Google May Be Violating Wiretap Law, Judge Says

[roseofbattle]

Google May Be Violating Wiretap Law, Judge Says

A federal judge questions Google's privacy policy with regards to collection of contents in emails.

A federal judge is allowing a lawsuit against Google to move forward thanks to an absent piece of information in Google's privacy policy. Judge Lucy Koh said a "reasonable" Gmail user would not understand the company's email-scanning process. Google's automated scanning is used for spam filters, building user profiles, and targeting advertisements, the company stated. Koh replied that the company's privacy policy says nothing about Google collecting information between Gmail users or between Gmail users and non-Gmail users.

She ruled the "alleged interceptions are neither instrumental to the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services."

John Smith, Consumer Watchdog's privacy project director, explained, "The ruling means federal and state wiretap laws apply to the internet. It's a tremendous victory for online privacy. Companies like Google can't simply do whatever they want with out data and emails."

It would be wrong to assume that Google is the only company that scans emails to collect information for advertisements. This ruling has the potential to impact many other companies' policies.

Google was "disappointed" with the ruling, said spokesman Matt Kallman. "Automated scanning lets us provide Gmail users with security and spam protection, as well as great features like Priority Inbox." The company also argued that users have already consented to email scanning in the end user agreement, giving Google free use of users' content.

Source: Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/judge-allows-lawsuit-against-googles-gmail-scans-to-move-forward/2013/09/26/3b4bedaa-26e4-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html]

Permalink

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

John Smith

NO.

IT CAN'T BE.

On a more serious note, tut tut Google!

I know that data mining is a thing amongst corporations but dammit Google, I don't want you to know that Facebook keeps sending me pointless emails even though I only signed up for a game giveaway.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

This only happened because Google had the balls to sue the federal government over NSA spying.

 

[jayzz911]

Meanwhile in the NSA offices: HAHAHA a big step for internet privacy, they think laws apply to us!

 

[Somethingfake]

So in short then, Google is in trouble for doing something that the government gets away with.

 

[Koshok]

The company also argued that users have already consented to email scanning in the end user agreement, giving Google free use of users' content.

I'm still waiting for the day when user agreements are declared invalid legally, or at least required to be shorter. No one reads them, you practically need a law degree to understand them, and if you do read them thoroughly, you'll spend hours on each one.

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but I've got a little bit of programing experience & I gotta ask: how hard would it be to not scan non-gmail data? I know the data is sent to a gmail user, so it winds up becoming a part of their account, but would it be so difficult to skip scanning data that follows "@[not gmail.com]" & continue scanning sections after "@gmail.com"?

Point is, Google's gonna claim that it'd be incredibly complex/impossible to filter out email from other accounts in their scans, & I'm not so sure I agree

 

[omega 616]

Google can't simply do whatever they want with out data and emails

Think you have a typo there, you put "out" instead of "our".

On topic.

Google search come back is a little annoying, "Yeah but they agreed to it" ... Don't you have to in order to use youtube and half the apps on any Google powered phone (like mine). Plus, so many people can't even understand the lawyer speak small print like that, which is why nobody reads them.

 

[WabbitTwacks]

Google can't simply do whatever they want with out data and emails

Think you have a typo there, you put "out" instead of "our".

On topic.

Google search come back is a little annoying, "Yeah but they agreed to it" ... Don't you have to in order to use youtube and half the apps on any Google powered phone (like mine). Plus, so many people can't even understand the lawyer speak small print like that, which is why nobody reads them.

They do not want to read them. Or it's just impatience. One of those things.

 

[omega 616]

snip

No, it's the lawyer speak, these long complicated sentences that only make sense if you've had a year or two of reading through the bull shit 101. I can't even read warranty agreements, I read the "what is covered" section and think "wow, I am covered for everything" and then read the exclusion list and think "wow, I can't claim for anything".

I can read Latin but I wouldn't know what it was saying, same applies to the words... I understand each word but when strung together its double Dutch.

 

[irok]

Its in the EULA though... I never read it because I always assumed someone was snooping and I didn't really care who but obviously something needs to be done about EULA's , I don't really care about Google though, if they want to target ads at me then fine, ad blocker blocks them regardless.

 

[Psychobabble]

Doesn't surprise me. It's just the sort of behavior I'd expect from a company that abuses tax loopholes for their own benefit.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Its in the EULA though... I never read it because I always assumed someone was snooping and I didn't really care who but obviously something needs to be done about EULA's , I don't really care about Google though, if they want to target ads at me then fine, ad blocker blocks them regardless.

You are not endorsing software that the escapist make it's money from are you? You could get a warning bro.

 

[fix-the-spade]

So in short then, Google is in trouble for doing something that the government gets away with.

Google doesn't have any JDAMs to drop on people it doesn't like.

As for the ruling, all I can think is 'you don't say,'

Who would have thought it might violate privacy laws to read everyone's mail all the time, next they'll be saying that data mining violates wiretap laws too.

 

[Baresark]

An automated routine that flags spam is not the same thing as going through people's email unless it is recording that data. I think they would be hard pressed to prove the computer has negative intentions or is intending to use the data to scam or steal from people. Also, Gmails mail filter is awesome, and if they have a hand in making it as shitty and useless as other peoples filters, well I'll be mad. It's also fairly obvious that all browsers scan your cache to target ads to individuals. I looked one single time for a power rack and every single search engine on all my browsers kept popping up the Amazon post for the most expensive power rack.

 

[Strazdas]

Google seems to be going after our "privacy" a lot lately.
But its not like any one you are going to use surface net for anything illegal right? (this was meant to be ironic since A LOT of criminal acts were caught by people not taking basic safety precaution thinknig internet is untraceable).
I mean if you are runing something not legla get a subnet adress or something.

The company also argued that users have already consented to email scanning in the end user agreement, giving Google free use of users' content.

I'm still waiting for the day when user agreements are declared invalid legally, or at least required to be shorter. No one reads them, you practically need a law degree to understand them, and if you do read them thoroughly, you'll spend hours on each one.

Move to europe. No, really, our corts have stated that EULAs have 0 legal meaning. they are only legaly binding in the silly countries like USA.

You are not endorsing software that the escapist make it's money from are you? You could get a warning bro.

I think your missing some words here. software escapist makes money from? implying escapist makes money from adblocker?

 

[Griffolion]

Judge Lucy Koh...

Instantly disregarded. This judge has proven time and time again she isn't capable of being fair/unbiased in her sittings especially with things that have anything to do with Google. Just search anything to do with the Samsung vs Apple cases in the last two years.

Doesn't surprise me. It's just the sort of behavior I'd expect from a company that abuses tax loopholes for their own benefit.

So you are expecting this from [a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/20/apple-used-loopholes-to-skip-paying-44-billion-in-u-s-taxes-senate-committee-claims/"]Apple[/a], [a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-microsoft-avoids-taxes-loopholes-irs-2013-1"]Microsoft[/a], and [a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57437268/facebook-tax-loophole-draws-fire/"]Facebook[/a] too?