Gmail Users Have “No Reasonable Expectation” Of Privacy
By Natasha Leonard, SALON.COM
Google admits in filing that email users should not be surprised that the company processes communications
As I have noted here before, it is worth remembering that as recently as 2009, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
Schmidt expressed more here than a personal opinion, he revealed views on privacy and transparency that underpins his company’s ideology — one that shows scant regard for Google user privacy. On Wednesday it was revealed in the form of a legal filing, uncovered by Consumer Watchdog: Gmail users have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” for information passed through Google’s email server.
The comment from Google’s lawyers came out in a class action lawsuit in which the Internet leviathan is being challenged over Gmail’s feature for scanning emails to target ads. Plaintiffs claim that Google’s practice goes against wiretap laws, but the Google’s lawyers argued otherwise, stating:
Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.’”
However, millions of Google users had not assumed that everyday their electronic communications were being systematically scanned and read. But Google’s attorneys went so far to say that this is simply “ordinary business practice.”
John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s privacy project director, told the Guardian that Google’s argument is deeply flawed:
Google’s brief uses a wrong-headed analogy; sending an email is like giving a letter to the Post Office. I expect the Post Office to deliver the letter based on the address written on the envelope. I don’t expect the mail carrier to open my letter and read it.
Similarly, when I send an email, I expect it to be delivered to the intended recipient with a Gmail account based on the email address; why would I expect its content will be intercepted by Google and read?”
Now, any close follower of Google’s transparency reports and general modus operandi when it comes to compliance with government demands for user data will not be surprised by this revelation. Furthermore, it is no secret that Google traces user search activity in order to provide targeted advertising. However, millions of Gmail users — unattuned to the vagaries of Google’s approach to transparency and privacy — would have assumed their emails were treated as private. Hopefully the current lawsuit will help inform more Internet denizens that if they’re seeking confidentiality and protection from government and corporate surveillance, Google is no place to turn.
Natasha Lennard is an assistant news editor at Salon, covering non-electoral politics, general news and rabble-rousing. Follow her on Twitter @natashalennard, email email@example.com
8/12/2013News ReleaseGoogle Tells Court You Cannot Expect Privacy When Sending Messages to Gmail -- People Who Care About Privacy Should Not Use Service, Consumer Watchdog SaysSANTA MONICA, CA -- In a stunning admission contained in a brief filed recently in federal court, lawyers for Google said people... More >
9/26/2013News ReleaseSANTA MONICA, CA -- In a seminal decision for online privacy, a federal judge in San Jose, CA., today rejected Google's... More >
8/14/2013News StoryLavabit is no more. Silent Circle has shuttered its secure email service. All the major email providers appear to be complicit in... More >
8/13/2013News StoryThe Internet is in a panic over a Google legal brief that claims Gmail users have no expectation of privacy when they use the... More >
8/13/2013News StoryIn motion to dismiss a data-mining lawsuit, Web giant says people have "no legitimate expectation of privacy in information... More >