California Senate Passes Preemptive Strike Against Gmail 540
Technically Inept writes "The California Senate has passed a measure to force Google to limit search capabilities on Gmail to real-time, with no records. What if I want them to search my mail in advance?"
Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
California Legislature: "OMG Google knows I'm searching for pr0n, I'd better pass a law against it!"
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand what the big deal is regardless. I mean, if you're sending plain text e-mails, they're going through multiple third parties anyway. If any of them wanted to keep and read your e-mail, nothing is stopping them now except encryption. What's different about Google other than they explicitly tell you they're going to do it.
I'm all for privacy, but all this hoopla just sounds like a bunch of techno-losers who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but think it's a good "issue" to start screaming at the top of their lungs on.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is, that Google and other free email services have a commercial interest in it, while said third parties, with all probability, have not.
Creating the infrastructure to scan emails requires an investment, which has to pay off.
Those third parties are providing the bandwith for several parties. I assume that most companies wouldn't be very happy about having their connection tapped. So, not scanning any traffic is in their own commercial interest.
The legal implications by having the ability to scan emails and/or traffic are another reason they have no interest.
OTOH, Google (and others) can easily use that profiled data to generate revenue by targeting ads on pages they generate. Said third parties have no such mean.
Google and others are merely prohibited from profiling. They can still generate revenue from targeting ads by real-time data, like they do with their search-engine.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody HAS to use GMail so what is the real problem here? Don't send mail to people with gmail.com accounts if you don't want it archived and scanned. Duh.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you send your email off, it's no longer yours to control. This follows the laws of nature and the laws of the land.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:4, Interesting)
So yes, if someone has a gmail account, and you're paranoid about some (as far as we know) non-scientient technology reading your email, then don't send them an email. But if I ever get email from you, I'm going to post it to a webpage now. In fact, I might even post your slashdot comment.. Oh wait, it'll already be scanned by the big bad google. And other companies, most of which I trust a hell of a lot less than google.
If you're paranoid, make it so google can't read it (encrypted attachment) and get on with your life. If you care that much though, this probably isn't good enough for you, though I don't know why.
Note: I enjoy the freedoms of encryption and understand paranoia. I'm not saying that not wanting peope to read it is necessarily a bad thing, just that it's not you that should have to consent to google scanning it, it's the recipient, like always.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
And so, with my choice to not use Google email but the need to send a message to someone who does use Google email that means I don't have a choice whether or not my message is scanned by Google before it reaches the intended recipient.
It's like, any letter you write to your aunt in Town X is read before they deliver it. My aunt may not mind her mail being read, but I do, and so by her choice of no privacy I have no other choice but to not write to her if I want my message to be private.
It's a moot point, as far as I'm concerned. But I do understand the concern. There's no consent from those sending to a google email that their message is to be read by any one or any thing other than the intended recipient.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:5, Insightful)
And so, with my choice to not use Google email but the need to send a message to someone who does use Google email that means I don't have a choice whether or not my message is scanned by Google before it reaches the intended recipient.
If you are sending e-mail, assume it is read by a dozen people between you and the recipient. Why do so many people assume that cuz there's no paper trail, there's absolute privacy? Have we learned nothing about technology around here? E-mail is not private, has never been private, will never be private.
It's _VERY_ different from a letter to your aunt that is sealed in an envelope and is strictly private. In fact, it's a federal offense to open said letter if you aren't the authorized recipient. Your letter analogy only applies to encrypted e-mail communication, which is used, I'm guessing, less than 10% of the time.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, the aunt in question still has the right to show your letter to someone else, scan it and publish it on the internet, ask someone else to open it for her, etc.
In other words, the sender still has no control over the letter once he has sent it to the recipient. The responsibility falls on the recipient to do what she wants with the letter. And it seems to me, people are trying to control something they never had the control of in the first place.
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:3, Insightful)
what's worse? a tax and spend liberal or a borrow and spend neocon?
I think a borrow and spend neocon is worse because WE have to pay interest on THEIR accumulating debt.
Link to the detailed reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
Read more than the intro paragraph (it is BS), the detailed analysis is quite interesting. The big argument is that even though the Gmail account holder agreed to have their email profiled, the other party(ies) did not.
Now one has to think! If MS tried this, we would cry foul. But Google is one of the good guys...but guess what, they are going public! In a few years, they might be owned by Bill Gates, The Home Shopping Network, or the Direct Marketing Association.
Re:Link to the detailed reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Link to the detailed reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they did. They consented to let me use it when they emailed it to me, and I consented to let Google scan it for keywords (which is a tad bit different from 'profiling', she obviously has no understanding of the technology) so they could determine which ads to give me (as opposed to trying to sell me generic ads than I will never click on).
"'[...]With respect to Google's
In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
Re:In other news (Score:3, Funny)
The lawmakers are concerned about logging in to Gmail from a public area because someone around them may see the ads for 'cheap hooker now' and 'discount for bulk viagara purchase' ads generated after Gmail scans their archived e-mail.
Off shoring? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Off shoring? (Score:2)
Re:Off shoring? (Score:2)
Your information already has a passport (Score:3, Informative)
Italics mine.
At least Google is up front about this, unlike your bank, credit card company, tax preparer, and medical records transcriber. This kind of notification is what California should ha
You can sign away rights, yes? :-) (Score:2)
At least for us booring nerds that are mainly interested in hiding how booring we are? :-)
Re:You can sign away rights, yes? :-) (Score:2)
Re:You can sign away rights, yes? :-) (Score:2, Interesting)
You can sell yourself into slavery of sorts, in this case to an addictive substance and the slave drivers that produce and sell them... just so long as said substance is legal.
You can sign away your rights. Yes. (Score:2)
You can't contract (Score:2)
What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that companies ought to have a right to exchange services with people on terms that both sides agree on. If Google wants to offer a gig of email in exchange for being able to stick context-oriented ads in it, they ought to be able to do so -- if you don't like it, buy your own damn email.
Hell, if Google wanted to offer me a gig of email in exchange for being able to read my messages, print out the embaressing ones and pass them around their offices, they should be able to do that, too. If I don't like it, I don't have to sign up.
But no, here in CA we never met a regulation or inhabition to business that we didn't like. God forbid the legislature not spend yet more time not fixing our insane budget problems.
* - Don't kid yourself. We still beat the hell out of your crappy state/country.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times do we need to say this? Jeez
Jurisdiction Issue (Score:2)
Even if you ignore the goodness or badness of the restrictions this California resolution imposesit's a big problem. Trying to program to obey 51 different groups of technical ignoramuses has to be hell.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
-B
Not to argue with extremes, but... (Score:2)
Just a point. Though I have a gmail account, and love it, and think it's ridiculous that CA would pass a law against it.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re California: If Cally is so cool, why are you all migrating to Colorado?
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's a good company. They've never done anything that has raised my eyebrows before in terms of violating someone's privacy, or anything really. It's not like humans are going to scan your emails and decide what ads to put next to them. (Side note: the article was misleading in that it said gmail would place ads IN your email. Pure FUD. They're NEXT TO your email, which is way different). The whole system is automated, just like their AdSense program. It figures out what ads to display based ont he content of the web page.
The only argument that I've heard that makes any sense is if someone is against Gmail beacuse of this ad thing, so they dont sign up for the service, but then all their friends do so when they send email tot hem, their emails are scanned for content, even though they're not signed up with the service. Seriously though who cares. Google's not going to do anything like sell your email content to third party's so they can email your ads and stuff. People need to stop getting their panties all in a knot.
Re:No kidding (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, messages scanned for content by the receiving mail server... nothing at all like these MailScanner [mailscanner.info] and SpamAssassin [spamassassin.org] packages that we have installed on our mailservers, that scan every piece of received mail for content.
(and we don't even tell the sender that we're "reading" their mail!)
RTFA, spam filters are allowed (Score:4, Insightful)
The ads will be an endless source of hilarity (Score:3, Funny)
Email body:Google ad:
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. I don't consider protecting people from their own stupidity to be a major legislative priority -- all that ever does is end up hurting the rest of us who have some detectible level of brain activity.
Re:Uh, thats what 99% of laws are (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no vested interest for ANYONE but despots and tyrants to allow people to live their lives completely ignorant. The less you require people to know and pay atten
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid people deserve to be held responsible for their stupid actions. What is it w/the thinking that nobody is responsible for what they do, because someone "tricked" them or whatever the fuck the reason is this week. If you don't know what you're getting into, ask someone that does. Even st
YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, the founding fathers thought that this was our responsibility [cornell.edu].
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not clear if we agree or not, but I am certain that it is the case that some limits to contract law are reasonable for reasons other than just to protect the stupid. I'm not sure what you mean, so I'll just go on and hope we agree by the end. Reading some of the replies to your comment, it is clear that some people aren't thinking carefully enough about what they are writing.
It is not the case that individuals can always negotiate a fair contract with corporations, and it is disingenious to cast the transaction as one between equals. The power differential is severe, and does not favour the individual. To observe this in action, try to negotiate your own cell phone package, or a la carte channel access from your cable company, or to buy half-life licenses without buying the game CD. The only decision is to take what is already offered, or leave it if what is offered is not exactly what you want. There is no chance to say "Do you have this in green?" or "Could I just pay you $10/mo for this instead of being spammed?" or "Please, not in the face!" - you are not dealing with a person and cannot negotiate.
Furthermore, it is common practice to ratchet offerings across an entire industry so that the consumer is not offered any choices. This is why you cannot get a credit card without signing away your financial privacy, and even why it is very hard to get some kinds of work without signing away your rights to spurious ideas you have while coincidentally at the office.
It is of note that some very popular laws in Canada and the USA agree with the viewpoint I am expressing. It is impossible to contractually sign away your human rights, for example. Further, it is impossible under our law to contractually agree to work under conditions that are prohibited by the labour laws (ie, you cannot agree to work for less than a minimum wage, hand-pack asbestos, etc).
The bottom line is that what we consider "rights" are in fact things that can be taken away, and it is simply the overwhelming will of the people that nobody should allow them to be taken away. If we permit people to contractually agree not to be protected by this will, then these "rights" are meaningless as we can be forced by circumstances (that can be created by others, note) to sign away our rights. Consider for example the case of the minimum wage: The majority of the populations of Canada and the USA seem to agree that there are wages that provide a standard of living below which nobody should be forced to work. If the law allows me to sign away my right to do so, then I may choose to work for that wage rather than go hungry - however by my stated assumption, nobody should have to make that choice (the astute will notice that this does not imply a solution; discussion of solutions to this problem are beyond the scope of this post). History backs this up; consider the living situation of the industrial world prior to the labour movement, with killing duty cycles, punishing labour conditions, child labour, etc. The 40-hour work week, the minimum working age, and the weekend are all products of that movement, and both are essentially constraints on contract law.
One of the central problems with capitalism is that it only works if we assume perfect or near-perfect competition. This does not happen in reality. As a caveat, the problem with many forms of socialism is that they only work if we assume perfect or near-perfect cooperation, which also does not happen in reality. I'm sorry, but it turns out there are no simple answers and it is likely that neither extreme socialism nor libertarianism are the answer in the real world.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want to pollute my body with cigarettes, booze, caffeine, fat, and sugars... I should be able to... (mmmmm... Irish coffee...)
If I want to allow anyone access to my computer, I should be able to. If people can't understand what they're doing, why is it my job to protect them? (Barring when they're doing something that harms me in some way.)
We don't need more laws... we need smarter people...
Nephilium
Age does not always bring wisdom, bu
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be the first time that a law body as tried to regulate something outside of its jurisdiction.
Little overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this need legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with it, rather, I am just pointing out why they did it.
Re:The reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares about your problem? If you email-me, I have the right to publish your email on my web site, period.
Can they even do that.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Initial thoutghts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this law necessary if they disclose such practices? Isn't it up to the consumer not to use the product?
Time for google not to offer gmail in cali.
Just knee-jerk thoughts after reading the article.
Okay, no gmail for California (Score:5, Insightful)
But what's the point of a law? Nobody is forcing you to use gmail. If you're worried about privacy, don't use gmail. Use Hotmail, Yahoo!, Hushmail,
Re:Good thinking there, shooter. (Score:3, Insightful)
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't an OS, it's email. I'll start to worry the day google implements GMTP (google mail transport protocol) until then, as a californian, I call our state govt. a steaming pile of shit.
Too bad we can't use Google to... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Too bad we can't use Google to... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you mean "search for"?
advanced search (Score:5, Funny)
What if I want them to search my mail in advance?
Contact the NSA [nsa.gov] and ask for "Mr. Echelon".
Not exactly against Google (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a good thing, in my opinion, because you know as soon as Google announced they were going to do it and let people know about it, hundreds of others figured it would be a good idea to do it and not say anything and then sell email information to advertisers.
And Google approved the legistation as well. It is *NOT* a Bad Thing.
Disclosure good, forced terms bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
It *is* wrong, however, to force a company to abide by certain terms in regards to totally legal activities.
Let's say that AT&T came out with a new cell plan tomorrow: You can call anyplace with your phone for as long as you want anytime for free. Beforehand, though, you have to listen to an ad for some company and press in a code they mention to prove you listened to the ad.
Should I have the right to sign up for this service? Of course I should -- I'm bartering my time and attention rather than my money, but it's a fair (and legal) trade.
What if AT&T offered the same deal, except that they wanted to be able to listen in on my call if they wanted to. Should I still have the right to sign up? Should I still have the right to decide if I'd rather spend $40 a month on my phone or give up my privacy?
I mean, I'm an adult. WTF does the government get off making these decisions for me, esp. when the people making the laws are a bunch of idiots to begin with?
Re:Disclosure good, forced terms bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with the point you were making, but this line is pure nonsense. Forcing people (or companies) not to do certain activities that were formerly totally legal is the whole point of making laws. When laws against (say) monopolistic practices were proposed, they were also restricting totally legal activities.
Re:Disclosure good, forced terms bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a grey area here. The net is infrastructure just like the phone system or the highway system or the mail system. As such, the government (federal government at least, and perhaps the state government too) has not only a right, but also a responsibility to regulate to some degree how it works and what we should be able to expect from it.
E-mail is one of the most widely used services on the net, even if you toss out all the spam. The general public uses it without necessarily knowing how it works, and there's a widespread presumption that even if e-mail isn't exactly guaranteed to be private, it's also generally not parsed and analyzed by the service providers. Given that, it seems reasonable for a government to try to protect that expectation.
I don't know if it'll work or not -- it seems like there's probably plenty of room for a legal challenge. But it also doesn't seem like a huge obstacle, and I can think of a dozen ways to abide by the regulation and still implement exactly the same sort of advertising model that Google is trying to use.
Re:Not exactly against Google (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is patently absurd.
Seriously, think about what it means to say, you can't store mail in a database. Ok, so hotmail is illegal in California? They certainly store mail in a database and perform searches against it...
The interest
reminds me of union negociation... (Score:2, Funny)
You put pressure on the boss now, making a strike to "prepare the negociations" even if they are not started yet.
*sigh*
Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a break, this is just taking it too far, what next, making it illegal to eat McDonalds because it's bad for you?
Sounds like it already is (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill also would bar Gmail form collecting personal information from e-mails and giving any information to third parties. "
Doesn't Google state that GMail already works this way? So in effect they are legislating it to do only what it already does. Unless Google turns evil and wants to invade our privacy, they won't mind at all.
Ok, what are these people thinking? (Score:2)
It's not like having a GMail account is a right or anything; If you don't want the ads, don't use GMail. Simple.
Surprising, the Feds will be all over Gmail (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately experience shows that Google doesn't much care to help the USG.
Not the government's job... (Score:3, Insightful)
Searches in Real Time? (Score:2)
I'm glad (Score:5, Funny)
Pssst....Hey Cali (Score:2)
California laws? (Score:2)
Re:California laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
- It has to pass the Assembly
- It has to be signed by the Governator.
Lots of Weird Crap gets through one house and then dies. If Google doesn't have enough cash to buy^H^H^H lobby a sufficient number of Assembly Members to block this, they're in way worse financial straits than everyone thinks.Ridiculous (Score:2)
If you live in California, I advise you to write the bill's sponsor, Liz Figueroa [ca.gov] and ask her to find something better to do with her time and your tax dollars. In case her page is Slashdotted you can always send her an email. [mailto]
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're so concerned about your privacy that you're worried about what your recipient is going to do with his/her email, it might be time for you to start making phone calls.
What!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is a private company and they offer a free -- FREE -- service to users who agree to some terms and conditions of use. These users will most likely be very happy to use this service.
Now can anyone tell me why should the govt even consider thinking about voting anything concerning Gmail!?
No one is FORCED to use it. It's not like a Govt agency decides to send you spam based on your credit report and your annual income... Google is private and the users are free to use it or not.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. I can't. Nothing justifies the intervention of the government in a free, web-based service. Nothing at all. Google does not hide anything and is not violating any law.
The only basis for the vote is that "Google is huge", or something like that. It's just one step away from voting a bill against, say, an automotive email newsletter that contains car ads; or any other free service on the web for that matter.
They just should not have any jurisdiction over the internet... Just screw them. Or better yet: patent the bill and sue them for copyright infringement. I just can't believe those daily stupidities....
Re:What!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now can anyone tell me why should the govt even consider thinking about voting anything concerning General Motors!?
No one is FORCED to use their cars. General motors is private and the users are free to use it or not.
Hopefully you can see from the example above that regulation is legitimate. With any product or service, people should be able to assume that it meets certain base requirements. That most definately includes a reasonable level of privacy.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Per-company laws??? (Score:3, Interesting)
In defense of the state... (Score:3, Interesting)
lobby (Score:3, Funny)
Government once again proves... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, just like CANSPAM stopped spam. (it didn't)
Are you tired of government doing things like this? Me too.
That's why I've join the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]. Imagine 20K liberty minded people all standing up for freedom, willing to be politcally active, and using technology and common sense to achieve a free society. We'll advocate for the end of victimless crime laws (no more drug laws, sex laws, nanny laws), allow privacy tools like encryption, and reduce the size government down to as small as we can make it, lowering taxes, and always respect the rights of those around us. Are you even mildly libertarian? Do you believe that this country is becoming more and more about 'You aren't allowed unless the state says so?' Join us, and help achieve liberty in your lifetime.
WTF is this actually about? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, this apparently describes an earlier draft, because this somewhat better article [siliconvalley.com] says the bill is about amassing personal information (ie, keeping email that's been deleted) and sharing it with third parties. Which are much more legitimate concerns, but have nothing to do with the targeted ad and search features of Gmail.
So what's the real story? It almost sounds like the revised bill is just a cover for Senator Figueroa's embarrassing early draft.
No Indexes? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason GMail is appealing is that I can apply the power of Google (which is built on indexing content) to my mail. *sigh*
Putting on my tin-foil hat for just a moment... (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this extreme anti-Google privacy concern crap is so suspicious.
Of all things to be concerned about in regards to privacy, a free, web-based email service seems hardly enough to even loose any sleep over. I can think of a TON of other privacy concerns that would and should come miles before a GMail account.
Which leads me to believe that there's more going on here than we know and realize. Specifically, at least two well-known companies with a lot^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ENORMOUS lobbying power would have reason to want Google's GMail to fail -- Hotmail, Yahoo. And we all know what kind of anti-competitive tactics one of those is known for.
All of this blatant extremist attitude towards GMail could stem from these facts. Since I'm wearing my hat, I'd wager that it probably does.
In any regard, if I was a California citizen, I would be e-mailing these so-called representatives and inform them that they would not be receiving my vote next election and that I would be spreading the word to my friends, neighbors and family.
More Information for your reading (dis)pleasure (Score:3, Interesting)
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/senator/figueroa/
(Type "gmail" into the search box")
She also has a convenient Feeback option which you can use to educate her, or share your thoughts.
Luckily amendments to the bill bring it into line with what Google was going to do anyway.
-Ian Danforth
The text of the actual bill (Score:5, Informative)
BILL NUMBER: SB 1822 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 20, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Senator Figueroa
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to add Section 1798.87 to Title
1.81.15 (commencing with Section 1798.88) to Part 4 of Division 3 of
the Civil Code, relating to privacy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1822, as amended, Figueroa. Privacy: social security
numbers: sales online communications
Existing law protects the privacy of personal information,
including customer records and social security numbers. Existing law
prohibits a person or entity located in California from initiating
or advertising in unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements, as
defined, and prohibits a person or entity not located in California
from initiating or advertising in unsolicited commercial e-mail
advertisements sent to a California e-mail address.
This bill would prohibit a provider of e-mail or instant messaging
services, as defined, that serves California customers, from
reviewing or evaluating the content of a customer's e-mail or instant
messages, except as specified. The bill would permit a provider of
e-mail or instant messaging services to review and evaluate the
content of a customer's outgoing e-mail or instant messages with the
customer's consent, and would permit a provider to review and
evaluate the content of incoming e-mail or instant messages only from
another subscriber to the same service and only when that subscriber
has consented to the procedure.
Existing law prohibits a person or entity, except as specified,
from publicly posting or displaying an individual's social security
number, and from printing that social security number on a card
required for the individual to access products or services.
This bill would provide that a person or entity that sells a
social security number is strictly liable to the person to whom the
social security number applies for any and all damages that directly
or indirectly result from the sale. The bill would except specified
transactions from its provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 1798.87 is added to the Civil Code, to
SECTION 1. Title 1.81.15 (commencing with Section 1798.88) is
added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:
TITLE 1.81.15 PRIVACY OF ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS
1798.88. For the purpose of this title:
(a) "Electronic mail" or "e-mail" means an electronic message that
is sent to an e-mail address and transmitted between two or more
telecommunications devices, computers, or electronic devices capable
of receiving electronic messages, whether or not the message is
converted to hard copy format after receipt or is viewed upon
transmission or stored for later retrieval. "Electronic mail" or
"e-mail" includes electronic messages that are transmitted through a
local, regional, or global computer network.
(b) "Instant messaging service" means a service that alerts a
person when another person is online and allows them to communicate
with each other in current time in private, online areas.
(c) "Provider of electronic mail or instant messaging service"
means any person, including an Internet service provider, that is an
intermediary in sending or receiving electronic mail or instant
messages or that provides to users of the electronic mail or instant
messaging service the ability to send or receive electronic mail or
instant messages.
(d) "Spam" means an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement
Why is there so much AGAINST this law? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) This bill according to everything I can see only restricts Google to how it can advertise. It can advertise on demand as emails are brought up, but what it can't do is create a massive indexed database with personal information based on emails I send with which to shell out advertisements to me. Why aren't more people scared to death of a database like that? We bitch and moan about governments creating databases like that, and giving up information to advertisers, why aren't we scared of this?
2) Everyone here is saying "if you don't like it, don't sign up for it." Great, but what happens when Yahoo, MSN, Hotmail, AOL, etc, start doing it themselves? It makes it a lot more serious, especially if all those guys now have databases with personal information. My nice local ISP doesn't have that problem, but consumers are decent people who just don't have time to learn all this computer shit like everyone else, so they use hotmail. Go easy on them.
3) Does anyone one have a link to this law... PLEASE? People claim to have "read" this law but I'm too damn lazy to go searching for it when I've never even bothered to go to the California website to check it out. If there's no link here how are people making real comments on it... flamers usually don't usually read this stuff anyway so pardon me if I don't trust the Slashdot crowd
4) This isn't restricting if Gmail can advertise, just how and what it does with personal information. There are already several laws and practices on the books about personal information. Collecting personal information is a huge boon to any major company because then they can shove ads down your throat, despite what most people truly want. Doing the wrong thing with personal information gets some companies in hot water but a lot of times it creates a huge windfall for that same company.
Contact info for the good Senator ;-) (Score:3, Informative)
Capital Office:
(916) 445-6671
Fax (916) 327-2433
District Office:
(510) 413-5960
Fax (510) 413-5965
E-mail: Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov
Welcome to The Twilight Zone (Score:4, Funny)
And the /. crowd is up in arms AGAINST the legislation? Somebody tell me what they put in my water supply.
Re:Welcome to The Twilight Zone (Score:3, Insightful)
Google == Trusted Friend.
Government == Get more foil.
Passing laws against products that dont exist (Score:3, Insightful)
If we are going to start passing laws against "possible products" why don't we go into the research labs of Microsoft or Orcale or Sun or RedHat or whomever....write down all the things we object to and then pass laws to restrict their development. THEN we'll all be safe and secure! Riiiight
Wait until it comes out...then bitch and moan, but to do so while it's in development is goofy. Ideas (even bad ones) are routinely batted around inside places like google and other companies. Just because you see them in alpha or beta does not MEAN you are going to see them in the final.
So go get your own email (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have a right to free email. In fact, I would go so far as to say there ain't no such thing -- you're paying for it one way or another. If you find one certain payment method objectionable, don't use it.
No, Text of bill (Score:3, Informative)
The text of the bill is here [ca.gov]. The tracking information for the bill is here [ca.gov].
For everyone wondering, the bill explicitly allows reading email for filtering spam and viruses.