Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:38 AM
Subject: Privacy World's January 2014 Newsletter Issue
4Jan
> Privacy World - The WORLD'S SHREWDEST PRIVACY
NEWSLETTER
>
> The Psychological Dark Side of Gmail
>
> "We know where you are. We know where you've
been. We can more or
> less know what you're thinking about."/
>
> "Your digital identity will live forever...
because there's no
> delete button." ---Eric Schmidt
>
> Some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley recently
announced
> that they had gotten together to form a new
forward-thinking
> organization dedicated to promoting government
surveillance reform
> <reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/[4] in the name
of "free
> expression" and "privacy."
>
> The charade should have been laughed at and mocked
--- after all,
> these same companies feed on privacy for profit, and
unfettered
> surveillance is their stock and trade. Instead, it
was met with
> cheers and fanfare from reporters and privacy and
tech experts
> alike. "Finally!" people cried, Silicon
Valley has grown up and
> matured enough to help society tackle the biggest
problem of our age:
> the runaway power of the modern surveillance state.
>
> The /Guardian/ described
>
<theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/tech-giants-nsa-reform-surveillance-game-changer
> [5] the tech companies' plan as "radical,"
and predicted it would
> "end many of the current programs through which
governments spy on
> citizens at home and abroad." Laura W. Murphy,
Director of ACLU's
> DC Legislative Office, published an impassioned blog
post praising
> tech giants for urging President Barack Obama and
Congress to
> enact comprehensive reform of government
surveillance. Silicon
> Valley booster Jeff Jarvis could hardly contain his
glee
> <theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/tech-giant-companies-open-letter-white-house
> [6]. "Bravo," he yelped. "The
companies came down at last on the
> side of citizens over spies." And then added:
>
> "Spying is bad for the internet; what's bad for
the internet is
> bad for Silicon Valley; and --- to reverse the old
General Motors
> saw --- what's bad for Silicon Valley is bad for
America."
>
> But while leading tech and privacy experts like
Jarvis slobber
> over Silicon Valley megacorps and praise their
heroic stand
> against oppressive government surveillance, most
still don't
> seem to mind that these same tech billionaires run
vast private
> sector surveillance operations of their own. They
vacuum up private
> information and use it to compile detailed dossiers
on hundreds of
> millions of people around the world --- and that's
on top of their
> work colluding and contracting with government
intelligence agencies.
>
> If you step back and look at the bigger picture,
it's not hard to see
> that Silicon Valley is heavily engaged in for-profit
surveillance,
> and that it dwarfs anything being run by the NSA.
>
> I recently wrote about Google's Street View program
>
<pando.com/2013/12/07/the-everywhere-store-civil-libertarians-welcome-amazons-drone-army/
> [7], and how after a series of investigations in the
US and Europe,
> we learned that Google had used its Street View cars
to carry out a
> covert --- and certainly illegal --- espionage
operation on a global
> scale, siphoning loads of personally identifiable
data from people's
> Wi-Fi connections all across the world. Emails,
medical records, love
> notes, passwords, the whole works --- anything that
wasn't encrypted
> was fair game. It was all part of the original
program design: Google
> had equipped its Street View cars with surveillance
gear designed
> to intercept and vacuum up all the wireless network
communication
> data that crossed their path. An FCC investigation
showing that the
> company knowingly deployed Street View's surveillance
program, and
> then had analyzed and integrated the data that it
had intercepted.
>
> Most disturbingly, when its Street View surveillance
program was
> uncovered by regulators, Google pulled every crisis
management trick
> in the book to confuse investors, dodge questions,
avoid scrutiny,
> and prevent the public from finding out the truth.
The company's
> behavior got so bad that the FCC fined it for
obstruction of justice.
>
> The investigation in Street View uncovered a dark
side to Google. But
> as alarming as it was, Google's Street View
wiretapping scheme
> was just a tiny experimental program compared
Google's bread
> and butter: a massive surveillance operation that
intercepts and
> analyzes terabytes of global Internet traffic every
day, and then
> uses that data to build and update complex
psychological profiles
> on hundreds of millions of people all over the world
--- all of it
> in real time. You've heard about this program. You
probably interact
> with it every day. You call it Gmail.
>
> Google launched Gmail in 2004. It was the company's
first major "log
> in" service and was aimed at poaching email
users from Microsoft
> and Yahoo. To do that, Google offered one gigabyte
of free storage
> space standard with every account. It was an insane
amount of data
> at the time --- at least several hundred times more
space than what
> was being offered by Yahoo or Hotmail --- and people
signed up en
> masse. At one point, Gmail's limited pre-public
release invites
> were so desirable that at one point they fetched
over $150 on eBay.
>
> To tech reporters
>
<nytimes.com/2004/05/13/technology/state-of-the-art-google-mail-virtue-lies-in-the-in-box.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm
> [8] Gmail's free email service was nothing short of
> revolutionary. New York Times tech columnist David
Pogue wrote:
> "One gigabyte changes everything. You no longer
live in terror that
> somebody will send you a photo, thereby exceeding
your two-megabyte
> limit and making all subsequent messages bounce back
to their
> senders."
>
> And what about the fact that Gmail scanned your
email correspondence
> to deliver targeted ads?
>
> Well, what of it?
>
> Gmail users handed over all their personal
correspondence to
> Google, giving the company to right to scan,
analyze, and retain in
> perpetuity their correspondence in return for a
gigabyte of storage,
> which even at that early stage already cost Google
only $2 per
> gigabyte <nytimes.com/2004/03/31/technology/31CND-GOOGLE.html
[9]
> per year.
>
> Selling the contents of our private and business
life to a for-profit
> corporation in return for half a Big Mac a year?
What a steal!
>
> You'd be hard pressed to find a bum who'd sell out
to Google that
> cheap. But most mainstream tech journalist weren't
that scrupulous,
> and lined up to boost Gmail to the public.
>
> "The only population likely not to be delighted
by Gmail are those
> still uncomfortable with those computer-generated
ads. Those people
> are free to ignore or even bad-mouth Gmail, but they
shouldn't try
> to stop Google from offering Gmail to the rest of
us. We know a
> good thing when we see it," wrote Pogue in
2004.
>
> But not everyone was as excited as Mr. Pogue.
>
> Several privacy groups, including the Electronic
Privacy Information
> Center, were alarmed by Gmail's vast potential for
privacy abuse
> <epic.org/privacy/gmail/agltr5.3.04.html[10]. In
particular, EPIC
> was concerned that Google was not restricting its
email scanning
> activities solely to its registered user base, but
was intercepting
> and analyzing the private communication of anyone
who emailed with
> a Gmail user:
>
> "Gmail violates the privacy rights of
> non-subscribers. Non-subscribers who e-mail a Gmail
user have
> 'content extraction' performed on their e-mail even
though they have
> not consented to have their communications
monitored, nor may they
> even be aware that their communications are being
analyzed," EPIC
> explained at the time <epic.org/privacy/gmail/faq.html#faq[11].
The
> organization pointed out that this practice almost
certainly violates
> California wiretapping statues --- which expressly
criminalizes
> the interception of electronic communication without
consent of
> all parties involved.
>
> What spooked EPIC even more: Google was not simply
scanning people's
> emails for advertising keywords, but had developed
underlying
> technology
<epic.org/privacy/gmail/patents/20040059712.pdf [12]
> to compile sophisticated dossiers of everyone who
came through
> its email system. All communication was subject to
deep linguistic
> analysis; conversations were parsed for keywords,
meaning and even
> tone
<nytimes.com/2004/06/21/technology/21google.html
> [13]; individuals were matched to real identities
using contact
> information stored in a user's Gmail address book;
attached documents
> were scraped for intel --- that info was then
cross-referenced with
> previous email interactions and combined with stuff
gleamed from
> other Google services, as well as third-party
sources...
>
> Here's are some of the things that Google would
> use to construct its profiles, gleamed from two
>
<google.de/patents/EP1634206A4?hl=de&cl=en[14] patents
>
<epic.org/privacy/gmail/patents/20040059712.pdf[12] company filed
> prior to launching its Gmail service:
>
> * Concepts and topics discussed in email, as well as
email attachments
> * The content of websites that users have visited
> * Demographic information --- including income, sex,
race, marital
> status
> * Geographic information
> * Psychographic information --- personality type,
values, attitudes,
> interests and lifestyle interests
> * Previous searches users have made
> * Information about documents a user viewed and or
edited by the users
> * Browsing activity
> * Previous purchases
>
> To EPIC, Google's interception and use of such
detailed personal
> information was clearly violation of California law,
and the
> organization called on California's Attorney General
promised to
> investigate <epic.org/privacy/gmail/caagack.pdf[15]
Google's Gmail
> service. The Attorney General promise to look into
the matter,
> but nothing much happened.
>
> Meanwhile, Gmail's user base continued to rocket. As
of this
> month, there are something like 425 million active
users around
> the world using email services. Individuals,
schools, universities,
> companies, government employees, non-profits --- and
it's not just
> Gmail anymore.
>
> After its runaway success with Gmail, Google
aggressively expanded
> its online presence, buying up smaller tech
companies and deploying
> a staggering number of services and apps. In just a
few years,
> Google had suddenly become ubiquitous, inserting
themselves into
> almost every aspect of our lives: We search through
Google, browse
> the Web through Google, write in Google, store our
files in Google
> and use Google to drive and take public transport.
Hell, even our
> mobile phones run on Google.
>
> All these services might appear disparate and
unconnected. To the
> uninitiated, Google's offering of free services ---
from email, to
> amazing mobile maps, to a powerful replacement for
Microsoft Office
> --- might seem like charity. Why give away this
stuff for free? But
> to think that way is to miss the fundamental purpose
that Google
> serves and why it can generate nearly $20 billion in
profits a year.
>
> The Google services and apps that we interact with
on a daily
> basis aren't the company's main product: They are
the harvesting
> machines that dig up and process the stuff that
Google really sells:
> for-profit intelligence.
>
> Google isn't a traditional Internet service company.
It isn't even an
> advertising company. Google is a whole new type of
beast: a global
> advertising-intelligence company that tries to
funnel as much user
> activity in the real and online world through its
services in order
> to track, analyze and profile us: it tracks as much
of our daily
> lives as possible --- who we are, what we do, what
we like, where we
> go, who we talk to, what we think about, what we're
interested in ---
> all those things are seized, packaged, commodified
and sold on the
> market --- at this point, most of the business comes
from matching
> the right ad to the right eyeballs. But who knows
how the massive
> database Google's compiling on all of us will be
used in the future.
>
> No wonder that when Google first rolled
> out Gmail in 2004, cofounder Larry Page refused
>
<theregister.co.uk/2004/04/03/google_mail_is_evil_privacy/ [16]
> to rule out that the company would never combine
people's search
> and browsing history with their Gmail account
profiles: "It might
> be really useful for us to know that information.
I'd hate to rule
> anything like that out." Indeed it was.
Profitable, too.
>
> It's been almost a decade since Google launched its
Gmail service,
> but the fundamental questions about the legality of
the company's
> surveillance operations first posed by EPIC have not
been resolved.
>
> Indeed, a class action lawsuit currently winding
>
<consumerwatchdog.org/resources/gmailcomplaint051613.pdf [17] its
> way through California federal court system shows
that we've not
> moved an inch.
>
> The complaint --- a consolidation of six separate
class action
> lawsuits that had been filed against Google in
California,
> Florida, Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania ---
accuses Google of
> illegally intercepting, reading and profiting off
people's private
> correspondence without compensation. The lawsuit
directly challenges
> Google's legal right to indiscriminately vacuum up
people's data
> without clear consent, and just might be the biggest
threat Google
> has ever faced.
>
> Here's how the New York Times described the case:
>
> Wiretapping is typically the stuff of spy dramas and
shady criminal
> escapades. But now, one of the world's biggest Web
companies,
> Google, must defend itself against accusations that
it is illegally
> wiretapping in the course of its everyday business
> --- gathering data about Internet users and showing
them related ads.
>
> ...The Gmail case involves Google's practice of
automatically
> scanning e-mail messages and showing ads based on
the contents of
> the e-mails. The plaintiffs include voluntary Gmail
users, people
> who have to use Gmail as part of an educational
institution and
> non-Gmail users whose messages were received by a
Gmail user. They
> say the scanning of the messages violates state and
federal
> antiwiretapping laws.
>
> Google has aggressively fought the lawsuit. It first
convinced a
> judge to put it under seal --- which redacted most
of the complaint
> and made it unavailable to public scrutiny --- and
then made a
> series of disingenuous arguments in an attempt to
get the get the
> lawsuit preemptively dismissed. Google's attorneys
didn't dispute
> its for-profit surveillance activities. What they
claimed was that
> intercepting and analyzing electronic communication,
and using
> that information to build sophisticated
psychological profiles,
> was no different than scanning emails for viruses or
spam. And then
> they made a stunning admission, arguing that as far
as Google saw
> it, people who used Internet services for communication
had "no
> legitimate expectation of privacy" --- and thus
anyone who emailed
> with Gmail users had given "implied
consent" for Google to intercept
> and analyze their email exchange.
>
> No expectation of privacy? Implied consent for
surveillance?
>
> Google's claims were transparently disingenuous, and
Judge Lucy
> Koh rejected them out of hand and allowed the
lawsuit to proceed.
>
> Unfortunately, it's difficult to comment on or
analyze the contents
> of the class action lawsuit filed against Google, as
the company
> redacted just about all of it. One thing is clear:
the complaint
> goes beyond simple wiretapping and brings into
question an even
> bigger concern: Who owns the digital personal
information about
> our lives --- our thoughts, ideas, interactions,
personal secrets,
> preferences, desires and hopes? And can all these
things be seized
> bit by bit, analyzed, packaged, commodified and then
bought and sold
> on the market like any other good? Can Google do
that? What rights
> do we have over our inner lives? It's scary and
crazy. Especially
> when you think kids born today: Their entire lives
will be digitally
> surveilled, recorded, analyzed, stored somewhere and
then passed
> around from company to company. What happens to that
information?
>
> What happens to all this data in the future should
be of serious
> concern. Not only because, with the right warrant
(or in many cases
> without) the data is available to law enforcement.
But also because
> in the unregulated hands of Google, our aggregated
psychological
> profiles are an extremely valuable asset that could
end us used
> for almost anything.
>
> EPIC points out that Google reservers the right to
"transfer all
> of the information, including any profiles created,
if and when it
> is merged or sold." How do we know that
information won't end up
> in some private background check database that'll be
available to
> your boss? How do we know this information won't be
hacked or stolen
> and won't fall into the hands of scammers and
repressive dictators?
>
> The answer is: We don't. And these tech companies
would rather keep
> us in the dark and not caring.
>
> Google's corporate leadership understands that
increased privacy
> regulations could torpedo its entire business model
and the company
> takes quite a lot of space on its SEC filing
disclosing the dangers
> to its investors:
>
> Privacy concerns relating to elements of our
technology could
> damage our reputation and deter current and
potential users from
> using our products and services...
>
> We also face risks from legislation that could be
passed in the
> future. For example, there is a risk that state
legislatures will
> attempt to regulate the automated scanning of email
messages in ways
> that interfere with our Gmail free
advertising-supported web mail
> service. Any such legislation could make it more
difficult for us to
> operate or could prohibit the aspects of our Gmail
service that uses
> computers to match advertisements to the content of
a user's email
> message when email messages are viewed using the
service. This could
> prevent us from implementing the Gmail service in
any affected states
> and impair our ability to compete in the email
services market...
>
> Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt has not been shy
about his company's
> views on Internet privacy: People don't have any,
nor should they
> expect it. "If you have something that you
don't want anyone to know,
> maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first
place," he infamously
> told CNBC in 2009. And he's right. Because true
Internet privacy
> and real surveillance reform would be the end of
Google.
>
> And not just Google, but nearly every major consumer
Silicon Valley
> company --- all of them feed people's personal data
one way or
> another and depend on for-profit surveillance for
survival.
>
> Which brings me to Silicon Valley's "Reform
Government Surveillance"
> project.
>
> The fact that the biggest, most data-hungry
companies in Silicon
> Valley joined up in a cynical effort to shift
attention away from
> their own for-profit surveillance operations and
blame it all on big
> bad government is to be expected. What's surprising
is just how many
> supposed journalists and so-called privacy advocates
fell for it.
>
> This article first appeared on PandoDaily.
>
> Until our next issue stay cool and remain low
profile!
>
> Privacy World
>
> PS - Need an inexpensive (US$135 plus shipping) NO
id ATM card that
> allows you to withdraw cash from PayPal and BitCoin?
No problem,
> just send us an email with "$135 ATM" in
your subject heading.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe,
send a blank message to
PrivacyWorld-on@mail-list.com
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to
PrivacyWorld-off@mail-list.com
> To change your email address, send a message to
> with your
old address in the Subject: line
> To contact the list owner, send your message to
>
> Privacy World, 502 Hotta-kata, 3-6-10 Hirusaido,
Kagurazaka, Shinjyuku-ku,
> Tokyo Japan
