California wants to restrict Gmail

[Modeps]

Cali rules.

California's Senate voted Thursday to support a bill to limit a new e-mail service by Google Inc. over concerns it could threaten the privacy of users.

California's state Senate approved the first-of-its-kind bill by a vote of 24-8 to restrict how Mountain View, California-based Google's upcoming free "Gmail" service could work once it is available in wide distribution.

The No. 1 Web search company's Gmail service, which will be supported by advertising and free for users when it launches for the public, is currently in beta testing.

Google had intended the service to scan e-mail for key words and concepts and use them to place targeted advertisements in personal messages.

The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.

The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties.

 

[minendo]

It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

Yeah, I agree.

They're treating Google like a God or other such powerful figure or something.. LOL.

 

[Anubis]

couldent you just use outlook or something similar to check a gmail account? so you woudl hve no adds and such

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

The problem is that the mails you receive are also scanned. That's what the problem is here in Europe IIRC. I don't have a problem with that mail service at all.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Anubis
couldent you just use outlook or something similar to check a gmail account? so you woudl hve no adds and such

Only if it's going to be POP3 accessible.

<-- Doesen't know anything about Gmail.

 

[episodic]

Up for awareness

:grumble;

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Ooh.

You're right.

I was going to post how it makes me feel uneasy, but with minendo's post, I agreed- If you don't like it, don't sign up.

But this raises many more concerns. I kinda agree with the article tone, now ...

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Anubis
couldent you just use outlook or something similar to check a gmail account? so you woudl hve no adds and such

Only if it's going to be POP3 accessible.

<-- Doesen't know anything about Gmail.

well lets hope so i use outlook to check like 9 email addys

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

Not everyone knows that the Emails sent to Gmail are being read.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

Not everyone knows that the Emails sent to Gmail are being read.

My point being if the user of the gmail account has a problem with emails being read, they will not give out that address to those who will send them email that they don't want automatically read.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

Not everyone knows that the Emails sent to Gmail are being read.

My point being if the user of the gmail account has a problem with emails being read, they will not give out that address to those who will send them email that they don't want automatically read.

I dont know about this, I dont believe there's anything that states that Gmail is going to keep any records of what they scan.

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

Lol, you're all about being simplistic, aren't you? So let's just cut off all communication with xyz then, huh?

Well the point here is that this bill is based on rules of law, probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help, especially considering the fact that what google is doing is potentially ILLEGAL.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Well the point here is that this bill is based on rules of law, probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help, especially considering the fact that what google is doing is potentially ILLEGAL.

How so? Using a computer algorythm to determine what ads to display? I dont find that illegal at all.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: minendo
It is not mandatory to sign up. You agree to their TOS so it is your problem.

No, not true. What happens to someone that doesn't use Gmail, but sends an email to someone that does? You didn't agree to their TOS, but all of a sudden your email is being "read" by a third party.

Then you don't send to that account. Ultimately the user of the email account agreed to Google's TOS.

What kind of backwards thinking is that? So you expect EVERYONE to know the agreements of every service even if they don't use it? Say someone with a Gmail account sends email to a yahoo account. When the person replies, their information is being logged. And the person responding didn't agree to ANY terms. As far as they are concerned, it is an email service like any other. Are you saying if a Gmail users doesn't care who they send email to, the person responsing should have those terms memorized even if they don't use the service?

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Well the point here is that this bill is based on rules of law, probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help, especially considering the fact that what google is doing is potentially ILLEGAL.

How so? Using a computer algorythm to determine what ads to display? I dont find that illegal at all.

Well, you're not a lawyer. Besides, I said potentially illegal.

Edit: As a sidenote, the actual scanning of emails isn't what's illegal. Server-side anti spam programs are working as we speak, all of which use algorithms to scan emails. What this proposed bill is suggesting, is that scanning the emails and then storing them is what's illegal.

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: gordiflan
probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help

You also pay for each letter you send.

 

[XZeroII]

The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.

The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties.

You guys are against this??? You want them to retain records of this and to send your info to third parties? You people are nuts.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Well the point here is that this bill is based on rules of law, probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help, especially considering the fact that what google is doing is potentially ILLEGAL.

How so? Using a computer algorythm to determine what ads to display? I dont find that illegal at all.

Well, you're not a lawyer. Besides, I said potentially illegal.

Edit: As a sidenote, the actual scanning of emails isn't what's illegal. Server-side anti spam programs are working as we speak. Presumably, scanning the emails and then storing them is what's illegal.

How do you know I'm not a lawyer?

 

[minendo]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.

The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties.

You guys are against this??? You want them to retain records of this and to send your info to third parties? You people are nuts.

Doesn't matter to me since I won't use the service.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.

The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties.

You guys are against this??? You want them to retain records of this and to send your info to third parties? You people are nuts.

I agree, but the question is whether the law has any say in it.

Since email has become much like and just as important as regular mail, I think it should.

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Well the point here is that this bill is based on rules of law, probably hinging on precendents such as the fact that it's a crime to open up someone else's mail. Suggesting to "not send to someone's account" doesn't help, especially considering the fact that what google is doing is potentially ILLEGAL.

How so? Using a computer algorythm to determine what ads to display? I dont find that illegal at all.

Well, you're not a lawyer. Besides, I said potentially illegal.

Edit: As a sidenote, the actual scanning of emails isn't what's illegal. Server-side anti spam programs are working as we speak. Presumably, scanning the emails and then storing them is what's illegal.

How do you know I'm not a lawyer?

Because it's a Friday afternoon and you're posting on an internet chat board instead of working.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: XZeroII

The bill by Democratic state Sen. Liz Figueroa would require Gmail to work only in real-time and would bar the service from producing records.

The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties.

You guys are against this??? You want them to retain records of this and to send your info to third parties? You people are nuts.

Doesn't matter to me since I won't use the service.

I dont have a use for gmail either, I run my own mail server. I just think it's stupid that people are so terrified of people keeping records of their email that they're gonna make a bill to stop that. I mean seriously, who really thinks this Internet thing is anonymous? Everything you do can be tracked.