Update: ExtremeTech posted a great article on this subject by Jim Lynch that brings out even points than I do here. I like his point of assumed entitlement. Recommended.
There has been a big flap over Google's announced Gmail product. The first big negative salvo I saw was Cynthia Webb's Filter column in the Washington Post. She gives the “privacy advocates” big ink on the purported “intrusion” into your email.
The Gmail privacy policy is pretty clear on what Google will and will not be doing. The Electronic Privacy Information Center issued their usual crisis alert/sky is falling quotes for the articles Webb links to.
First, I need to mention a disclaimer. I have a personal problem with anyone who is referred to as an “advocate.” Every time I see or hear the term, I cringe and expect to see a rant. They are generally the stridently vocal minority. They seem to generally take positions on the extremes of an issue. That is not inherently bad, and I have seen some cogently explain their positions, but the vast majority of advocates cloak their logic and data in FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They would rather play on people's emotions rather than with the facts. They want only one position to prevail - their's. Now I realize that I am painting “advocates” with rather a broad brush, but I feel that their use of emotion damages their credibility.
So what about Gmail? The FUD crowd relies on a misconception that privacy actually existed in electronic communications. In fact, unless you have encrypted every email you have ever sent, your emails have never been private. With the development of broadband, it has been possible to sniff your ISP's WAN and see everything that goes by your connection. While emails are buried in an avalanche of other packets, you could see them. Security through obscurity is a fallacy.
Another issue goes counter to the advocate's usual privacy arguments. Gmail is one of the ultimate opt-in systems. EPIC has been championing such an option for a long time. Their website states, “The public considers opt-in--the principle that a company should obtain an individual's affirmative consent before collecting or sharing data--as one of the most important privacy rights.” No one forces you to sign up and use the service. There are numerous competing free and for fee email systems. You feel there is a cost/benefit in your favor to the relationship. You are the one accepting the text advertisement, not anyone else.
I think Google did a poor job with its initial explanation. They have done so before with their other products and projects, but not seriously. I believe that they have generally done well, and this was reflected in the press' desire to cast negative stories about a company that is perceived positively. The negative spin was sure to attract more eyes and please their advertisers.
I will watch this issue with interest.