California wants to restrict Gmail

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm in a coffee house having lunch on my laptop right now. Court starts up again in 20 minutes.

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: 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.

Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm in a coffee house having lunch on my laptop right now. Court starts up again in 20 minutes.

Ok fine, you win.

 

[Argo]

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.

Don't argue man. People here think Google == God.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

You're so naive.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm in a coffee house having lunch on my laptop right now. Court starts up again in 20 minutes.

Ok fine, you win.

Dont worry, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well...

I post through a proxy somewhere in South Africa, I believe........



:Q

 

[SagaLore]

Hasn't California done enough to screw up their own state?

I say Google should move their company over to my state.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

Sure it can. My company has a policy - we reserve the right to scan or read any inbound or outbound mail, by manual or automated means. We explicitly state that we archive all of the data indefinitely. There is no clause wherein we guarantee that we will not sell or give any of the data to third parties.

This isn't illegal - it's our server, we own it, and if you want to send data through it in either direction, you've got to play by our rules. This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise.

How is Gmail really any different from any other mail service aside from the automated ads?

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

Sure it can. My company has a policy - we reserve the right to scan or read any inbound or outbound mail, by manual or automated means. We explicitly state that we archive all of the data indefinitely. There is no clause wherein we guarantee that we will not sell or give any of the data to third parties.

This isn't illegal - it's our server, we own it, and if you want to send data through it in either direction, you've got to play by our rules. This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise.

How is Gmail really any different from any other mail service aside from the automated ads?

Well said Jzero, I didnt have the patience to type that out.

 

[Ness]

This is so stupid. There are probably idiots in the government thinking that some guy just sits around reading all the incoming emails and decides what ads to put in, then grabs all the emails and signs them up for spam.

People read too much into TOS. TOS are there to protect companies from the lawsuit-happy individuals that have run rampant for a couple of decades now. I seriously doubt anyone at google has any intention of just taking the list of names signed up for gmail and selling them off.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm in a coffee house having lunch on my laptop right now. Court starts up again in 20 minutes.

Ok fine, you win.

Dont worry, I'm not a lawyer.

The lawyers I know would be able to spell "algorithm".

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Modeps

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Modeps
I'm in a coffee house having lunch on my laptop right now. Court starts up again in 20 minutes.

Ok fine, you win.

Dont worry, I'm not a lawyer.

The lawyers I know would be able to spell "algorithm".

I spell it my way because it's cooler, fgt.

 

[CPA]

Hey what do you expect from Democrats, they love to regulate everything.

 

[gordiflan]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

Sure it can. My company has a policy - we reserve the right to scan or read any inbound or outbound mail, by manual or automated means. We explicitly state that we archive all of the data indefinitely. There is no clause wherein we guarantee that we will not sell or give any of the data to third parties.

This isn't illegal - it's our server, we own it, and if you want to send data through it in either direction, you've got to play by our rules. This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise.

How is Gmail really any different from any other mail service aside from the automated ads?

By "my company" do you mean your place of employment? If that's the case then what I'm referring to is not the same. When you become employed you agree to a set of terms of employment, in which I'm sure you'll find specifications about email tracking. Also, in light of all the recent corporate scandals, the SEC has implemented certain rules and regulations regarding record keeping - specifcally email correspondance.

Also realize that your statements don't apply to google. "This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise." Your 'private enterprise' is using email to sustain its business practices, it's not using it as part of its business model. When you move from providing email for your employees, to providing email service to the public, you play by a completely different set of rules.

 

[episodic]

Slashdot has a big article on it now.

 

[Mo0o]

Seems legit to me. I wouldn't really want google scanning my emails anyways.

 

[BatmanNate]

The government does this anyway, except you don't agree to a TOS when you sign up.

 

[LordMorpheus]

wow, I'm going to include the word 'pron' in every message I send to a Gmail user from now on! It'll be great!

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: gordiflan

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: gordiflan
Right, but it can't be done legally (and it sure as hell isn't offered as a service) unless you have a court order or other government sanction.

Sure it can. My company has a policy - we reserve the right to scan or read any inbound or outbound mail, by manual or automated means. We explicitly state that we archive all of the data indefinitely. There is no clause wherein we guarantee that we will not sell or give any of the data to third parties.

This isn't illegal - it's our server, we own it, and if you want to send data through it in either direction, you've got to play by our rules. This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise.

How is Gmail really any different from any other mail service aside from the automated ads?

By "my company" do you mean your place of employment? If that's the case then what I'm referring to is not the same. When you become employed you agree to a set of terms of employment, in which I'm sure you'll find specifications about email tracking. Also, in light of all the recent corporate scandals, the SEC has implemented certain rules and regulations regarding record keeping - specifcally email correspondance.

Also realize that your statements don't apply to google. "This isn't the postal service, it's a private server owned by a private enterprise." Your 'private enterprise' is using email to sustain its business practices, it's not using it as part of its business model. When you move from providing email for your employees, to providing email service to the public, you play by a completely different set of rules.

The company he works for also stores INCOMING mail from people who did not agree to their terms because it is legal for them to do so.

It's real simple, if you're not ok with the way GMail works, don't USE it. This is just another case of California protecting its citizens from something they shouldn't need protection from (or their own stupidity, or both).

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Seems legit to me. I wouldn't really want google scanning my emails anyways.

So don't sign up for it.

Some people would not mind.