http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
I just can't understand this issue.
Why is google less trustworthy than microsoft or yahoo? Or digitalmediatree for that matter?
Or what about AT&T? They save every SMS message sent to or from an AT&T mobile user *forever*, and there is already a case where they have turned over this info in court. Would the author suggest not SMSing any AT&T users?
The internet, by definition, is insecure. If you want security use PGP encryption. Simple. End of problem. Otherwise people should assume that any traffic going across the internet is open to snooping. Certainly the NSA (who this article seems very worried about) can get your email traffic without google's help!
It's not that I don't think there is a potential for abuse, it's just that the potential seems exactly the same as in every other case (except for encrypted transmissions.) So why are so many people concerned about google? (and not, say, Microsoft - a convicted monopolist?)
Maybe the fear is based on Google having done its job too well in the past. They've kind of transformed the Net, made blogging a social force, and no says "I'll altavista you." Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that. A gig of email in exchange for a consensual full-cavity search for advertisers sounds like a Faustian bargain to me. Optimally you'd want your email in a lot of different places, keep moving it around, delete as much as you can, and of course assume no privacy. Make it harder to detect patterns or allow bogus assumptions to be made about you. I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring for email to be like snail mail--i.e., the thought of opening it is abhorrent to most people. Ads and official searches may be inevitable, but I can't see volunteering for them.
|
- tom moody 6-21-2004 10:15 am
I just can't understand this issue.
Why is google less trustworthy than microsoft or yahoo? Or digitalmediatree for that matter?
Or what about AT&T? They save every SMS message sent to or from an AT&T mobile user *forever*, and there is already a case where they have turned over this info in court. Would the author suggest not SMSing any AT&T users?
The internet, by definition, is insecure. If you want security use PGP encryption. Simple. End of problem. Otherwise people should assume that any traffic going across the internet is open to snooping. Certainly the NSA (who this article seems very worried about) can get your email traffic without google's help!
It's not that I don't think there is a potential for abuse, it's just that the potential seems exactly the same as in every other case (except for encrypted transmissions.) So why are so many people concerned about google? (and not, say, Microsoft - a convicted monopolist?)
- jim 6-21-2004 8:04 pm [add a comment]
Maybe the fear is based on Google having done its job too well in the past. They've kind of transformed the Net, made blogging a social force, and no says "I'll altavista you." Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that. A gig of email in exchange for a consensual full-cavity search for advertisers sounds like a Faustian bargain to me. Optimally you'd want your email in a lot of different places, keep moving it around, delete as much as you can, and of course assume no privacy. Make it harder to detect patterns or allow bogus assumptions to be made about you. I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring for email to be like snail mail--i.e., the thought of opening it is abhorrent to most people. Ads and official searches may be inevitable, but I can't see volunteering for them.
- tom moody 6-21-2004 10:18 pm [add a comment]