So true…

Therefore, in the same breath, if we have accepted and trusted pilots to carry us in earoplanes; hospitals to keep the most intimate of our personal details; the banks, the insurers, our financial details and the list goes on, why shouldn’t we accept legitimate ICT providers to do the same? The risks are the same in either cases.

Yes we can careful/prudent, and yes we can launch legal battles, but at present everything is pointing to the time when a lot of details will be sitting on service providers servers.

The fact of the matter is that, as stated in the article, these emails sit of the hosts’ servers. If we give them sensitive information, that sensitive information will eventually sit on their servers. They may not advertently wish to divulge the data, but suppose an accident happens while the data is in their custody!

There is a classic case doing the rounds in the media in New Zealand. The long and short of it is that a Case Manager at an Accidents Compensation Corporation had a sick family member and decided to work from home. By nature of her work, she took “sensitive” information home to work on. That night her house was burgled. Read on: http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/acc-notebook-stolen-house-burglary/5/164414

Sachin,
In Google laying out in its Motion to Dismiss that the scanning of emails is fully automated – without direct human oversight or intervention – but more importantly facilitating other desired and welcomed services, this could be serious blow to the plaintiffs’ case.

However, the situation does begin to highlight that among other things, (i) ordinary users might not know what systems and processes are necessary to deliver certain features and services, and (ii) users might be inherently wary of the intimacy, and even control, that large Internet companies can wield in their lives, and perhaps more importantly, those companies’ ability to exploit the information with which they are trusted.

Carlton,
The post was not necessarily meant to be sensational, but rather to continue to apprise persons of pertinent situations of which they should be aware. More importantly, in our somewhat mindless consumption of technology, many of us still do not fully appreciate the inherent give-and-take arrangements of the Internet/technology-driven services we are using, and the implications therein.

Having reviewed the link suggested, I have no difficulty with the views shared, and note that similar to The Next Web, our post also stated that the quote on “legitimate expectation of privacy” could not be attributed to Google, but to an earlier court judgment in which that sentiment was expressed.

The point though is that although persons are prepared to dismiss the court case from the outset, so far, the plaintiffs are being given a patient hearing. I do think the plaintiffs have a long road in front of them to successfully prove their case, but at the same time, I think the case itself continues to show the uneasy tension between us accessing technology, and our perceptions of personal privacy.

Rightly said. The terms of service says that data is scanned. The emails are private in the sense that a person does’t see the email (well except the NSA now). How else were these people expecting things like spam filtering, or user filters for email messages?

Follow the link below for another take on the matter:
http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/08/14/no-google-did-not-say-that-we-cant-expect-privacy-in-gmail/

-Carlton