Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Legal challenges to Gmail
I had in an earlier post noted that Google's e-mail plans had critics within the company itself, folks who were worried about the advertising model that Gmail planned to use. In a lot of people's minds, it seemed like an assault on privacy. These criticisms have now led Democratic Senator Liz Figueroa of California to draft legislation to block Gmail.
Senator Figueroa describes the service as being a bit like "having a massive billboard in the middle of your home". The targeted adverts would use key words after scanning your private e-mail - posting adverts for pharmaceutical products, for example, if a message mentions a medical condition. Google's plans have already come under fire from privacy campaigners objecting to adverts linked to the content of messages, and to the permanent storage of email.
UK-based campaign group Privacy International has complained to the UK's Information Commissioner about Google's plans to send users links to advertising based on a computer scan of their correspondence, and presumed interests. It also pointed out that Google's terms of service did not allow users to delete their emails permanently, despite European data protection legislation which gives users full control over their own communications.
Some of the criticisms makes Google sound positively Microsoft-ian. I am not sure things are that bad. First, Google is not doing this on the sly. Folks who sign up know from the start how the targeted advertising works. Secondly, people who are uncomfortable with the privacy angle have the option of not signing up. The latter POV is not good PR, obviously.
If I were at Google though, I would immediately find a way to discriminate between customers who dont mind invasions of privacy and customers who do. Perhaps, the more sensitive customers could use a mailbox that had 1/10th the capacity of the normal mailbox -- that would still mean 100 MB of storage space, about 20 times more than average. These customers would receive their ads the tried and trusted way via banner ads, viral ads and so on. The other option would be to make sensitive customers pay, though I am not sure that would work given the competition in the web-based e-mail space. Either way, Google needs to resolve this really quick since it would be suicidal to risk its reputation and image of being a technology wonderkind.
Senator Figueroa describes the service as being a bit like "having a massive billboard in the middle of your home". The targeted adverts would use key words after scanning your private e-mail - posting adverts for pharmaceutical products, for example, if a message mentions a medical condition. Google's plans have already come under fire from privacy campaigners objecting to adverts linked to the content of messages, and to the permanent storage of email.
UK-based campaign group Privacy International has complained to the UK's Information Commissioner about Google's plans to send users links to advertising based on a computer scan of their correspondence, and presumed interests. It also pointed out that Google's terms of service did not allow users to delete their emails permanently, despite European data protection legislation which gives users full control over their own communications.
Some of the criticisms makes Google sound positively Microsoft-ian. I am not sure things are that bad. First, Google is not doing this on the sly. Folks who sign up know from the start how the targeted advertising works. Secondly, people who are uncomfortable with the privacy angle have the option of not signing up. The latter POV is not good PR, obviously.
If I were at Google though, I would immediately find a way to discriminate between customers who dont mind invasions of privacy and customers who do. Perhaps, the more sensitive customers could use a mailbox that had 1/10th the capacity of the normal mailbox -- that would still mean 100 MB of storage space, about 20 times more than average. These customers would receive their ads the tried and trusted way via banner ads, viral ads and so on. The other option would be to make sensitive customers pay, though I am not sure that would work given the competition in the web-based e-mail space. Either way, Google needs to resolve this really quick since it would be suicidal to risk its reputation and image of being a technology wonderkind.
