Gmail (was: Re: June meeting)

[Robert Jewell]

> This actually leads directly to some problems pointed out in this
> article... http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/248
> 
> Personally I can see both sides, and prefer not to see anyone berated over
> their view of the situation.  TANSTAAFL[1], and I can't blame anyone for
> wanting to avoid the not-quite-free lunches.
> 
> [1] There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

One of the foci of that article was aimed at debunking the "computers
read it, not people" view.  I wholeheartedly agree that this is a
major fallacy.

Additionally, I'd like to make note of one important piece that I left
out of my previous message: a possible solution.

A "more correct" privacy law would contain stipulations allowing for
valid ignorance of the "all party consent" rules.  A valid use would
be one where party A invokes third party scanning on a message from
party B, such that the third party gains no permanent knowledge of the
mail, and that the actions taken because of the third party scanning
are only evident to party A.

Further, I have no idea how to deal with mail data being subpoenaed to
verfiy proper adword searching.   Seems to me like there are probably
many reasons that mail data could be supoenaed.

(Oh, also, I hope I didn't/don't seem like I'm berating anyone.  I
don't intend to. :))
-- 
Robert Jewell