|
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. |
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.