Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

Fair point, but i'm not talking about the general public, i'm talking about people with something to hide. What could the general public have to hide? What sensitive info does the general bod in the street have in his email account? No more than he has in his wheelie bin, but as everyone knows, big brother is watching, digitally. Yawn...

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

www.hushmail.com - the webmail of cr4x0rs!
Seriously though, they have the most secure email on earth. :)
2048 bit encryption for starters, it suits even the most paranoid user. :erm:

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

Ask the 4,000 plus members of the general public who are my customers.

I'm sure a lot of them don't want anyone to know that they're buying kinky leather gear. I'm also pretty definite that many won't want anyone archiving it and sending them targetted ads!!

I'm glad you can dismiss this so glibly. However pardon me if I disagree that it's so trivial nobody needs to worry about it.

The point is that information should *automatically* be treated as private, whether it's Auntie Maud's recipie for Xmas Pudding or your credit card details or details of your health problems.

Just because *you* don't consider it to be important doesn't mean that *I* should do the same.

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

I agree with Graham that personal information should be treated as private, but unfortunately, it's not the case and never will be. The Echelon project, which was in existance years before it became public knowledge, is a prime example of why this will never be the case in today's society.

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

I don't see what all the fuss is about, because your mail gets sent round the world before it gets to your inbox, so who knows how many other systems have seen/read your private email or some stupid wee ****** trying to intercept random email, we get toid of encryptions but are you sure they are working correcltly?

I read my sttement when I signed up for gmail, I am happy with it, if I send out an email, that does not get adds added to it, so technically it is only inbound email that gets scanned, for key words, it is not reading what your mail is about.

I am not paranoid enough to bother with it.

ik

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

Well, every email provider will archive things. Whether you delete it or not. Fairly sure it's a legal stipulation that they have to keep it for so long. Nobody knows, or cares, that they're buying kinky leather gear, it's all done automatically based on keywords, which i'm sure you already know. If you don't like the service Gmail offers, don't use it. You won't find better webmail, but really, nobody's forcing anyone to use it. It just annoys me when people start the scaremongering about this. Are you aware of the info that big companies keep on you? Calls are all recorded. Info is held on computer forever. Do you have anything to worry about? No.



I do consider info to be important, but any important info sure as hell doesn't go to Gmail, hotmail, or my isp-provided popmail.

Information IS treated as private. Nobody reads your ads. Often, the targetted ads are wrong because of bad keyword interpretation. It's all automatic, and the targetted ads are just the tradeoff for you not having to pay for the service. Look at what hotmail are charging for their packages now. Considering you get more space with gmail, and far more functionality, how much would gmail cost, i wonder? Maybe Gmail will offer a paid-for, ad-free service once it's out of testing, but really, if you're after real security, you don't choose the free, subsidised option.

If you're WORRYING about the security and privacy of your info, you've got nothing to worry about. If you're aware of security, and indeed in NEED of data security, you'll have taken another route in the first place, and avoided gmail.

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

Thank you, I won't.

Incorrect. However under UK law (the Data Protection Act) I'm entitled to get hold of that information and ensure that data kept is only that which is necessary and correct and any errors can be put right at no cost to me.

Can you say the same for Google who probably aren't even liable under UK law?

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

What part of that is incorrect? I know google are US-based, therefore liable only for american (non-existent) DP laws. The point still stands that your data isn't going to be read by anyone but you, so you've nothing to worry about.

If you don't use Gmail, why do you even care?

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

That I have "nothing to worry about". I subscribe to Which? magazine and could show you dozens of cases where people have had all sorts of problems because companies have got incorrect data stored about them.

Here's an example of "nothing to worry about"...

"A flaw in Froogle, Google's price-comparison service, created a means for attackers to swipe cookies used to access GMail accounts. Israeli hacker Nir Goldshlager demonstrated how users fooled into executing script by clicking a link pointed at Froogle could be redirected to a site that steals usernames and passwords for the "Google Accounts" centralised log-in service. Google has fixed the vulnerability, preventing further theft. But Goldshlager warns that data from already stolen cookies can still be used even if the password of compromised accounts is changed."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01...security_bugs/

I don't buy extended warranties. Should I therefore not care about telling anyone else that they're a waste of money? :rolleyes:

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

ermm. graham, your point there is about a security hole in google/froogle/gmail. Not about privacy (or lack of privacy) with gmail. There are numerous security holes in hotmail, yahoo, and the lot of them. PHPbb and Vbulletin are being patched all the time. OSes are patched all the time as well. This thread is about singling out Gmail. If there's something specifically about gmail's TOS or whatever, that doesn't apply to the others as well, then please let everyone know, but something like a security hole, that wasn't even a problem with gmail specifically, is clutching at straws.

gmail is still in beta. if you're not prepared to put up with some teething problems, you shouldn't be using it. If you have any particularly sensitive info, you shouldn't be using free email services, you should be using a service worthy of your data. They wouldn't offer compensation for data loss, and they don't have a service standards agreement.

As for your point about subscribing to which magazine (i'm not even going to start on that...), i know about problems that data storage can cause. I've worked in CS for years now, i've had all sorts of weird and wonderful problems/complaints/headaches.

Not all extended warranties are bad, look at richer sounds. Anyone stupid enough to get a dixons one (the buggers tried it with me a few weeks ago when i bought an iriver h340... Guy wouldn't take no for an answer. Had i not been in a hurry i'd have stuck about and kicked up a fuss) deserves fleecing, but there are decent warranty schemes out there.

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

I think most people are like you and me, only use mail for non important stuff.

Oh nice sig by the way ;)

Re: Anti-Gmail warnings
 

The point is that it could allow someone complete access to your e-mail account. I would call that a threat to privacy!

You mean like the fact your having to agree to have gmail scan your e-mails and that the mail *is* being not only *read*, but *acted upon*, and in a way that personal data about can be passed back to an advertiser?

Note that I'm not talking about spam blocking or virus checking. Yes, they also rely on your mail being read and it being acted upon, but that's where it stops.

This is going beyond that sort of concept to one where information about the contents of your mail is available to third parties and that I definitely object to.

Excuse me? "wasn't even a problem with gmail specifically"? So which *other* webmail service was google patching...? :confused:

And are the T&Cs also in beta? Well, they may be revised if enough people object.

Whether the data is "particularly sensitive" or not is irrelevant. E-mail contents should be treated as private no matter what.

No, but the ones that people are usually faced with almost certainly are.

If you want an extended warranty you can buy one from a broker for a lot less than the shop price or you may find you're covered under your household insurance or credit card policy.

But if people aren't aware of this, just as they may not be entirely aware of the breaches of their privacy in gmail, then should I *not* mention the drawbacks...???