Google’s legal counsel says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy

When I started using email in the 1990s, I was advised that plain-text email was no more private than sending a postcard: most likely, nobody besides the intended recipient would bother to read it, but a number of people in theory could read it. The idea of blithely sending private information over unencrypted email never made sense to me.

But on the other hand, neither did I expect to learn that the U.S. government is collecting, analyzing, reading our email. Even though I might have assumed they could do that, it's alarming to discover that they are doing that.

This is like the 10th submission of this nonsense: sections of this legal motion have been deliberately taken out of context to mislead readers.

If anything that quote is about non-Gmail users and even then it’s in response to a certain aspect of the complaint.

The lawyer cited a 1979 precedent (as lawyers wont to do) to counter a specific allegation:

“a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over tothird parties.” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743-44 (1979).

The whole case is built on trying to make physical mail (snail mail) analogies applicable to email, and Google’s lawyer is counter-arguing accordingly. They are accusing Google of "reading" emails when it's computers "parsing" text, that particular part of the motion is in response to the argument that non-Gmail users class action is valid since they didn't agree to the TOS, Google counters the mail providers’ "automated processes" are analogous to assistants that are allowed to open mail for their employers (the recipient). The "third parties" here aren't necessarily Google but the recipients of your email who happen to be using Gmail. As since you've turned over your information voluntarily to the email recipient they can apply “automatic processing” to it.

Link to relevant page: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-Motion-061313#pag....

The case is about Gmail "scanning" emails to target ads, Google is arguing (rightly so) that machines parsing emails is not equivalent to "reading" it, and that "automated processes" are necessary for spam filtering, full-text search, etc.

The entire motion, read it and make you own conclusions: http://www.scribd.com/doc/160041493/Google-Motion-061313

It hasn't been a good year for "expectations of privacy".