The Cache: Technology Expert's Forum
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. September 19, 2019, 01:48:05 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Sender's rights with private letters  (Read 5248 times)
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« on: March 30, 2010, 11:02:32 PM »

If it's illegal to open somebody elses letter (at least in Finland it is), then how does this affect email? I mean that if I send email to perk@gmail.com, I haven't given out any permission for Google to touch my email in any way. Please keep in mind that I'm talking about sending message from another email provider to Gmail account. The fact that reading is done with computers doesn't make it any less offensive. They still can see who sent it and what the person wrote and build advertising targeting profile based on that data. Signatures are easy to recognize from emails so you can build very accurate profile on people who are not even registered Gmail users. This is not just about Google, it affects every email provider that does something with your email content. Of course somebody might say that it's not in your control if the receiver shows your email to other people. But when you think it further, you realize that it's not valid point because for example Gmail analyzes every mail no matter what so it's not a question of if it happens but when it happens.

Basically it's the same as when you send a letter and somebody at the post office opens it, reads it, makes a profile of you and sends it forward without telling sender this happened. Most of the receivers don't even understand what they agreed when they joined. This profile can then be sold to direct mailers as statistical or demographical targeting information. And if you later have a lapse of judgement and join Premium Post Users to get your unique post box at the post office, post office can then sell you forward even better because now they have covertly got your permission to sell your data forward.

Just a thought Smiley
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2010, 07:41:04 AM »

It's all here: http://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/privacy.html
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2010, 08:04:19 AM »

Where does it say anything about sender's rights? It's all about YOU using Gmail and what will be done with YOUR data. My question was that what are the sender's rights in this or should sender automatically know that by sending email to gmail.com address it will be read and analyzed? Basically the question is that to what extend email enjoy privacy laws and can receiver's agreement take away sender's right to privacy?
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2010, 08:23:31 AM »

No no, you miss the point: as the user of GMail, you have no right of privacy. There are no "sender's rights" at all, you're using their service, you're buns up kneelin'.

Natch, my refusal, to the chagrin of some of my partners, to use any of the Google services.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2010, 09:11:13 AM »

No no, you miss the point: as the user of GMail, you have no right of privacy. There are no "sender's rights" at all, you're using their service, you're buns up kneelin'.

Natch, my refusal, to the chagrin of some of my partners, to use any of the Google services.
Yeah I get you man loud and clear but I'm not sure if you get what I'm trying to say Smiley I'm talking about sending email from kurdt@aol.com to perk@gmail.com. Now when perk@gmail.com receives the mail, it's something that kurdt@aol.com wrote and not perk@gmail.com. So by agreeing to Google's term perk@gmail.com agrees to have no privacy whatsoever BUT kurdt@aol.com has not agreed to those terms. So when Gmail server receives email from AOL, when does Google ask kurdt@aol.com permission to analyze what he has written.

Same analogy actually goes to web spidering but it's not as bad because there isn't explicit identity in question like it is with email.

Hehe, it's pretty funny if you get what I'm talking about but I don't get it that you get it that I don't get it what you are saying Cheesy
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
nutballs
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5627


Back in my day we had 9 planets


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2010, 12:34:23 PM »

No no, you miss the point: as the user of GMail, you have no right of privacy. There are no "sender's rights" at all, you're using their service, you're buns up kneelin'.

Natch, my refusal, to the chagrin of some of my partners, to use any of the Google services.

pussy
Logged

I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and shit a better argument than that.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2010, 01:15:09 PM »

ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO

@ Kurdt: Totally get you. But essentially, when you send something to someone else, the opening/viewing of it seems to be completely in the domain of the receiver. Scary sh!t meng, and you're on an important question - but you're also just screwed. Thanks Goog.
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
nop_90
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2203


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2010, 04:22:16 PM »

Email rights violation has nothing to do with google.
With gmail or any other free provider you have the option to opt out.

But in britain for example
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7819230.stm

Patriot Act
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/privacy/Introduction%20to%20Module%20V.htm
Same story
Logged
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2010, 07:46:57 PM »

>Basically it's the same as when you send a letter and somebody at the post office opens it, reads it, makes a profile of you and sends it forward without telling sender this happened.

Electronic mail is a misnomer.  Snailmail and email are channels of communication, yet only snail is truly mail in the eyes of the law.  Yet since the law is blind who gives a rat's ass what's in its eyes, even IF they're brown, stinky and scary?  But I digress...  (Ritalin comedowns are a bitch)  What nop posted is true but I believe it misses a deeper point.  I think perk is right on here but he didn't seem to describe what struck me immediately and clearly when I read your entire initial post.

Now then  Nerd (ITTO rolls up his nerd sleeves of self-important clarity and relentless narcissism, and begins chanting charismatically)

Ok.  Forget contracts, consent checkboxes, user agreements, disposable thongs, privacy yard-sales and conspiracy theories.  Flush that toilet, since it's all after-the-fact poop imho.  Now, consider what happens when a hosted, spam filtration service employing Bayesian algorithms probes every single character of any and all communication flowing into:

  • A corporation
  • An ISP
  • You
  • An ISP and then you
  • A daycare with free wireless
  • Your neighbor's toilet

With the exception of "You", this list is flawless and comprehensive Wink  Behind the scenes, things like this happen constantly.

Have you ever considered the fact that in the history of human existence there's never been a jury with an understanding of evented, evolving, pattern matching and AI-based content profiling?  This completely unknown and hopefully harmless process referred to as Bayesian (filtration) spam protection is quite an interesting thing.  The chart below reveals just how much happens before anyone actually "opens their mail."  Most relevant to your post, I believe, is the fact that this particular flavor of hosted, external inbound/outbound content filtration is well, external.  So as "Evil" as you perceive Google to be, wise Finlandian, they don't even get the memo until your @aol.com innocence has been monkey r@ped.






"I am extremely pleased with the Barracuda Spam & Virus Firewall 400. It works flawlessly, is simple to configure and easy to manage. I will recommend it whenever I have the opportunity. Itís worth much more!" - U.S. Department of Homeland Security  Need Help
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
perkiset
Olde World Hacker
Administrator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10096



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2010, 09:03:06 PM »

Snailmail and email are channels of communication, yet only snail is truly mail in the eyes of the law.

This is key: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/39-post-office.html

The Postal system was originally guaranteed by the Constitution and was seen as one of the ways of keeping people smart and connected - much like Ben Franklin's successful push for public libraries (at that time, libraries were the domain of universities - you had to have money to get there and get knowledge).

The most challenging thing here, is that today's way of staying smart and connected was originally funded by our government, but is as yet unprotected (the 'net itself). Idealistically, Kurdt is right: email et al should be protected forms of communication. Just like, regardless of if I get permission from a homeowner, it is illegal for me to place a marketing piece directly into a mailbox - it must go through the mail. That little piece of real estate is protected federal property. But realistically, technology has moved more quickly than people that would protect our rights, so the GMail Pandora's box is open and there'll be no putting it back.

Seeing how the USPS lost almost 40% in revenue last year because people are sending email rather than snailmail, I forsee the end of that service. And when we're then all using GMail and the like, our most private conversations and interactions will be fodder for the highest bidder.

It is none-too-subtlely frightening. And, Nutballs, perhaps the reason that I just fundamentally cannot go there yet. Undecided
Logged

It is now believed, that after having lived in one compound with 3 wives and never leaving the house for 5 years, Bin Laden called the U.S. Navy Seals himself.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2010, 10:35:19 PM »

I hear you guys and I have no illusion that email is some how safe. It's not safe at all and that's why there's helpers like PGP.

But it seems we all agree that if you look at what Google & other companies are doing, it's really not right by any standards. As long as email isn't analyzed in a way that information gets extracted, everything is ok. This means firewalls, virus checks, spam checks and so on. One could argue that spam checker (Bayesian) extracts information but I would say that when it's only used to match statistical spam corpus/stats, then it's ok because the extracted data is then deleted. But when it comes to reading your emails with any form of AI and in this case, without permission of the writer, then we go way off. People usually say that "who cares, I don't have anything to hide" but they are repeating learned mantra and don't really think that. By saying that you are saying that you would be ok to send your every email thru me and I would have permission to read every word you write. And that only includes you, what about the person you are having your conversation with? I don't have nothing to hide but I do want to be able to know that what I write to my friend is confidential. It's not about having something to hide, it's about having the right of doing something in privacy. This is how Google & Facebook are trying to strip away the privacy while drooling bigger profits. From their mouth privacy is only needed if you hide something and in these terrorists everywhere police torturing innocent people times who wants to be profiled as somebody who got something to hide. This crap is about to change.

There isn't any instance that can judge AI and that only means that it's up to every human to judge it by their own standards. When there's no legal institute that doesn't mean nobody is responsible. This is the exact thing why civilizations that employ strict law & police force are left with huge amounts of crime. Strict law & forcing it means that nobody outside law enforcement can't do anything else than report the crime or you'll be fucked by the law. That means that if there's not enough resources, crimes that are viewed as lesser or not fully understood by masses like AI crimes, go untouched. For example few years ago I heard from police officer in Tampere that they don't have resources to investigate stolen cars. Tampere is the third or fourth largest city in Finland and it's only like 200000 people or something like that. Now I can't imagine how bad the situation must be in much bigger cities like LA or Paris. Anyway, just because common people don't know how to deal with it but if you can, it's your responsibility to do so. This world isn't gonna change itself.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 10:38:27 PM by kurdt » Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2010, 11:42:21 PM »

Quote
This means firewalls, virus checks, spam checks and so on. One could argue that spam checker (Bayesian) extracts information but I would say that when it's only used to match statistical spam corpus/stats, then it's ok because the extracted data is then deleted. But when it comes to reading your emails with any form of AI and in this case, without permission of the writer, then we go way off

Here's where you, perks, nuts, my entire family and the rest of western civilization completely disagrees with me.  But perks really gets it, so that's why I give him such a hard time for siding with the hype.  Here's my twisted take on things.  The source is closed.  Christ need I say more Huh?   Should we really believe in the promises offered by "trustworthy" public companies who "faithfully" report and instruct us lemmings about best security practices?  Contemplating the possible paths and privacy violations of entities based on some subjective opinion of their business ethics (Apple Huh?) is like mortgaging your home to finance the Little Mermaid.

If the source isn't open, any assertions about what's probably happening under the hood are lame, ignorant and irritatingly foolish.  My angst about this point stems from the frustratingly vast amount of totally smart IT people I've known who dangle like butt-tasty-clingons from the ass of accepted IT practices.  Look, if the source is closed accept the worst openly.  If you don't, just understand why some people like myself will give you a hard time for playing horoscope reader where definitive answers are provided for those who know better.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2010, 12:31:42 AM »

>It is none-too-subtlely frightening. And, Nutballs, perhaps the reason that I just fundamentally cannot go there yet.

(gulp) with all due respect sir, I think this "might" be more of a control issue that stems from a generational gap, previously perceiving transparency as a threat.  These days it's a non-issue or even an advantage (assuming one's products/services are good).  Fearing disclosure produces little more than a red light of avoidance for seekers of genuine value.  So the "trade-off" of Google snooping/mining your data is about as concerning as a shared Internet connection.  If your communications are effective while also being beyond risk of legal or other complications, who's really losing by refusing free, stable and always available email service?  Dwayne.
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
kurdt
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1153


paha arkkitehti


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2010, 01:37:05 AM »

I just wanted to say that even if I don't have much to reply with ITTO's post I think we agree pretty much on how you can't trust anybody who doesn't have their source code out in the open. If you have a suspicious mind like I do I tend to still think that "I hope they don't have little bit modified source with few extra not so public features running right now".

So one could say that if one truly wants to be safe, free & anonymous in the web, one must build their own internet.
Logged

I met god and he had nothing to say to me.
isthisthingon
Global Moderator
Lifer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2879



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2010, 07:45:44 AM »

>So one could say that if one truly wants to be safe, free & anonymous in the web, one must build their own internet.

Well that would fix it.  But short of building everything yourself, you could assume the worst from that which is artificially obscured from your understanding (closed locked hidden) and maximize that which is honest about its functionality (open readable, community-auditable).  Having a foundation that is the former is more of a concern to me personally than worrying about what happens once data gets all the way out to Google 
Logged

I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code.
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Perkiset's Place Home   Best of The Cache   phpMyIDE: MySQL Stored Procedures, Functions & Triggers
Politics @ Perkiset's   Pinkhat's Perspective   
cache
mart
coder
programmers
ajax
php
javascript
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Seo4Smf v0.2 © Webmaster's Talks


Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!