Saturday, August 17, 2013

Privacy World's August 2013 Newsletter Issue 3Aug

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

No comments: