Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 9:29 PM
Subject: Privacy World's August 2013 Newsletter Issue
3Aug
> Privacy World - The WORLD'S SHREWDEST PRIVACY
NEWSLETTER
>
> Gmail promises "no reasonable expectation"
of privacy Google admits
> that third-party email users should not be surprised
that company
> processes communication
>
> UPDATED BELOW with statement from Google, clarifying
that Gmail
> users do have privacy protections, but that
"third party law"
> applies when it comes to non-Gmail users'
expectations of privacy.
>
> Original post: As I have noted here before
>
<http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/the_dangerous_ethics_behind_googles_transparency_claims/,
> it is worth remembering that as recently as 2009,
Google CEO Eric
> Schmidt said, "If you have something that you
don't want anyone to
> know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first
place."
>
> Schmidt expressed more here than a personal opinion,
he revealed
> views on privacy and transparency that underpins his
company's
> ideology ---one that shows scant regard for Google
user privacy. On
> Wednesday it was revealed in the form of a legal
filing, uncovered
> by Consumer Watchdog: Email users have "no
reasonable expectation
> of privacy" for information passed through
Google's email server.
>
> The comment from Google's lawyers came out in a
class action
> lawsuit in June which the Internet leviathan is
being challenged
> over Gmail's feature for scanning emails to target
ads. Plaintiffs
> claim that Google's practice goes against wiretap
laws, but the
> Google's lawyers argued otherwise, stating:
>
> "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 emails
> are processed by the recipient's [email provider] in
the course
> of delivery. Indeed, 'a person has no legitimate
expectation of
> privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to
third parties."
>
> However, millions of Google users had not assumed
that everyday
> their electronic communications were being
systematically scanned
> and read. But Google's attorneys went so far to say
that this is
> simply "ordinary business practice."
>
> John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's privacy project
director, told
> the Guardian that Google's argument is deeply
flawed:
>
> "Google's brief uses a wrong-headed analogy;
sending an email is
> like giving a letter to the Post Office. I expect
the Post Office to
> deliver the letter based on the address written on
the envelope. I
> don't expect the mail carrier to open my letter and
read it.
>
> Similarly, when I send an email, I expect it to be
delivered to the
> intended recipient with a Gmail account based on the
email address;
> why would I expect its content will be intercepted
by
> Google and read?"
>
> Now, any close follower of Google's transparency
reports and general
> modus operandi when it comes to compliance with
government demands
> for user data will not be surprised by this
revelation. Furthermore,
> it is no secret that Google traces user search
activity in order to
> provide targeted advertising. However, millions of
Internet users
> ---unattuned to the vagaries of Google's approach to
transparency
> and privacy --- would have assumed their emails were
treated as
> private. Hopefully the current lawsuit will help
inform more Internet
> denizens that if they're seeking confidentiality and
protection from
> government and corporate surveillance, Google is no
place to turn.
>
> UPDATE: Salon received a comment from Google
clarifying the issue
> of privacy that arose in the class action lawsuit.
Google points out
> that it is not Gmail users who can expect no privacy
protections,
> but rather Google's attorneys argument about email
interception
> by a third party applies to non-Gmail users, who
have not signed
> Google's terms of service. Google stated:
>
> "We take our users' privacy and security very
seriously; recent
> reports claiming otherwise are simply untrue. We
have built
> industry-leading security and privacy features into
Gmail --- and
> no matter who sends an email to a Gmail user, those
protections
> apply." The Verge specified the particular
issue at hand in terms
> of Google and the application of privacy
protections:
>
> [The Google attorney was quoting] from the 1979
Supreme Court case
> /Smith v. Maryland/ in which the court upheld what's
called the
> "third-party doctrine," saying that once
you involve a third party
> in communication, you lose legally enforceable
privacy rights. (This
> is an extremely but for right now, it's the law.)
Google's argument
> is that people who email Gmail users are necessarily
involving
> Gmail's servers in the mix, kicking the third-party
doctrine into
> effect. This is pretty basic stuff.
>
> The above article by Natasha Lennard
>
> Until next issue, stay cool and remain low profile!
>
> If you want a truly secure free email service, check
out
> http://www.confidesk.com/
based in privacy friendly Switzerland.
>
> Privacy World
>
> PS - You're very own totally anonymous Central
American company
> and bank account with debit card and internet
banking.
>
> ***NO ID REQUIRED!***
>
> Ready to use within 24 hours from the time your
order and cleared
> funds are received.
>
> Email for details by placing "NO-CA" in
your subject heading.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe,
send a blank message to PrivacyWorld-on@mail-list.com