Comments on: Tim O’Reilly on Gmail http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html making connections where none previously existed Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:10:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Patrick Riley http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html/comment-page-1#comment-5095 Patrick Riley Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:43:03 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html#comment-5095 how is google's "privacy invasion" any different than spam filters? All ISP's already do what gmail does...they scan the content of your email to look for spam and any other filters you've asked for. the real question is..and i'm surprised no one has brought it up, is the legal consequences of "expectation of privacy." i'm not sure someone can claim to "expect absolute privacy" with a gmail account. and basically, the courts have been somewhat consistent on the interception of communication: if a communicator is using a "private" channel, like a secure phone line, no one is allowed to intercept their communication, but if a communicator is using a "non-private" channel, messages may be allowed to be intercepted and used for by other people for other purposes. see Bartnicki v. Vopper how is google’s “privacy invasion” any different than spam filters? All ISP’s already do what gmail does…they scan the content of your email to look for spam and any other filters you’ve asked for.

the real question is..and i’m surprised no one has brought it up, is the legal consequences of “expectation of privacy.” i’m not sure someone can claim to “expect absolute privacy” with a gmail account. and basically, the courts have been somewhat consistent on the interception of communication: if a communicator is using a “private” channel, like a secure phone line, no one is allowed to intercept their communication, but if a communicator is using a “non-private” channel, messages may be allowed to be intercepted and used for by other people for other purposes.

see Bartnicki v. Vopper

]]> By: neilfred http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html/comment-page-1#comment-5094 neilfred Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:10:02 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html#comment-5094 danah, I think you've made this sort of point before, and I still don't think I understand what your position is. There's clearly a tradeoff -- specifically, consumers sacrifice some of their privacy to gain some convenience. So are you just lamenting the fact that we as a society don't value our privacy highly enough to refuse to make these sacrifices? Or are you suggesting that it is in some way wrong (morally, I suppose) for companies to even ask people to make such sacrifices, knowing that people, ever short-sighted, are always going to be willing to make them? danah, I think you’ve made this sort of point before, and I still don’t think I understand what your position is. There’s clearly a tradeoff — specifically, consumers sacrifice some of their privacy to gain some convenience.

So are you just lamenting the fact that we as a society don’t value our privacy highly enough to refuse to make these sacrifices? Or are you suggesting that it is in some way wrong (morally, I suppose) for companies to even ask people to make such sacrifices, knowing that people, ever short-sighted, are always going to be willing to make them?

]]> By: Ben Chun http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html/comment-page-1#comment-5093 Ben Chun Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:04:53 +0000 http://ubuntu.my/wp30/archives/2004/04/18/tim_oreilly_on_gmail.html#comment-5093 It's true that people will use things that they do not love or that are not "right". Use does not determine any true moral judgment. But it does go toward determining who wins in our capitalist system. So the objection that you're raising is very general, and is at the heart of all the decision-making problems that we face as a society. I wish I had some suggestion for a better way, but right now financial success is the best functional measurement of survival in the world. It’s true that people will use things that they do not love or that are not “right”. Use does not determine any true moral judgment. But it does go toward determining who wins in our capitalist system. So the objection that you’re raising is very general, and is at the heart of all the decision-making problems that we face as a society. I wish I had some suggestion for a better way, but right now financial success is the best functional measurement of survival in the world.

]]>