gmail

[phobal]

google clearly states that they will log information for several reasons, one clearly stated reason is to target the user with ads relevant to him. This isn't such a bad idea(keep reading...). Google and similar services on the internet are not free to operate, they aren't non-profit, I don't mind seeing UNOBTRUSIVE ads when it supports a service I use and like. How wonderful it would be to log into google and be presented with ads for services I REALLY want a good values, we all use advertising and marketing every day to select the items we spend money on, good well targeted advertising CAN be a win-win for consumers and business alike.

Although I am a capitalist and agree with you somewhat, people must object to this on PRINCIPLE. One thing leads to another.

Its going to get shut down soon.........just a hunch, gmail is now on the FCC's radar....watch out. People have been crying out that gmail is a breach of privacy and several laws concerning email.

I hope you realize that email isn't really private to begin with.

[Chris]

Although I am a capitalist and agree with you somewhat, people must object to this on PRINCIPLE. One thing leads to another.

I disagree. On principle, if the consumer knows that gmail is going to do this, then they have the choice not to sign up. It isn't like gmail is the mandatory replacement for all email services. You can choose not to have an account. If, on the other hand, you want the storage capability of gmail, and understand that they are going to collect info, and still choose to sign up...that's your call.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. I have made a choice. It isn't a matter of principle as much as it is a matter of paranoia.

I hope you realize that email isn't really private to begin with.

Again, a matter of choice. If you want "private" email then use hush/hushmail and/or PGP/GPG and only exchange email with others that use compatible asymetric encryption mechanisms. Privacy IS attainable, but often at a cost. That cost may be monetary, or it may be time, or it may be inability to exchange email with some parties that are unwilling/unable to implement the same or a similar encryption scheme. You have the choice.

[flea]

yes and no.. there are laws concerning monitoring emails similar or even identical to the ones that cover wiretaps (tapping phones etc) depending on which state you're in. While California is considered a two-party state which requires both/all parties to consent to monitoring, I believe there is a similar exception that fed law (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 USC) has exmpting business communications. In addition to that, being a subscriber to the gmail service will most def require a submission to their terms of service which clearly state as seen in my previous post that subscribers give their consent.

you don't have to worry about 'getting used' to their service as yet it's not open to the public.

the senetor that's making noise about the gmail service is Liz Figueroa, amung other things she's done was the do-not-call list for california, her page is at:
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/figueroa/

hope this didn't ramble too much, I've been awake for a while now :)

[phobal]

I disagree. On principle, if the consumer knows that gmail is going to do this, then they have the choice not to sign up. It isn't like gmail is the mandatory replacement for all email services. You can choose not to have an account. If, on the other hand, you want the storage capability of gmail, and understand that they are going to collect info, and still choose to sign up...that's your call.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. I have made a choice. It isn't a matter of principle as much as it is a matter of paranoia.

But any informed consumer would object on principle, as much as targeted advertising is just lovely. Support for KaZzA and other stupid programs has spawned the spam industry. Majority of consumers are fucking idiots. Look at how well SUVs sell.

Again, a matter of choice. If you want "private" email then use hush/hushmail and/or PGP/GPG and only exchange email with others that use compatible asymetric encryption mechanisms. Privacy IS attainable, but often at a cost. That cost may be monetary, or it may be time, or it may be inability to exchange email with some parties that are unwilling/unable to implement the same or a similar encryption scheme. You have the choice.

But to BEGIN WITH, email isn't private :).

[phobal]

yes and no.. there are laws concerning monitoring emails similar or even identical to the ones that cover wiretaps (tapping phones etc) depending on which state you're in. While California is considered a two-party state which requires both/all parties to consent to monitoring, I believe there is a similar exception that fed law (Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119 USC) has exmpting business communications. In addition to that, being a subscriber to the gmail service will most def require a submission to their terms of service which clearly state as seen in my previous post that subscribers give their consent.

you don't have to worry about 'getting used' to their service as yet it's not open to the public.

the senetor that's making noise about the gmail service is Liz Figueroa, amung other things she's done was the do-not-call list for california, her page is at:
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/figueroa/

hope this didn't ramble too much, I've been awake for a while now :)

and how the hell is one to get prosecuted? unless you wreak havoc, the likelyhood of someone sniffing email seeing court is next to nil. it happens every day.

[KeLviN]

"no email content or other personally identifiable information is ever provided to advertisers.

Ads are matched using the same technology that powers the Google AdSense program"

i really dont see na problem.

[jesse]

i'm pretty certain google will have clauses in gmail's EULA that negate any of these tenuous legal arguments you're making.

[astcell]

Why not just get 40 hotmail accounts?

[bascule]

Hooray, I got bascule@gmail.com, am I l33t or what? (The correct response is: "or what")

It's really scary not having a delete button though. What do I do when a douchebag vendor decides to, say, e-mail me the first 12 digits of my credit card number rather than the last 4? (I've had it happen)