Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by IanCal 4663 days ago
> Google “unlawfully opens up, reads, and acquires the content of people’s private email messages”

I don't understand the concept of "opening up" an email. Comparing digital things to physical objects is always going to cause problems because they're not.

> “all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing.”

Of course they must, in at least some sense. They've got to be processed by various programs to store them in the right place. We also expect them to be scanned and filtered for spam and viruses, which require them being processed.

> The lawsuit notes that the company even scans messages sent to any of the 425 million active Gmail users from non-Gmail users who never agreed to the company’s terms.

1) Of course it must, for the reasons above.

2) If you send anything to someone else, they can do pretty much whatever they want with it. You're sending an email to someone that has promised to let another company scan it.

2 comments

> "I don't understand the concept of "opening up" an email"

You can look at it same way as you look at "opening a file". Similarly, "read" and "acquire" can also be thought of in a digital way, rather than analog and it's perfectly comparable in this context in my opinion. It's also true, they do "open", "read" and "acquire" contents, even if done by automated, digital means (programs, algos). Now whether that is or should be unlawful, I don't know.

But the servers have to process the emails in some sense, they've got to read the headers for a start. They also must touch and process the body of the email. You simply cannot process emails without "opening them up", such a comparison makes absolutely no sense.
You had mentioned that you don't understand the concept of "opening up mail". I was just making a point that it is in fact quite comparable (your analog vs digital argument).

In essence though, I don't disagree with you. It must be done for email to work at all.

"Acquiring" though, depending on how you interpret it, doesn't, unless we want spam prevention, custom filters, search etc, which obviously people are used to.

The bigger question is whether doing that to show ads is legal or not.

I don't think "opening" applies at all, it suggests that they are somehow "closed" beforehand and they could be processed while keeping them closed. That's not the case.

> The bigger question is whether doing that to show ads is legal or not.

Yes, or possibly "do we want it to be legal?". We've not really been using this tech for that long, certainly not at this scale. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that we need clarification on what we want the laws to allow and forbid.

Given that the display is happening from Google's server, then clearly there is absolutely no way for that to work without Google opening the file!

It's richly bizarre that people have just today started to think about this process...

> The bigger question is whether doing that to show ads is legal or not

What is the difference between "opening them" for full text search or spam filtering and "opening them" to use them for advertising?

No difference in the opening. The difference is in what they do with the data, which is what I believe the lawsuit is about.
If this is is what the lawsuit says: “unlawfully opens up, reads, and acquires the content of people’s private email messages”

There is no difference between opening for spam filtering from opening for ad serving

Of course they must, in at least some sense. They've got to be processed by various programs to store them in the right place. We also expect them to be scanned and filtered for spam and viruses, which require them being processed.

The devil is on the details, as usual. If Google scans them with the intention of selling ads then they probably keep a dossier of your preferences or the type of emails you receive/d based on keywords. On a more personal level they could know that you have AIDS, are pregnant, going through marital problems...

Also NSA, DEA, FBI, IRS, The ObamaCare Enforcement Squad the local Sherif and who knows what will love to have a historical view of your emails, even after your emails have been deleted and forgotten. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/09/dea-pays-t-a... . Do you trust what Google tells you about the process? If it's there it's ready to be accessed, leaked, stolen or taken with an administrative subpoena.

But yeah, if they tell you upfront and don't violate any laws, I guess it's OK. Of course people and competitors reserve the right to point it out and criticize it.

> The devil is on the details, as usual.

It is, which is why seeing such poor analogies ruins the debate. There is an interesting discussion to be had, but we're doomed to be stuck in a mire of examples with postcards being delivered by scrooglers.

Processing emails in some fashion simply has to happen. But after that it becomes a tradeoff.

I might be fine with having targeted adverts within gmail, but not on external sites. I might be fine with it anywhere, and consider my emails to be equivalent to loyalty cards.

> On a more personal level they could know that you have AIDS, are pregnant, going through marital problems...

Of course they would, the data is all there. It has to be, it's in the data you're asking them to store on their servers! What they do with that information is the important thing.

> If it's there it's ready to be accessed, leaked, stolen or taken with an administrative subpoena.

As it is anywhere.

I am asking them to store it there but not to catalog it and make a note somewhere that this person has AIDS, is divorced, lost his house in foreclosure etc etc etc.

That's the difference. It's almost the difference between whispering something at a bar vs posting it online, where it stays for ever.

Please stop making physical analogies, those are nothing alike.

You've given them all your documents and asked them to index, filter and store them.

> not to catalog it and make a note somewhere that this person has AIDS, is divorced, lost his house in foreclosure etc etc etc.

But remember the raw data is always going to be there, so anyone with access to the raw data could draw these conclusions too.

> make a note somewhere that this person has AIDS, is divorced, lost his house in foreclosure

And how exactly can do that?

Advertising profile?