NationStates Jolt Archive

I have about 9 invitations. No one in my region wants them, so if you want it, TG me!

(You need to incluse an e-mail address, I have to have a place to send it to :D )

-edited out now that I have it-

wow, that was quick *RSJ is sending invite*

Edit: Invite sent!

Thankee, mate!

Gmail isn't out yet.

Thankee, mate!


happy to be of service!

Gmail isn't out yet.

Yea it is, you provide e-mail and I will prove it :D

Yea it is, you provide e-mail and I will prove it :D


Nice try! I have been to Gmails site, It isn't out.

Well if you don't want any send me one... or two...
I already have (a) gamil account(s), but I wanna reserve some uniqueish names.

FetalDischarge@gmail.com

Nice try! I have been to Gmails site, It isn't out.
IT's not out for you normies. The monitor scans you for normality. IF you are a normy you don't get gmail. If your special you get it.

I just don't get the big whoop-dee-doo about Gmail. Another free web based email - *yawn*. So you get bigger storage capacity...wow!

I can almost guarantee it will end up being just as spamful and a pain in the ass to use as what Hotmail became. I've had the same free web-mail provider for about 4 years now, and it's more than enough for my needs.

If people want to feel special because they get to invite people, I'm happy for them. But personally, I couldn't really care...

IT's not out for you normies. The monitor scans you for normality. IF you are a normy you don't get gmail. If your special you get it.



I guess its open to retards like you then? Blowhole!

If you have anymore I was looking at Gmail, anyhoo, my address is

ftball_79@hotmail.com

Email edited out

Nice try! I have been to Gmails site, It isn't out.


You have to be invited. Current gmail.com account holder can invite others, but it is a limited amount of invites. I have to you your e-mail, then I can send you the invite. If you are worried about people on NS having your e-mail, TG me, or create a free tmep mail.yahoo.com account to get the invite.

I just don't get the big whoop-dee-doo about Gmail. Another free web based email - *yawn*. So you get bigger storage capacity...wow!

I can almost guarantee it will ned up being just as spamful and a pain in the ass to use as what Hotmail became. I've had the same free web-mail provider for about 4 years now, and it's more than enough for my needs.

If people want to feel special because they get to invite people, I'm happy for them. But personally, I couldn't really care...
Why? Because its early that means you can get unique account names... or at least sorta unique ones... No numbers! Yay!

what is Gmail?

I guess its open to retards like you then? Blowhole!
Aw no need to be jealous normy! It's okay that your not beautiful like me. You just don't get gmail and you don't get into the Beautiful People Club.

edited out now that I've got the email, thanks

If you have anymore I was looking at Gmail, anyhoo, my address is

ftball_79@hotmail.com


Invite sent to EliasTopia and Neo-Wu!

You have to be invited. Current gmail.com account holder can invite others, but it is a limited amount of invites. I have to you your e-mail, then I can send you the invite. If you are worried about people on NS having your e-mail, TG me, or create a free tmep mail.yahoo.com account to get the invite.



Ok, I'll Bite, Take this one.


cellularia@hotmail.com


Thats also an MSN messenger handle, I don't care who contacts me via it.

vetobob@netzero.com

Invite sent to EliasTopia and Neo-Wu!
Come on send me one...

Invite sent to EliasTopia and Neo-Wu!

Thanks

locogato_0_o@hotmail.com

Sent!

Well if you don't want any send me one... or two...
I already have (a) gamil account(s), but I wanna reserve some uniqueish names.

FetalDischarge@gmail.com

I sort of wanted to give it to people who don't have it. If you have more than one account, they should have invites!

What about me RSJ? :( I'll give you a candy bar.

thanks pal!

Sent!



I sort of wanted to give it to people who don't have it. If you have more than one account, they should have invites!
No I dont have invites yet for those accounts...

And time is ticking... and I need to reserve a unique account name that I forgot to...

What about me RSJ? :( I'll give you a candy bar.
Your brazen unbelieveing atitude made RSJ hate you.

Thank RSJ been trying to find an invite !

What about me RSJ? :( I'll give you a candy bar.


You have to give me an e-mail address! Do that, and I will send you an invite! :D

You have to give me an e-mail address! Do that, and I will send you an invite! :D



Cellularia@hotmail.com


Also MSN messanger handel. On all the time!

Cellularia@hotmail.com


Also MSN messanger handel. On all the time!


Sent!

Hmm. they had to change their privacy statement cause their previous conflicted with California's Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004.

the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy.

Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world.

Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion.

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?

Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.

very interesting.

Hey at least gimme one for honesty!

I could have lied like some of these people who posted on this thread undoubtedly did.

So come on...

Aw no need to be jealous normy! It's okay that your not beautiful like me. You just don't get gmail and you don't get into the Beautiful People Club.

Am I in this club of yours now?

Am I in this club of yours now?
Mine? I didn't start it! I'm just part of it. If you're beautiful you're automatically in.

Mine? I didn't start it! I'm just part of it. If you're beautiful you're automatically in.
Its only in beta stage. Meaning, you guys are getting the imperfected version that has bugs to be worked out.

Mine? I didn't start it! I'm just part of it. If you're beautiful you're automatically in.
Ah, i see, then I shall be admitted

*strikes a sexy pose*

Thirty-One Privacy and Civil Liberties
Organizations Urge Google to Suspend Gmail

San Diego, CA, April 6, 2004 (Updated April 19) -- The World Privacy Forum and 30 other privacy and civil liberties organizations have written a letter [inserted below] calling upon Google to suspend its Gmail service until the privacy issues are adequately addressed. The letter also calls upon Google to clarify its written information policies regarding data retention and data sharing among its business units.

The 31 organizations are voicing their concerns about Google’s plan to scan the text of all incoming messages for the purposes of ad placement, noting that the scanning of confidential email for inserting third party ad content violates the implicit trust of an email service provider. The scanning creates lower expectations of privacy in the email medium and may establish dangerous precedents.

Other concerns include the unlimited period for data retention that Google’s current policies allow, and the potential for unintended secondary uses of the information Gmail will collect and store.
------------------
An Open Letter to Google Regarding Its Proposed Gmail Service

From:
World Privacy Forum
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
and
Australian Privacy Foundation
Grayson Barber, Privacy Advocate
Bits of Freedom (Netherlands)
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (Canada)
Calegislation
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering)
Roger Clarke, Privacy Research and Advocate (Australia)
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Federation of California
Consumer Task Force for Automotive Issues
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Federación de Consumidores en Acción (FACUA) (Spain)
Foundation for Information Policy Research (United Kingdom)
Mari Frank, Esq., Author of Identity Theft Survival Kit
Simson L. Garfinkel, Author of Database Nation
Edward Hasbrouck, Author and Consumer Advocate
Massachusetts Consumer Assistance Council
Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition
National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA)
National Consumers League
PrivacyActivism
Privacy International (United Kingdom)
Privacy Rights Now Coalition
Privacy Times
Private Citizen, Inc.
Privaterra (Canada)
Public Information Research, Inc.
Utility Consumers' Action Network

April 6, 2004

Sergey Brin, Co-Founder & President, Technology
Larry Page, Co-Founder & President, Products
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

Dear Mr. Brin and Mr. Page:

Google’s proposed Gmail service and the practices and policies of its business units raise significant and troubling questions.

First, Google has proposed scanning the text of all incoming emails for ad placement. The scanning of confidential email violates the implicit trust of an email service provider. Further, the unlimited period for data retention poses unnecessary risks of misuse.

Second, Google's overall data retention and correlation policies are problematic in their lack of clarity and broad scope. Google has not set specific, finite limits on how long it will retain user account, email, and transactional data. And Google has not set clear written policies about its data sharing between business units.

Third, the Gmail system sets potentially dangerous precedents and establishes reduced expectations of privacy in email communications. These precedents may be adopted by other companies and governments and may persist long after Google is gone.

We urge you to suspend the Gmail service until the privacy issues are adequately
addressed.

Email Scanning in Google’s Proposed Gmail Service

The email text scanning infrastructure that Google has built is powerful and global in reach. Google has not created written policies to date that adequately protect consumers from the unintended consequences of building this structure. It is, in fact, arguable that no policy could adequately protect consumers from future abuses. The societal consequences of initiating a global infrastructure to continually monitor the communications of individuals are significant and far-reaching with immediate and long-term privacy implications.

Currently, individuals may have the understanding that Google’s system is not that different in nature from scanning messages for spam, which is a common practice today. There is a fundamental difference, however. With Gmail, individuals’ incoming emails will be scanned and seeded with ads. This will happen every time Gmail subscribers open their emails to re-read them, no matter how long they have been stored. Inserting new content from third party advertisers in incoming emails is fundamentally different than removing harmful viruses and unwanted spam.

Another potential misconception about the Gmail system is that the scanning will take place in isolation. The email is scanned, and ad text is delivered. But that is not the end of the story. The delivery of the ad text based on emails is a continual "on the fly" stream. This technology requires a substantial supply chain of directory structures, databases, logs, and a long memory. Auditing trails of the ad text are kept, and the data could be correlated with the data Google collects via its other business units such as its search site and its networking site, Orkut.

Google has countered criticism of Gmail by highlighting that a computer, not a human, will scan the content of the e-mail, thereby making the system less invasive. We think a computer system, with its greater storage, memory, and associative ability than a human’s, could be just as invasive as a human listening to the communications, if not more so.

That the Gmail scanning and monitoring is being used for advertising right now is distracting, because it is a transient use. Scanning personal communications in the way Google is proposing is letting the proverbial genie out of the bottle. Today, Google wants to make a profit from selling ads. But tomorrow, another company may have completely different ideas about how to use such an infrastructure and the data it captures.

Google could -- tomorrow -- by choice or by court order, employ its scanning system for law enforcement purposes. We note that in one recent case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation obtained a court order compelling an automobile navigation service to convert its system into a tool for monitoring in-car conversations. How long will it be until law enforcement compels Google into a similar situation?

Google has been quick to state that it does not intend to correlate or share consumer data between its business units. But unless Google puts a consumer promise into its privacy policy that states it will never correlate the data, then Google is not putting its money where its mouth is. In a nation of laws, Google needs to make its promises in writing.

Gmail’s Potential Conflict with International Law

The Gmail system may conflict with Europe’s privacy laws, specifically, Directive 95/46/EC, also called the EU Privacy Directive. This directive states, among other things, that users’ consent must be informed, specific, and unambiguous (pursuant to Article 7(a) of Dir. 95/46/EC).

As it has been proposed, and based on the current Gmail privacy policy, the consent of EU-based Gmail users cannot necessarily be considered informed, specific, and unambiguous in regards to the scanning, storage and further processing of their e-mails. The need for informed, specific, and unambiguous consent also applies to the potential linking of EU citizens’ e-mails to their search histories. Additional issues with data retention may also exist under the EU Privacy Directive.

The Dangers of Lowered Privacy Expectations in the Email Medium

Ultimately, however, this discussion is not solely about Google. It is about the global tools Google is building, and the ways these tools and systems stand to alter how individuals perceive the sanctity of private communications in the electronic sphere. These perceptions and standards may persist long after Google as a company is gone.

Google needs to realize that many different companies and even governments can and likely will walk through the email scanning door once it is opened. As people become accustomed to the notion that email scanning for ad delivery is acceptable, "mission creep" is a real possibility. Other companies and governments may have very different ideas about data correlation than Google does, and may have different motivations for scanning the body of email messages. Google itself, in the absence of clear written promises and policies, may experience a change of course and choose to profit from its large stores of consumer data culled from private communications.

The lowered expectations of email privacy that Google's system has the potential to create is no small matter. Once an information architecture is built, it functions much like a building -- that building may be used by many different owners, and its blueprints may be replicated in many other places.

Google's technology is proprietary, but the precedents it sets are not.

Conclusion

We request the following of Google:

1. First, Google must suspend its implementation of scanning the full text of emails for determining ad placement.

2. Second, Google must clarify its information retention and data correlation policy amongst its business units, partners, and affiliates. This means that Google must set clear data retention and deletion dates and establish detailed written policies about data sharing and correlation amongst its business units and partners.

Respectfully submitted and signed,

Hmm. they had to change their privacy statement cause their previous conflicted with California's Online Privacy Protection Act, went into effect on July 1, 2004.

the language in their new policy makes it clear that they will be pooling all the information they collect on you from all of their various services. Moreover, they may keep this information indefinitely, and give this information to whomever they wish.

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy.

Other countries may even lack this basic protection, and Google's databases are distributed all over the world.

Google uses the term "governmental request" three times on their terms-of-use page and once on their privacy page. Google's language means that all Gmail account holders have consented to allow Google to show any and all email in their Gmail accounts to any official from any government whatsoever, even when the request is informal or extralegal, at Google's sole discretion.

If Google builds a database of keywords associated with email addresses, the potential for abuse is staggering. Google could grow a database that spits out the email addresses of those who used those keywords. How about words such as "box cutters" in the same email as "airline schedules"? Can you think of anyone who might be interested in obtaining a list of email addresses for that particular combination? Or how about "mp3" with "download"? Since the RIAA has sent subpoenas to Internet service providers and universities in an effort to identify copyright abusers, why should we expect Gmail to be off-limits?

Intelligence agencies would love to play with this information. Diagrams that show social networks of people who are inclined toward certain thoughts could be generated. This is one form of "data mining," which is very lucrative now for high-tech firms, such as Google, that contract with federal agencies. Email addresses tied to keywords would be perfect for this. The fact that Google offers so much storage turns Gmail into something that is uniquely dangerous and creepy.

very interesting.


So? It is 1GB of space!

Its only in beta stage. Meaning, you guys are getting the imperfected version that has bugs to be worked out.
Wow! I sure didn't notice BETA written all over it! Wow! I NEVER knew! OMG!

I'm sorry let me lie down... that hit me pretty hard.

Wow. *takes deep breath*

I thought BETA was part of the name... Yeah... I thought it was GmailBETA... Oh no... and I've been writing @GMAILBETA.com everywhere...

:eek:
Damn, the feds can look at your Gmail address and know where you live.
Holy shit.
:eek:

Google's plans to run targeted advertising with the mail that you see through its new Gmail service represents a potential break for government agencies that want to use autobots to monitor the contents of electronic communications travelling across networks. Even though the configuration of the Gmail service minimises the intrusion into privacy, it represents a disturbing conceptual paradigm - the idea that computer analysis of communications is not a search. This is a dangerous legal precedent which both law enforcement and intelligence agencies will undoubtedly seize upon and extend, to the detriment of our privacy.

The Gmail advertising concept is simple. When you log into the Gmail to retrieve and view your email, the service automatically scans the contents of the email and displays a relevant ad on the screen for you to see. Although it has been said that neither Google nor the advertiser "knows" the text or essence of the email message, this is not strictly true: if you click on the link to the ad, it can be reasonably inferred that the text of the email in some way related to the advertiser's service.

Moreover, like any email provider, the text of your Gmail is stored and subject to subpoena. I can envision a situation where an advertiser, paying Google hundreds of thousands of dollars, claims that Google failed to "insert" its ads in relevant emails, or inserted a competitor's ads instead (or in addition to, or more prominently). In the course of the ensuing litigation, wouldn't both the ads themselves and the text of the messages into which they were inserted be relevant, and therefore discoverable? I can't imagine why not.

If a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.

But perhaps the most ominous thing about the proposed Gmail service is the often-heard argument that it poses no privacy risk because only computers are scanning the email. I would argue that it makes no difference to our privacy whether the contents of communications are read by people or by computers programmed by people.

My ISP offers spam filtering, spyware blocking and other filtering of email (with my consent) based at least partially on the content of these messages. Similarly, I can consent to automated searches of my mail to translate it into another language or do text-to-speech, or to strip HTML or executables. All these technologies examine the contents of mail sent to me. This certainly seems to suggest that an automated search of the contents of email, with the recipient's consent, is readily tolerated. But is it legal?

The answer is not so simple. California Penal Code, Section 631 makes it a crime to "by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, ... willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, ... learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or [to] use, or attempt to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained."

So, if I send a mail to a Gmail user (let's assume I don't know anything about Gmail, and therefore can't be said to have "consented" to the examination) and Google's computers learn the meaning of the message without my consent, this action theoretically violates the California wiretap law. Google is based in California, but it's worth noting that other states, like Maryland, Illinois, Florida, New Hampshire and Washington State, also have so-called "all party consent" provisions that may also preclude this conduct.

To avoid these draconian provisions, Google will likely argue that its computers are not "people" and therefore the company does not "learn the meaning" of the communication. That's where we need to be careful. We should nip this nonsensical argument in the bud before it's taken too far, and the federal government follows.
Don't Be Echelon

The government has already ventured a few steps down that road. In August 1995 the Naval Command and Control Ocean Surveillance Center detected computer attacks coming through Harvard University. Because Harvard's privacy policy did not give them the right to monitor the traffic, federal prosecutors obtained a court ordered wiretap for all traffic going through Harvard's computer systems to look for packets that met certain criteria. Literally millions of electronic communications from innocent users of Harvard's system were analysed by a en read pursuant to the court order. In a press release, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts explained, "We intercepted only those communications which fit the pattern. Even when communications contained the identifying pattern of the intruder, we limited our initial examination ... to further protect the privacy of innocent communications."

Thus, the government believed that the "interception" did not occur when the computer analysed the packets, read their contents, and flagged them for human viewing. Rather, the government believed that only human reading impacted a legitimate privacy interest. The U.S. Attorney went on to state, "This is a case of cyber-sleuthing, a glimpse of what computer crime fighting will look like in the coming years. We have made enormous strides in developing the investigative tools to track down individuals who misuse these vital computer networks." Then-Attorney General Reno added that the process of having computers analyse the intercepted messages was an appropriate balance because, "We are using a traditional court order and new technology to defeat a criminal, while protecting individual rights and Constitutional principles that are important to all Americans."

But imagine if the government were to put an Echelon-style content filter on routers and ISPs, where it examines billions of communications and "flags" only a small fraction (based upon, say, indicia of terrorist activity). Even if the filters are perfect and point the finger only completely guilty people, this activity still invades the privacy rights of the billions of innocent individuals whose communications pass the filter.

Simply put, if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.

Google may also argue that its computers do not learn the contents of the message while in transmission but only contemporaneously with the recipient, making wiretap law inapplicable. That argument, while technically accurate, is somewhat fallacious. If taken to its logical extreme, electronic communications are never intercepted in transmission. The packets must be stopped to be read.

Fundamentally, we should treat automated searches of contents as what they are: tools used by humans to find out more about what humans are doing, and provide that information to other humans. At least until the computers take over.

Copyright © 2004,

Invite sent to Amerigo!

I have about 9 invitations. No one in my region wants them, so if you want it, TG me!

(You need to incluse an e-mail address, I have to have a place to send it to :D )

If you still have any, I'd love one! Thanks in advance...

tkiwtni02@sneakemail.com

Google's plans to run targeted advertising with the mail that you see through its new Gmail service represents a potential break for government agencies that want to use autobots to monitor the contents of electronic communications travelling across networks. Even though the configuration of the Gmail service minimises the intrusion into privacy, it represents a disturbing conceptual paradigm - the idea that computer analysis of communications is not a search. This is a dangerous legal precedent which both law enforcement and intelligence agencies will undoubtedly seize upon and extend, to the detriment of our privacy.

The Gmail advertising concept is simple. When you log into the Gmail to retrieve and view your email, the service automatically scans the contents of the email and displays a relevant ad on the screen for you to see. Although it has been said that neither Google nor the advertiser "knows" the text or essence of the email message, this is not strictly true: if you click on the link to the ad, it can be reasonably inferred that the text of the email in some way related to the advertiser's service.

Moreover, like any email provider, the text of your Gmail is stored and subject to subpoena. I can envision a situation where an advertiser, paying Google hundreds of thousands of dollars, claims that Google failed to "insert" its ads in relevant emails, or inserted a competitor's ads instead (or in addition to, or more prominently). In the course of the ensuing litigation, wouldn't both the ads themselves and the text of the messages into which they were inserted be relevant, and therefore discoverable? I can't imagine why not.

If a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.

But perhaps the most ominous thing about the proposed Gmail service is the often-heard argument that it poses no privacy risk because only computers are scanning the email. I would argue that it makes no difference to our privacy whether the contents of communications are read by people or by computers programmed by people.

My ISP offers spam filtering, spyware blocking and other filtering of email (with my consent) based at least partially on the content of these messages. Similarly, I can consent to automated searches of my mail to translate it into another language or do text-to-speech, or to strip HTML or executables. All these technologies examine the contents of mail sent to me. This certainly seems to suggest that an automated search of the contents of email, with the recipient's consent, is readily tolerated. But is it legal?

The answer is not so simple. California Penal Code, Section 631 makes it a crime to "by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, ... willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, ... learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or [to] use, or attempt to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained."

So, if I send a mail to a Gmail user (let's assume I don't know anything about Gmail, and therefore can't be said to have "consented" to the examination) and Google's computers learn the meaning of the message without my consent, this action theoretically violates the California wiretap law. Google is based in California, but it's worth noting that other states, like Maryland, Illinois, Florida, New Hampshire and Washington State, also have so-called "all party consent" provisions that may also preclude this conduct.

To avoid these draconian provisions, Google will likely argue that its computers are not "people" and therefore the company does not "learn the meaning" of the communication. That's where we need to be careful. We should nip this nonsensical argument in the bud before it's taken too far, and the federal government follows.
Don't Be Echelon

The government has already ventured a few steps down that road. In August 1995 the Naval Command and Control Ocean Surveillance Center detected computer attacks coming through Harvard University. Because Harvard's privacy policy did not give them the right to monitor the traffic, federal prosecutors obtained a court ordered wiretap for all traffic going through Harvard's computer systems to look for packets that met certain criteria. Literally millions of electronic communications from innocent users of Harvard's system were analysed by a en read pursuant to the court order. In a press release, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts explained, "We intercepted only those communications which fit the pattern. Even when communications contained the identifying pattern of the intruder, we limited our initial examination ... to further protect the privacy of innocent communications."

Thus, the government believed that the "interception" did not occur when the computer analysed the packets, read their contents, and flagged them for human viewing. Rather, the government believed that only human reading impacted a legitimate privacy interest. The U.S. Attorney went on to state, "This is a case of cyber-sleuthing, a glimpse of what computer crime fighting will look like in the coming years. We have made enormous strides in developing the investigative tools to track down individuals who misuse these vital computer networks." Then-Attorney General Reno added that the process of having computers analyse the intercepted messages was an appropriate balance because, "We are using a traditional court order and new technology to defeat a criminal, while protecting individual rights and Constitutional principles that are important to all Americans."

But imagine if the government were to put an Echelon-style content filter on routers and ISPs, where it examines billions of communications and "flags" only a small fraction (based upon, say, indicia of terrorist activity). Even if the filters are perfect and point the finger only completely guilty people, this activity still invades the privacy rights of the billions of innocent individuals whose communications pass the filter.

Simply put, if a computer programmed by people learns the contents of a communication, and takes action based on what it learns, it invades privacy.

Google may also argue that its computers do not learn the contents of the message while in transmission but only contemporaneously with the recipient, making wiretap law inapplicable. That argument, while technically accurate, is somewhat fallacious. If taken to its logical extreme, electronic communications are never intercepted in transmission. The packets must be stopped to be read.

Fundamentally, we should treat automated searches of contents as what they are: tools used by humans to find out more about what humans are doing, and provide that information to other humans. At least until the computers take over.

Copyright © 2004,



Come on, quit this! WE DON'T CARE! This thread is about giving out invites, make your own thread!

Gmail sounds unsafe and evil!

So? It is 1GB of space!
all depends. I guess its ok if you don't mind the feds knocking down your front door cause you emailed a joke about killing the President or buying fertilizer for your garden.

If you still have any, I'd love one! Thanks in advance...

tkiwtni02@sneakemail.com


Sent!

all depends. I guess its ok if you don't mind the feds knocking down your front door cause you emailed a joke about killing the President or buying fertilizer for your garden.


*RSJ fires IGNORE cannon at EastWhittier, because RSJ could care less*

*RSJ fires IGNORE cannon at EastWhittier, because RSJ could care less*


Thats your problem.

*Hides from FBI*

all depends. I guess its ok if you don't mind the feds knocking down your front door cause you emailed a joke about killing the President or buying fertilizer for your garden.
Well, if you make jokes like that...
Don't get gmail.
And everyone's happy!

Oh and thanks RSJ, because of you TobiasRieper lives. (The pseudonym of the infamous Number 47 from the Hitman series)

Sent!

And again, thank you!

And for all the "ooh, gmail is spooky and evil" folks out there, please take the time to read this article entitled 'The Fuss About Gmail and Privacy: Nine Reasons Why It's Bogus' by Tim O'Reilly:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4707

Come on, I have 4 left! (Well, 5, but that one is reserved)

Okay...you can send me an invite!

Telegram sent. Thanks RSJ :)

Telegram sent. Thanks RSJ :)


Sent to both Parratoga and Trotterstan!

2 left!

I'm going to bed, so don't wait up for a reply, I'll send them to the first 2 posters after this post late tomorow

Sent to both Parratoga and Trotterstan!

2 left!


Thank you!! :D

RECIEVED THANKS!!!

I'd love another one... send it to skytowerpoet@lycos.com.

Let see, no usable info on their site, no jim using the service.

Jim2004!

Sent to both Parratoga and Trotterstan!

2 left!
your benevolence continues to astound.

i've had Gmail since the earliest stages of the public beta, so I keep getting loads of invites and I ran out of peopel to give them too, long ago. If you want one, send me a telegram on NS, because I don't check the forums often

I'd love another one... send it to skytowerpoet@lycos.com.

ooo I want one please!!

danhansmoleman@yahoo.com

If you have any left that is... thanks

Ok, I'll send them tonight. I have the password to my 2nd gmail account at home.

no

What is gmail?

cal@rudopeace.org

I'm tired of mypeing this every time...

This is RSJ from NS! Have Fun!

~RSJ

Ok, and I have 3 left on one account. I might have more on the other account because I just zeroed this one out LAST NIGHT!

I've got 11 invites. Anyone want any? Email to sc4s2cg@gmail.com

If you have a driver's license or a social security number, the Feds know where you live. Welcome to the real world. Gmail isn't going to change a damn thing.

Yahoo, Hotmail, and every other free email provider scans emails for content all the time - go read the fine print ... I'll wait.

Google, at least, will admit it.

Anyway, I still have 3 invites left if anyone wants them.

Drop me a line: fishpaw@gmail.com and I will send invites.

I'd like to have a new account. My yahoo gets 5000 junk mails a month. It's elikaplow@yahoo.com if anyone has any invites left.

Oh, and concerning privacy? You should never assume it on the internet. If you want real privacy, then talk to someone in person next to a busy street.

Do you know apps trall forums and the Internet in general for email addresses, so they can add them to databases and spam them. If you want to write your email address, I suggest you do it like this:

Name at provider dot com

or:

Name:at:Provider:dot:com

I've had email addresses made unusable by spam.

Gmail sounds unsafe and evil!
Less unsafe/evil than Hotmail, actually.

Less unsafe/evil than Hotmail, actually.

I agree. I have no intention of using Gmail to do any illegal activities. I like it because my work has not blocked it yet like they have every other web-based e-mail.

When you work for a large corporation, you get used to not having "civil liberties" when it comes to web-use.

Hotmail is evil. I closed all my hotmail accounts a few years ago after an "incident" that they decided was my fault.

PS, I have 4 invites if anyone still needs one.

Send me your e-mail addy via TG.