[ale] What's so special about gmail invites?

[Robert Reese]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
On 9/3/2004 at 1:09 PM George Carless wrote:

>> Maybe we should be able to have a resonable expectation of privacy with
>> regards to email, but the reality is that the current infrastructure
>> does not allow it.
>
><rant>
>Hear hear.  I find it ridiculous when people moan about gmail -- it is
>*absolutely*
>a knee-jerk reaction.  GMail provide a service, for free, and detail
>up-front what
>their intentions are with regards to scanning e-mail etc. -- and yet
>people still 
>attribute malicious intent.  It's hardly as though anybody is forcing
>anybody else 
>to use gmail; given that, I'm astonished that people moan and act as
>though google 
>were some stalinesque organization setting about to invate people's
>privacy.  


This is the point on which you are wrong:
"GMail provide a service, for free, and detail up-front what
their intentions are with regards to scanning e-mail etc"

GMail has not bothered to warn those people that send email to GMail users
that their inbound email is subject to analysis, especially since this
analysis is for advertising.  Nor are the recipients of email from GMail
users notified of this fact.  You see, the GMail user has taken the liberty
of agreeing to a privacy policy for both themselves and their recipients
and sendees.  Last time I checked, an individual was only allowed to make
agreements for themselves.


>Frankly, I think it's quite a stupid response.

Getting a little personal now, aren't we?  Not very gentleman-like.

>The internet is inherently insecure and inherently non-private.  Either
>deal 
>with it, don't use it, or do something about it.

Exactly what I am doing... I'm doing something about it.  Like banning it
and its users from my inbox.  Like complaining loudly about it.  Like
informing others of the risks since we all know very few people actually
read privacy statements and click-through agreements.


  But all of the fuss
>about Gmail is 
>just daft - to speak in no uncertain terms, I find it technophobic
>nonsense that's 
>often espoused by those who don't understand the technology and who worry
>about 
>those who are open about what they're doing rather than those who keep
>quiet and may 
>be silently doing any number of things with your data.  It's the same
>mindset that 
>worries about secure credit card transactions online while thinking
>nothing of 
>handing a credit card to a waitron they've never before met, and, well,
>that thinks 
>that closed source code is more secure than open source code because with
>open 
>source code you can see what's going on under the hood.
></rant>

Again, you are wrong.  A pattern forming?  ;c)

Cheers,
Robert Reese~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
Comment: No one has the right to NOT be offended!

iQA/AwUBQTjH/7w8BOWncaQMEQI76ACglb/yKu0iJWHRWYQoDIuxvp5Gu+8An073
SSt9BUK+k9ulitIDVLDszNLj
=sC4f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Type: DH/DSS 4096/1024 AES-256
Key ID: 0xA771A40C
Fingerprint: CAE2 81CA A7CD 6681 341C  E3A9 BC3C 04E5 A771 A40C