Right. GREAT QUESTION and extremely relevant to why the judge decided as she did. Wiretap rules are governed by state law for calls placed among parties when all in the same state. Most states require that all parties know of the recording while the call is being made for it to be introduced as evidence, but some like NY only require one party to know. If the call is among parties crossing state lines federal guidelines apply, which are much more stringent and bring in a whole new set of rights and privacy laws that must be followed. The only way to bypass these laws is by getting a warrant to record calls after producing probable cause (unless, of course, you use the Patriot act and a few other exceptions, under which the NSA operated). I donít think the judge here is trying to trash Gmail or get rid of Google, but she felt there was some ambiguity in its practices. It likely just means better accountability, more transparency and culpability for Google and how it uses email - maybe bureaucratic, but it guarantees Constitutional rights and the laws made to protect the citizens - else, as you imply, we change the law and make it so the person sending information has no reasonable expectation of privacy. These again just highlights the complexity that arises when we apply our laws in a medium that nobody could possibly have foreseen, itís not a witch hunt (for the most part) and we shouldnít be defending or persecuting Google, but understand the laws and rights at play. What got me is that the author of this blog, who is entitled to write what he wants, focused on the context that this is Google and this is how it does it and I trust it. And, I am inclined to agree; however, it doesn't obsolve it anymore than if Google were a covert entity used by the Syrian government.
I thought it would be straightforward. One person's experience cannot be used to validate all peoples experience. That's where cancer comes in, because one person smokes and doesn't get lung cancer doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer. We can comment on what we wish here, like you commenting on your experience with Google, while nice, yet anecdotal. However, after highlighting YOUR experiences you said the case should be thrown out - so the faulty premise led to a faulty conclusion. And your comments on the fact that Gmail users agreed and it thier problem, just indicates you don't even know what the case is about, as the matter was specifically about users who weren't using Gmail - hence signed no such release - but were communicating with Gmail users. For example, if you sent someone email from a Yahoo account, it could be scanned. Get it now?
You prove the point very elegantly. There should be accountability based on what is being done, not who you are. I imagine that there are others who don't hold your view. Of course, it doesn't make them wrong or you right. It just means that laws must be applied fairly and justly across all entities to protect the citizens.
The interpretation of any law ismust be unbiased. I think your argument - at the end of it all - is, well, really is Google going to do anything bad with this stuff? How would we feel about our Gmail account if the Syrian government or PRC owned Google? We'd probably either drop our Gmail accounts or have a much greater level of transparency, accountability, culpability and the ability to audit. At worst case this is likely what Google will have to provide. Is that bad? Unfortunately, you're not adequately building a case around the decision or interpretation of the law, your defending Google.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Justsayin'.