Get a Yandex email account for free ! Based in Russia, better be spied by the russkies ( no offence intented - spaciba ) !

[mjsansai]

Why is anyone surprised, this had to be in the back of your mind somewhere.

[Gomyway]

Reading "I have nothing to hide." remembers me that the European Parliament now has many Trolls watching and commenting in the inet-forums, what doesn't mean that in this case I wanna say you're one of those. In Germany there's a word: Wooden eye be on alert.

[Heng]

Oh whinge. It's not like it's some kind of public service.