Google Mail (gmail)

Joined
Jul 20, 1999
Messages
574
Gmail is 1 year old today and they are increasing their storage from 1gig to 2 gig. I have several invitations available (you can only get an account by invitation). If you want a gmail account send an email to

gbknives@gmail.com

and I will send you an invitation.
 
There are serious privacy concerns associated with gmail. I'm sure those interested can 'google' up some info on the subject if you try.

Conversely, Yahoo's free email accounts are just as huge memory-wise and don't have the privacy concerns...
 
James Green Dragon said:
There are serious privacy concerns associated with gmail. I'm sure those interested can 'google' up some info on the subject if you try.

Conversely, Yahoo's free email accounts are just as huge memory-wise and don't have the privacy concerns...

I think you'd be very surprised what Yahoo does with your mail and you don't know about. Google is just up front about it all.

Have a Yahoo account? Look at the bottom of the page where it says this:

NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site.


Enjoy,
Fisher of Men
 
Like I said on another thread on the same subject: Anyone who doesn't think their email is public domain, accessible by anyone with the knowledge and interest in doing so, is seriously deluding themselves.
 
I've got one already, and if I can ever remember the password, I'll go check it for mail...
Shoot... can't even remember my username... :confused:
 
Quiet Storm said:
If you want a reasonably secure email account, freemail just ain't the answer.

Unfortunately all email is unsecure. None of it is encrypted. It's all sent in clear text.

Either go through the hassle of using digital signatures or don't worry about it.

Personally I don't send anything in email that would cause any harm if anyone got it.

I'll use free web based mail for tons of stuff. :)

Cheers,
Fisher of Men
 
Fisher of Men said:
....Personally I don't send anything in email that would cause any harm if anyone got it.....

Like naming a new dog. ;)

"Never give a dog a name that you wouldn't feel comfortable shouting at the top of your lungs from your front porch."
 
It can be secure, but it's a pain in the arse. For really sensitive personal emails I'll PGP to encrypt it. That only works though if who I'm talking to has PGP, unless I make a self-decrypting archive.
 
While it is true that no electronic communications are secure, it is not fair to compare what Yahoo does with personal information to the scandal associated with gmail. For example:

"...First, Google has proposed scanning the text of all incoming emails for ad placement. The scanning of confidential email violates the implicit trust of an email service provider. Further, the unlimited period for data retention poses unnecessary risks of misuse.

Second, Google's overall data retention and correlation policies are problematic in their lack of clarity and broad scope. Google has not set specific, finite limits on how long it will retain user account, email, and transactional data. And Google has not set clear written policies about its data sharing between business units.

Third, the Gmail system sets potentially dangerous precedents and establishes reduced expectations of privacy in email communications. These precedents may be adopted by other companies and governments and may persist long after Google is gone..."

"...Currently, individuals may have the understanding that Google’s system is not that different in nature from scanning messages for spam, which is a common practice today. There is a fundamental difference, however. With Gmail, individuals’ incoming emails will be scanned and seeded with ads. This will happen every time Gmail subscribers open their emails to re-read them, no matter how long they have been stored. Inserting new content from third party advertisers in incoming emails is fundamentally different than removing harmful viruses and unwanted spam.

Another potential misconception about the Gmail system is that the scanning will take place in isolation. The email is scanned, and ad text is delivered. But that is not the end of the story. The delivery of the ad text based on emails is a continual "on the fly" stream. This technology requires a substantial supply chain of directory structures, databases, logs, and a long memory. Auditing trails of the ad text are kept, and the data could be correlated with the data Google collects via its other business units such as its search site and its networking site, Orkut..."

"...Google needs to realize that many different companies and even governments can and likely will walk through the email scanning door once it is opened. As people become accustomed to the notion that email scanning for ad delivery is acceptable, "mission creep" is a real possibility. Other companies and governments may have very different ideas about data correlation than Google does, and may have different motivations for scanning the body of email messages. Google itself, in the absence of clear written promises and policies, may experience a change of course and choose to profit from its large stores of consumer data culled from private communications.

The lowered expectations of email privacy that Google's system has the potential to create is no small matter. Once an information architecture is built, it functions much like a building -- that building may be used by many different owners, and its blueprints may be replicated in many other places.

Google's technology is proprietary, but the precedents it sets are not."

http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/GmailLetter.htm
 
No thanks. I'm amazed that people in this forum would patronize an anti knife company like Google.
 
Blades_Two said:
No thanks. I'm amazed that people in this forum would patronize an anti knife company like Google.

Now, I didn't know that.

'most every knife I've bought, I've listened to what people said, Googled for reviews, looked for prices.

I am amazed that anyone round here wouldn't use Google.
I sure as hell disapprove of Saudi Arabia - I use their oil!
 
Google refuses to sell advertising to all dealers who sell guns or knives the Google people choose to define as weapons (using an arbitrary standard of their own with no relation to the laws of any jurisdiction). They don't just bar advertising of weapons, they bar all advertising from dealers who sell "weapons." They even refused advertising from Knife Outlet after Knife Outlet removed the knife Google had called a weapon from the website.
 
Blades_Two said:
No thanks. I'm amazed that people in this forum would patronize an anti knife company like Google.

Well, someone start a list then. Can't jump on people for ignorance, just for stupidity.
 
Back
Top