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?"
In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, what's wrong with these people?
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.
I don't see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Little overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this need legislation? (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
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.
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.
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!"
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.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times do we need to say this? Jeez
Surprising, the Feds will be all over Gmail (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately experience shows that Google doesn't much care to help the USG.
Re:So go get your own email (Score:1, Insightful)
Not the government's job... (Score:3, 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.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: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, but it does lend perspective. -- Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
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 stupid people sometimes have smart friends. And if you're too fucking stupid to get along in society without royally fucking yourself over due to your own stupid decisions, then you deserve what you get.
Bottom line: people need to be held responsible for their own actions. The government should not be protecting us from our own stupidity. They're just hindering natural selection
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.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:advanced search (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that, it's likely that they have specified "for the purposes of advertising" in wording of the law - but the privacy concerns are exactly the same.
other e-mail to follow ... (Score:2, Insightful)
YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying I agree with it, rather, I am just pointing out why they did it.
Google's influence (Score:2, 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.
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: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 attention to, the less they will know and pay attention to. Want proof? Ask one hundred ranom people on the street to identify the president and vice president. I'd be surprised if you got over ten correct answers.
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.
RTFA, spam filters are allowed (Score:4, Insightful)
Complete loss of big picture (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me get this straight - you pass your thoughts through a medium that gets beamed all over the electromagnetic spectrum, passes through who knows how many private systems that backup their contents for millenia and are controlled by untold numbers of admins of unknown background
And you're worried about the idea that a box along the way would scan your email's content?
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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*
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (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.
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.
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:3, Insightful)
-B
Re:What!? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
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:Good thinking there, shooter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me... (Score:2, Insightful)
2) The internet is far more transparent (and is far more scannable by the common man) than the phone system. See (1).
3) Laws like this have a way of coming back to bite us in the ass. Suppose you want your emails scanned and routinely data-mined, for example. In such a case, there is no victim, so what good is the law?
I'm ok with laws that say that companies must make their privacy policies publicly readable, but laws that
Re:What, do lawmakers get paid per law now? (Score:1, Insightful)
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:The reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only here, apparently. (Score:1, Insightful)
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 current expressions of good intent, what history teaches is, if there is personal information available, someone will want to use it for marketing. '"
Yeah, that is exactly the point. So what? Marketing is not in itself evil, it provides us with many free services.
"If MS tried this, we would cry foul. "
Some people would cry foul if Microsoft gave money to starving children. I can hear it now, "M$ is trying to indoctrinate their evil monopoly on poor little children! We must stop them!" But that really has nothing to do with this debate. There is nothing wrong with this technology as Google plans on using it.
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!? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the California government voted to pass a bill sensoring all the speach of Ars-Fartsica, would you say it was OK simply because they were ELECTED???? That those who don't agree with the bill (probably nobody but you) could just vote them out of office?
This bill treads the dangerous waters of restricting the activities of a person or entity, not because such activities are dangerous or harmful to themselves or others, but because they just don't LIKE what google wants to do.
The law may be unique to Californians, but all Americans have an interest in the preservation of rights and common sense all across the U.S. Any time rights are infringed, it affects everyone in the U.S. and becomes of interest to everyone. Your claim that we should just "shut up this does not affect you," is completely irrational -- such events set precidents which eventually DO effect everyone. Basically, if you don't like that were not Californian's but we still express an intreset in the issue, then you can bite us.
The government has no rights -- it is only given responsibilities by us, the people. At no time ever in our history have we given the right to the government to dictate what features they want/don't want in someone's software.
Next thing you know there'll be a rider on a "Three Strikes" type bill that prohibits Linux OSes from offering low level TCP/IP access. After all, we don't want all that packet sniffing going on.
-Chiem
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, 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:Anti-technology California Legislature (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more likely that they will move out of state, to more tech-friendly areas that tax less, and have cheaper cost-of-living. A lot of talent is still concentrated in California, but it's mainly momentum - we're benefiting from earlier investments in technology and education, and all of our research universities.
They are charging and enforcing a huge use tax on all internet purchases.
Of course, how else are they going to save face and keep their bloated pork-barrel programs/bureaucracies in place? The alternative is to scrap them, and they're not ready to admit that they're spending more than Californians can afford to pay. Between the chain that starts at the local level, percolating all of your tax dollars up to the top, then back right down, there's a lot of friction - many departments take their cut up and down the line. To fund that many mouths requires a LOT of money, money that comes from you and me. And this is just state and local taxes - federal taxes (including FICA, Medicare, and SDI) are another story!
Mind you, I appreciate it when my tax money goes to fund important things, like health and safety (ie, disease control, mosquito abatement, proper street signage, maintaining sewers and storm runoff channels). It's all of the crap that I don't want, like having to spend money on enforcement of stupid laws, for example, asset taxes, processing and court/jury time for frivolous lawsuits (enabled by stupid laws), the endless committies that publish multiple binders that must be distributed, printed, revised, and updated - that nobody ever reads, politicians getting paid to grandstand (ie, passing stupid laws in a very public manner) in order to get reelected, and the DMV with their multi-million dollar, decade-long computer upgrade, that still doesn't work.
Politicians should be penalized for stuff they promised, they either doesn't work, or that they didn't deliver. In the same way employees get performance reviews that IMPACT THEIR PAY, we, the residents of the state, should be allowed to do reviews of our elected officials, which determine how they're paid. Too bad that this will never happen, and that the "servants of the people" will continue authorizing pay raises for themselves in order to "attract top talent", to DO NOTHING.
Sorry, having to pay more than half my paycheck in taxes during the year (property taxes, asset taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, retirement taxes, phone taxes, city taxes on utilities, use taxes) just because I'm working tends to make me a bit bitter. As the rules are set up, I'd be happier, healthier, and making almost as much money (after taxes) if I did half the work I did now and took a pay cut. Not a great incentive to try and be successful...
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.
Like we don't have more pressing issues (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, working on those problems wouldn't have resulted in nearly as many soundbites and TV appearances, so I quite understand the reluctance to tackle them...
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.
Re:Welcome to The Twilight Zone (Score:3, Insightful)
Google == Trusted Friend.
Government == Get more foil.