Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Gmail Commentary and Responses 290

Posted by michael from the mail-pattern-blogness dept.
Phil Windley writes "In his inimitable style, Tim O'Reilly tells us why GMail matters. The piece is entitled, 'The Fuss About GMail' but that doesn't begin to properly identify the real meat of what Tim's saying. Tim does discuss some of the privacy concerns on GMail and why he's not concerned, but he also breaks new ground on why GMail is not just another free email system. For example, Tim talks about how GMail might herald an era of large centralized computing and calls for APIs to allow GMail content to be move back and forth between it and other systems." Reader chris mansley writes "Google is quietly responding all the flak being given to their new email service. They have added a statement to quell the growing list of concerns. No more keeping email forever is at the top of the list. The reviews have been sparse on details and screenshots, but now Google is providing a sneak peek here and here." The only thing I didn't like about Gmail was their apparent intention to keep your mail forever, regardless of your wishes. Since they've now clarified that they don't plan to do that, it doesn't seem like there's much of a problem any more. Yahoo and MSN already link your searches on their respective engines with your account profiles on their respective free email services, and no one seems to care (maybe because no one uses MSN or Yahoo as a search engine these days, but still).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gmail Commentary and Responses More

Gmail Commentary and Responses

Comments Filter:

  • We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:31AM (#8889368)
    If you've got a trust-nobody mentality then what Google has to say means nothing, they're going to rip up their privacy policy and send every e-mail that goes through their system directly to John Ashcroft using their PageRank sorting technology to indicate which e-mails are most relavant to his desire to repeal every amendment in numbered order...

    Of course, if you're sane, you trust Google because if they really wanted to screw the world over, they simply could decide that since their search engine is so good, everybody needs to pay $25 a month to keep accessing it... or decide to start logging all search queries to a user-specific cookie... or just take their bat and ball and go home. They've already got enough power to mess with us even worse than Gmail could be, and they've yet to be caught abusing any of that power or going back on their word.

    That's how trust is really built... by letting them have the ability to screw up and seeing that they don't manage to do so. I'd certainly trust my e-mail with Google more so than I'd trust some of the other major "free e-mail" services out there.

    • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Informative)

      by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:41AM (#8889424) Journal
      or decide to start logging all search queries to a user-specific cookie...
      Erm. Hate to break this to you, but they kinda already do. Your google cookie has a unique user ID... I love Google, well, probably MORE than the next guy, but this *is* something they do.
      • Well, yeah, but do they keep a database table with my search queries next to my cookie ID forever? We know they have the ability to... but do they actually do it?

        Paranoia says "of course they do." Trust says "We think they don't."

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:28AM (#8889634) Journal
        And my cookies expire at the end of each session :]

        *shrug*

        • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Informative)

          by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:42AM (#8889674) Journal
          Unless you manually clean them (Or have your browser set to automatically clean them), the cookie actually expires on Jan. 17, 2038.

          There's a tin-foil type site called Google Watch [google-watch.org] with a bunch of information about Google.

          As I said in the grand-parent, I'm a larger-than-average fan of Google, so I believe most of the claims on the site are a bunch of paranoid rantings, but they do raise legitimate points about possibilities.
          • Also see Google watch watch [google-watch-watch.org].

            Basically the google watch guy is just pissed off that google didn't give him the page rank he thought he deserved. I've read google-watch and most of it is FUD

          • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:4, Informative)

            by RdsArts ( 667685 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @02:32AM (#8889928) Homepage Journal
            This is a web site that claims the cookie expires in 2038 because of pending 'brain implants.' [google-watch.org]

            Surely it couldn't be because they're using a large number of 32-bit UNIX-like systems, and that there's the UNIX [gsp.com] epoch [wikipedia.org] in all UNIX-like OSes on 32-bit systems is 2038.

            I mean, that'd just be kha-raaaaaaazie!1! It's obvious that they set the cookie to 2036 so they could steal our Precious Bodily Fluids. Where's the tin foil? Where?

            Err. Yah. Yah, at that point I think it's safe to say anything on the site can be honestly diregarded as bunk. Or at best poorly writen SciFi. Either way, it's relationship with reality is on the rocks, and reality is already calling it's mother and a divorce laywer.
            • This is a web site that claims the cookie expires in 2038 because of pending 'brain implants.'

              That claim is quite obviously intended as sarcasm. It mocks the following Craig Silverstein quote:

              "We'll still search for facts," he says, "but in all likelyhood the facts will be contained in a brain implant."

              Then the site goes on to ask (for the truly daft, this is where the sarcasm comes in):

              ... but ... Will these Google brain implants be opt-in, opt-out, or pay-per-thought?

              It's nothing like what you are sugg

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by prell ( 584580 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @08:28AM (#8890871) Homepage
        Your google cookie has a unique user ID
        .. Which is part of the nature of cookies. Google uses cookies for location/language information, and perhaps ads as they relate to whatever language/country you're in. It's all in their privacy policy: http://www.google.com/privacy.html [slashdot.org]

        Of course, you did not literally spread FUD -- just information, but I believe that now, while Google is inexplicably under attack - perhaps by those who could know better - we need to actively defend Google as the epitome of what companies on the internet can be.

        If you read the link from the story and understand it, you'll know that you have nothing to worry about: Google's software is parsing your messages as you open them for keywords so they can show you ads. This is something their search engine does already, and, as far as I know, nobody has been traced and arrested via their cookie because they looked up "nude kids" or "dirty bomb diagrams." And if you're really paranoid, just turn off cookies: they aren't mandated. Every site that uses cookies gives you a "unique user id." If you want to whinge about "unique user IDs," we can talk about social security numbers or palladium hardware IDs or the Passport service.

    • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fhic ( 214533 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:45AM (#8889439)
      I (often) half-jokingly describe Google as the compendium of all the world's knowledge. But I wonder how long that would continue if they actually did anything evil?

      There are a lot of search engines out there, and while Google is currently at the top of the list, nobody stays there forever. I can remember a time when Netscape was on top [I hear jwz in my head: shut up! :-)] For awhile it was Yahoo! and Altavista had a turn. Now it's Google.

      I'm just a lowly coder. I'm not enough of a visionary to know who will be on top in a year. I hope it's Google, but I'm entirely prepared for it to be Amazon [a9.com] or Altavista [altavista.com] (again; has anybody noticed their recent changes?) or some brilliant kids from some community college somewhere who have nothing but a hosting account and some algorithms that will change the world.

    • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by afidel ( 530433 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:45AM (#8889440)
      I trust Google as it stands today, but after the IPO I will trust them as far as I can throw a server farm. Any public company has a fudicial responsibility to their investors, and if times get tough or the shareholders scream enough then it is often difficult for even a well meaning management team to keep the customers interest in focus. That's why I'm not so hot on a Google IPO, they do well as a private company and I trust them a lot more that way. Why would they need an IPO anyways, they have all the money they need to implement any new ideas and none of the founders has said they are itching to cash out (and even if they are the remaining partners could leverage the corporate profits to buy out their share)

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:24AM (#8889617)
        Smart investors know that consumer trust is one of those things that fall into the category of "goodwill"... that magical dollar value that represents the difference between the sum of all of the company's worldly goods and the combined worth of all of the issued shares.

        In short, if Google betrays the trust customers have in it and therefore is no longer trusted, the company won't be worth as much.

        Does SCO have any goodwill left? Doesn't look like it, and that's part of the reason major investor seems to be trying to cash out chips...
      • I trust Google as it stands today, but after the IPO I will trust them as far as I can throw a server farm. Any public company has a fudicial responsibility to their investors

        Everything I've read says that Google is not selling anything close to 50% of the company. They would still be privately controlled by the same people who have been running it all this time.

        • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @05:01AM (#8890438) Journal
          We had a guest the other night (I'm taking a high-tech entrepreneurship and venture initiation class this quarter), who basically said that after they sold part of the company (in the form of a venture stake for about 15%, and another further 15% to the employees in the form of stock and stock option grants), he suddenly had the fiduciary duty to maximize return to his shareholders. Even though they were not the majority (he and the other founder held 70%), as a member of the board and a corporate officer, he was legally obligated to consider actions that he, as a founder, didn't think were good in the long term.

          One example. Google sells 30% of the company. Some guy (Bill Gates for example) comes along and offers 6 times the current share price for Google stock in an acquisition deal. For that kind of return for their shareholders, Google's board cannot ignore the offer and tell Bill to go away. Google's majority owners may end up not voting to sell, but their time, the time of the board, corporate officers, etc. would be eaten up having to deal with this.

      • There's a lot of negative Gmail press out there.

        Too much negative press even.

        Are we looking at Microsoft/Yahoo/Others putting a lot of effort into making sure these criticisms make the news?

        I'm no Linux fan-boy (I use and appreciate Microsoft software), but I wouldn't put efforts such as those past any company who had a financial interest in the development or lack of it. And because of that, I'd be inclined to give Google a bit more benefit of the doubt here.
    • A few words about privacy and Gmail...

      1. Google does not send any email content or other personally identifiable information to advertisers.

      What about everybody that's not an advertiser?

      2. No humans read any Gmail messages to target advertising or related information that users may see on Gmail.

      What about non-humans? I'm assuming computers do "read" every single email that goes through gmail and computers can do a lot more than relate email content to ads.

      3. Gmail only shows unobtrusive, targe

      • What about everybody that's not an advertiser?

        Was that supposed to be insightful? Do you get regular updates from google about what i've been searching for recently? I just don't see what you're getting at. Sure google could be forced to turn private information over to the government, but so could any company. All that means is that the US gov has some major privacy concerns to address.

        What about non-humans? I'm assuming computers do "read" every single email that goes through gmail and computers can do a

    • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:59AM (#8889509)
      It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.

      Look at the Millenium copyright laws: Google takes down copyrignted content as soon as someone sends them an email telling them it infringes. They have to, it's the law. The Church of Scientology uses those provisions frequently.

      Do you trust Google to treat your confidential data more seriously than their own survival? Why should you? Ashcroft or the FBI can ask google to hand over any ("terrorism related") information they like, and Google has to comply. It *has* to comply, whether they want to or not.

      That's why Google can't be trusted with my personal information. Not because Google could turn out to be bad guys later, but because to be law abiding, they have to give up my data if asked. At least if I keep my data on my own servers, it's harder to access.

      Remember, Google is *the* search king. They can't turn to the FBI and tell them "look, you can't do searches across all email account holders' archives, because it's too technically difficult". Instead, the FBI will say "do a search for "bin laden" across all your email archives, and give us the owner's addresses. And they'll comply, not because Google are the bad guys, but because Google are the *good* guys.

      No thanks.

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:20AM (#8889600) Journal
        It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.

        I haven't had mod points since December (despite two years and 1204 comments).

        But if I did have mod points, mine would go to the parent.

        So should yours.

        Putting all your eggs in one basket, as the cliche notes, is bad policy.

        Putting all your information in the hands of one company invites extensive profiling of you.

        It may even be that Google respects your privacy;
        it may even be that GW Bush is voted out of office and Ashcroft (slighty NSFW) with him, and contrary to any realistic possibility, the Democratic Party gets rid of [pmbrowser.info] Howard Berman [digitalspeech.org] is defeated in the Democratic Primary and Fritz Hollings [yale.edu] retires and the DMCA is repealed and no future Herbert Hoover ever leads the FBI into another COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org];
        and it may even be that lions lie down with lambs and meat packers lie down with cows.

        But even in such a perfect world, it would take one disgruntled Google employee or one corporate spy or one hacker to make all your data public.

        The question isn't "is Google trustworthy"; the question is, given that you backup your data for the day your hard drive inevitably dies, given that you use an UPS because you know that even the best power company has blackouts, why you rush to put all your data in any one set of hands?

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thdexter ( 239625 ) <dexter@nOspAm.suffusions.net> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @02:33AM (#8889932) Journal
        Do you trust Google to treat your confidential data more seriously than their own survival? Why should you? Ashcroft or the FBI can ask google to hand over any ("terrorism related") information they like, and Google has to comply. It *has* to comply, whether they want to or not.

        If you don't trust Google to break the law, then presumably you don't trust any company. This is an argument that's based on the foundation of all email services abiding by US law, not one specific to Gmail. I'm not entirely sure you realize this.
        • Is it truly the same thing? My ISP has a transient copy of my email, certainly, and if asked to help law enforcement, they'll do their best to help.

          But how often will they be asked to hand over their records? If it's a small ISP, then this won't happen frequently. If they're a large ISP, then it could happen more frequently. My data there would be searched incidentally, because it's much easier to search everybody than search a few specific people.

          If they're a really big email provider, like MSN, AOL, Y

      • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:4, Funny)

        by amRadioHed ( 463061 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @11:04AM (#8891437)
        It's not about whether I trust Google's intentions. So long as Google is an American company, or more precisely so long as its headquarters exist in *any* country, there's a danger that the government of said country can bully them into giving up all the information they have on anybody.
        This is very true. Fortunately google is currently working [google.com] to address these concerns.
    • John Ashcroft using their PageRank sorting technology to indicate which e-mails are most relavant to his desire to repeal every amendment in numbered order...

      Ashcroft is a conservative, he'll never think of touching the 2nd amendment.

      LK
      • Ashcroft is a conservative, he'll never think of touching the 2nd amendment.


        This is more true than you probably realise. During the investigations into 9/11, Ashcroft banned the FBI from searching gun purchase files to see if any of the suspects had purchased weapons in the previous months [New York Times, December 6, 2001]. Considering the contempt Ashcroft has shown for the other nine ammendments, his enthisiasm for protecting the second is a little disturbing IMO.

    • Re:We trust Google.... don't we. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Google has a unique cookie on your machine and they can easily track your search queries over time.

      With Gmail they could take things to a whole new level without having to break their privacy policy. Imagin having Gmail scanning every e-mail you read (hey, it's just a computer trying to deliver targeted ads) and slowly developing a personal profile with this information and your search query. That's quite a bit of powerful information that google could abuse without you ever knowing about.

      Say you buy a fe

    • Trust Nobody? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KrisHolland ( 660643 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:40AM (#8889666) Homepage Journal
      "If you've got a trust-nobody mentality..."

      Then what the hell are you doing signing up to use a Free email service, or for that matter being on the internet to begin with?

      If you do not trust google, then you really shouldn't trust hotmail or yahoo either.
      • "If you've got a trust-nobody mentality..."

        Then you'd best start by looking at your ISP, who have the ability (technically) to read your unencrypted webmail (yahoo, hotmail etc) as well as your real email account (typically unencrypted POP), plus being able to record the google searches you do, the slashdot comments you post, and able to tie this all to detailed information on your name, address, bank details and phone number.

        In the UK, you can use data-protection act to request all such information they

    • If you've got a trust-nobody mentality then what Google has to say means nothing, they're going to rip up their privacy policy and send every e-mail that goes through their system directly to John Ashcroft using their PageRank sorting technology to indicate which e-mails are most relavant to his desire to repeal every amendment in numbered order...

      Not saying I disagree, but you gloss right over two points:

      • Just because a corporate entity behaves one way today, does not mean it will behave another way next

  • Don't care about privacy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zutroi_Zatatakowsky ( 513851 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:31AM (#8889371) Homepage Journal
    Since that 1GB will quickly be filled with spam and nothing else. Let them search and index THAT!
    • Which is a good point, right?

      Google right now faces a huge issue: "spam" websites designed to bomb it's search engine.

      The one common thing about all spam emails is that they have a link to a product page [unless they're *scam* emails, a completely different thing]. Google can use algorithms on mail that gets marked and checked as spam to nerf the page rankings of those webpages.

      Why is this important? Because it gives people a free service, gives google advertising money, and has a huge benefit to the search engine.

      The best filtering "algorithm" is 5 million users doing your filtering for you. Google doesn't have that right now, because they don't ask anyone to rate their web results. Google stands to gain a huge statistical advantage by incorportating email into their services.
      • That's bloody genius!

        I never even thought of that. If they do set it up that way I will definately be dropping my three yahoo accounts and signing up for three GMail ones.
      • True, I thought about this after posting. This would be one hell of a bayesian filter - if 100,000 users each have 10,000 spam emails stored for idexing.

        Plus, as you said, all the mail/web domains Google could harvest... Though I'm not sure I want them to index that hot new 0-day-fetish-pr0n link some friend sent me. *cough*

      • Re:Spam Ideas - An Interesting Look at GMAIL? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:44AM (#8889436) Journal
        And how quickly after they did this would spammers use it to trash people's pagerank?

        Have a gripe with Slashdot? Spam a few billion Gmail users with a link to slashdot, and wham. Instant PageRank death.
        • Google's script could analyze the content of the email and then analyze the google cache of the page.

          Because slashdot.org has nothing to do with viagra, it wouldn't nerf the pagerank of some spammer who cleverly inserted slashdot at the bottom of his viagra spam.

          If someone did put slashdot in a spam email with lots of things about news for nerds, the spam filter wouldn't pick it up - because most people wouldn't have things like that labeled as spam.

          Plus, with all the data google will be collecting, goog
      • One thing they'd have to be careful about is determining the difference between a "spamvertised link" that's bad and should be downscored in PageRank, and a "newsworthly link" that keeps getting spread by e-mail newsletters or friends telling friends which should be upscored in PageRank. That's a very tricky judgement call for software to make...

      • The one common thing about all spam emails is that they have a link to a product page [unless they're *scam* emails, a completely different thing]. Google can use algorithms on mail that gets marked and checked as spam to nerf the page rankings of those webpages.

        An interesting idea, but it isn't really going to address spamming Google's index. The websites that really screw up Google returns aren't the ones that actually have a product to sell; they're the bajillions of bogus domains that the scammers an

    • Spam and Ads? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by digitalpeer ( 564005 )
      With millions of mailboxes full of keywords such as "viagra," I couldn't think of a worse way to associate ads with a user.

  • Why the big fuss? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:32AM (#8889376)
    If you don't like Google's terms/serving ads based on your email... don't use Gmail! It's really that simple, no need for extra laws. Let the free market decide.
    • There's laws about not being what you claim to be because the free market has a bad habit of being fooled by fraud. We need some regulation for the market to work, just not too much.

      Sometimes the public needs to be protected from its own stupidity. However, sometimes the people who try to protect the public end up being stupid and the public needs protected from that...

    • Re:Why the big fuss? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xoro ( 201854 )

      don't use Gmail! It's really that simple,

      My understanding was that the controversial features (reading, analyzing, storing) occur with letters you receive as well as send. This means that your correspondence may end up in the pool whether you agree to the terms or not, or even if you didn't know about them. Even if you know the terms and don't send to gmail because of them, you don't know where people end up forwarding their stuff.

      So it's really in everyone's common interests to critique what is appr

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:35AM (#8889388)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • two words: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:38AM (#8889400) Journal
    (maybe because no one uses MSN or Yahoo as a search engine these days, but still)

    Yahoo Groups

    You'd be surprised how many people use it

  • slashdot keeps every post you make (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeoin ( 668566 ) <jpgarner@gmail.com> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:39AM (#8889410) Journal
    Isn't this true? What is the difference?

    I like this approach, it makes you think about what you say. Maybe some emails shouldn't be sent. If you have to worry about it, you shouldn't do it.
    • Too bad I already posted in this thread - that's worth +5 insightful. Most forums, boards, etc. have archiving. Even Usenet (thanks to Google) - I was able to track posts I sent in 1998.

      And GMail will not AFAIK release your emails to the public. So I will/would simply not use this service to send really private mails. But I don't care if there's a private archive somewhere of me writing "happy birthday" to my father.
      • So I will/would simply not use this service to send really private mails. But I don't care if there's a private archive somewhere of me writing "happy birthday" to my father.

        I wouldn't use e-mail to send any truely secret material at all. Even if you can use encryption to hide your message, you still can't encrypt SMTP headers for the system to work. Therefore, a possible interceptor would still be able to deduce that somebody sent something to you, and it's something that I've taken an unusual effort to
    • Do you really like the idea that people will be more closed lip because of the potential for it to come back to bite you 30 years later? It's hard to say what will change between now and 30 years from now. Context changes over 30 years, so what you say now can easily be re-interpreted to mean something very different in 30 years. It's as if everyone has the potential to be a public figure and have everything they say be scrutinized throughout their entire life.

  • Google Server Farms (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:40AM (#8889413) Journal
    Given the Google server farms with over 100,000 computers world wide, it would not surprise me that data would linger on systems.

    heck they plan on hardware failure, and if a box drops dead, they do not even pull it out of the line up until sometime the following week.

  • They're just being honest... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:41AM (#8889423)
    I think they've clarified they privacy policy to a level that us geeks should easily be able to understand...

    When you hit "delete", more often than not in computer land, your data is not immediately rendered unrecoverable. In most operating systems, deleted files are ushered over to a "holding bin" for a final clear-out command to really get rid of them in case we want to change our mind. Once the OS finally lets go of the file, the file system often takes the short cut of just removing the index pointers to the file and/or marking the space as "unused", but leaving the data still spinning on the drive until something eventually wants to use that space... let's face it, a "quick format" doesn't have time to hit every track on the drive, it's taking a shortcut and that's what makes it "quick".

    So, really, they're just saying that in order to make their magical mega-system work, "delete" isn't going to mean "Expunge it all right away!" but simply "Put in the pile that'll be discarded the next time the garbage collection process comes by." Therefore, they'll need to keep your "deleted" e-mails for an undisclosed length of time... they don't intend on keeping it forever, although they have to word the privacy policy in a way that might be misread that way because to do less just wouldn't be being honest.

    If you don't have root access to the e-mail system where you work, you don't really know if "delete really means delete" on that system either. Your boss may in fact have access to your e-mail... you might as well assume that they do unless you know otherwise.

  • An API to link gmail with Thunderbird/Moz/Outlook (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:43AM (#8889435) Homepage
    Would be a killer feature. If they could sync my PDA with my Desktop with Thunderbird I'd be thoroughly impressed.

    Y! has this functionality for Outlook only; and it's seriously flawed (tasks get truncated at like 20 characters or something - ugh!).

    Google certainly has what it takes to pull this off right. Hopefully, they'll provide a way for developers to integrate with the gmail API with external apps (ala T-bird, etc).

    You can bet your last dollar that MSNmail, etc will (or already do; I don't use MSN) offer Syncronzation with their desktop apps.

  • Google: Gentlemanly Like Business Practices (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pararox ( 706523 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:44AM (#8889437)
    I'm really impressed with how Google has handled themselves since their inception. They have certainly been innovative, but most importantly they employ things that aren't seen enough in today's business world: openness and integrity.

    I'm inherently paranoid (or, perhaps more appropriately, private) and always take things with a grain of salt - especially when it's coming from a business the size of Google.

    That said, I don't blame Google for their desire to recoup costs by generating targeting advertisement. I'm very much impressed with how open they have been about the procedures they will use to actually target the ads. With this recent letter that so quickly and openly answers concerns made public recently, I'm happy to say here is a company that has been widly successful - all while being true gentlemen.
    • Google's mantra of "Don't Be Evil" has yet to be violated in the minds of most observers. However, the paranoia usually reserved for companies that have had histories of evil behavior is coming out against this... and that's what makes me feel Google's getting an unfair shake.
      • I wholly agree with that sentiment.

        The old saying goes "Once bitten, twice shy." The average consumer has not simply been bitten - we've damn well lost appendages to these bloody big-business types who demand the squeezing of every last half-penny from the buyer.

        It's really to be expected that GMail's services are going to come under fire. We're wary as a result of the repeat offenders who populate the market place.

        I'm impressed with Google, and use their search engine almost exclusively. I hope they
      • Not companies with histories of evil behavior, necessarily; rather big companies with future potential for same. Google started small, but it's definitely well on its way to being a "big company," and that has people very rightly worried.

        I maintain that it is dangerous for one company to have access to so much information, regardless of their policy on evil; after all, they are ultimately only responsible to the owners, and after an IPO they will be responsible only to the stockholders. Google as a compan

  • Gmail (Score:4, Informative)

    by cyberhill ( 548881 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:44AM (#8889438)
    A good review can be found at http://jogin.com/weblog/archives/2004/04/15/juice

  • Gmail will be a success! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JohnMajor ( 772052 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:46AM (#8889449)
    Their will be only a small few that won't try Gmail due to their fear of misuse or privacy concerns. Google has become a household name for people that use computers and even to those that barely ever touch a computer. I really don't see a need to currently extend or create new laws as the terms of service are clearly laid out and it is an optional free service. Gmail is destined for success already as there has been a large amount of media coverage and many people are not worried about the privacy issues. From the screenshots and some reviews currently out the interface seems to be very nice and the search features sound great. I will be definitely getting an account to at least try it, the 1 GB of space definitely is a plus too.

    Here are a few reviews that I was reading :

  • What if it IS just email? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JelloGnome ( 748938 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:46AM (#8889451)
    What if it's just 100GB email and nothing more, nothing less? Google wants customer loyalty; that's a good enough reason to do this. Their IPO is coming soon, everyone's watching the company. But what if Microsoft's search engine is actually good? What if Microsoft's search engine comes bundled with all future versions of windows, and windows updates (and believe me, it will). What if Microsoft sets your default home page to its own search engine EVERY TIME you update?

    At least with an e-mail service, Google will be standing on two feet when this happens. People will want to check their GMail no matter what search they are using. Google isn't even close to the financial power of Microsoft right now, so it needs to prepare for the attack...

  • Workaround for gmail and privacy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:47AM (#8889457)
    1. use a browser/email plugin that can automatically encrypt your email before sending it.
    2. use a browser/email decrypter plugin to unencrypt your mail when you read it.

    PGP as a form of encryption is commonly available. Theoritically possible but I am not sure how practical it is.

    This way all the webmail programs do not know what is being transmitted/stored.

    How about other applications that can use the 1GB of storage from gmail?

    e.g. online filesystem - files stored as attachments to emails to yourself.

    What else?
  • from the screenshots and the general concept presented by Google that attachments will be rejected. Why do I say this? well..

    1 GB is a helluva lot of space, but when you think of it 1 GB of text works out to on average 100MB of compressed ASCII. So what's the chance of someone using up their full 100MB of compressed text... for the average user it'd probably take YEARS.

    I say there's a 10:1 chance that Google blocks attachments. For me, that means that GMail is essentially a glorified, logged IM. and

    • Re:Well it's evident... (Score:5, Informative)

      by KFury ( 19522 ) * on Saturday April 17, 2004 @04:07AM (#8890306) Homepage
      Gmail doesn't block attachments other than executables (like the 30 .pif viruses you get every day).

      Non-executables (zip, jpg, doc, html, gif, pdf, etc.) are accepted just fine, and the per-message limit is 10 megs.
  • Look people, gmail has not even started yet. All this you see is nothing but hype to get attention for Google.

    Please /. crowd, don't be media sheep. It's just another mail service. There is no need for getting riled up over all these things the media says you need to get riled up over. Got it?

    Don't bother tearing into this post, I could care less what you think. :)

  • biggest problem with gmail: governmental request (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rdl ( 4744 ) <ryan@@@venona...com> on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:52AM (#8889475) Homepage
    I have an early gmail account, and have used it a little.

    The most serious concern is the privacy policy itself.

    http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html

    Specifically:
    As a standard email protocol, when you send an email from your Gmail account, Gmail includes your email address and user name in the header of the email. Beyond this, we do not disclose your personally identifying information to third parties unless we believe we are required to do so by law or have a good faith belief that such access, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request, (b) enforce the Gmail Terms of Use, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues (including, without limitation, the filtering of spam), (d) respond to user support requests, or (e) protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users and the public.

    "governmental request" means pretty much they'll turn over any information withouut a subpoena. I suppose for a free service, you get what you pay for.

    • "governmental request" means pretty much they'll turn over any information withouut a subpoena. I suppose for a free service, you get what you pay for.

      Just notice that the wording is in a negative mode at that point. They're listing situaitons in which they won't reveal information. They're not saying that they will hand over infomation to a weak government request... just that you don't get to sue them if they decide to so.

      It all goes back to whether you trust Google to know the difference between a non

      • Re:biggest problem with gmail: governmental reques (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Edward Scissorhands ( 665444 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @02:07AM (#8889803)
        Holy shit, how is this moderated as Insightful? It's totally wrong.
        They're listing situaitons [sic] in which they won't reveal information
        In fact, they are listing the situations under which they will reveal information.
        [W]e do not disclose your personally identifying information to third parties unless we believe we are required to do so by law or have a good faith belief that such access, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to
        (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request,
        (b) enforce the Gmail Terms of Use, including investigation of potential violations thereof,
        (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues (including, without limitation, the filtering of spam),
        (d) respond to user support requests, or
        (e) protect the rights, property or safety of Google, its users and the public.
        Clearly, they will provide personal information to anyone when they believe it is necessary to do either (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e).

        If you look at the very first condition (a), you'll see that they explicitly define a government request as seperate from a "legal process", "law", or "regulation". Clearly, the act of obtaining and presenting a warrant or subpoena falls under the category of "legal process", which is identified as being different from a "government request".

        As well, notice that that Google explicitly says that they will turn over personal information to "third parties". That could mean anyone-- your boss, your teacher, your parents, the RIAA, or even your Rabbi. The simple fact of the matter is that the only way to get privacy in e-mail is to run your own servers and only send and receive encrypted e-mail messages.

        I'm not saying that Google is evil-- though they do admit that they will be more than helpful in providing anyone with your personal information if the request satisfies any of the above conditions which, in my opinion, are overly broad -- but I do think that any organisation that really cared about your privacy would have a simple policy: they would not turn over information unless the request was made through the legal process.

  • Other searchable email (Score:5, Informative)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:55AM (#8889487) Homepage Journal
    The big thing with GMail apart from its space, is google's name behind the search feature. A proper search function really appears to be lacking in pretty much every major email client out there, once you get into large volumes of mail (which if you are reading this, you probably are) searching the mail takes serious amounts of time.

    One existing, non-web, alternative is Bloomba [bloomba.com] which has a *great* search function, even on high volumes. My email client is already indexing well in excess of 10K messages (folders cap out at displaying >5K, I have two of those) so I dont have a real count), and searches all take less than a second.
  • Well done Google.

    Now lets turn it on and give it a try!

    Makes you wonder what is next?
    I want a Google watch!

  • msn and yahoo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:07AM (#8889557)
    last figures i saw showed approximately

    40% of users use google
    30% use msn
    30% use yahoo
    25% use aol
    various others have smaller shares...

    clearly some folks use more than one engine...

    if google charged for search and they would suffer...

    as original poster pointed out few complain about msn and yahoo cause they dont give a damn....hysterical ninnys will complain about just about anything so let em.

    if you want free email from google, google will have the option of setting some terms...dont like em, dont use it.

    move on.

  • If you need privacy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BFaucet ( 635036 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:28AM (#8889633) Homepage
    If you want to mail sommat you don't want The Government to see, then use another method of mailing it.

    I understand why people are a little freaked out by G-Mail, but really, if you need privacy, you shouldn't use ANY mail service that you aren't absolutely sure doesn't read email, and you should encrypt your message as plain text emails can be intercepted at any of the thousands of mail servers your mail will pass through.
  • Yahoo and MSN already link your searches on their respective engines with your account profiles on their respective free email services, and no one seems to care...

    I do.

    That kind of thing is *precisely* why I don't use those email services other than for stupid registrations for free stuff (once called "soul-sucking email registration" in a post on ./ --- my personal favorite).

    As for GMail, 1000MB of space sounds great, but when I have to worry about computer systems that track my interests and someone

  • Having worked for Google... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IanDanforth ( 753892 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:29AM (#8889643)
    I can say that I trust them (the founders) pretty much totally. It probably had something to do with the posted signs saying "Don't be evil." All over the place. Its rule number 1. I also use gMail, and while I don't think its as amazing as people have made it out to be, its nice to not worry about inbox limits. If your still concerned about privacy think about this. They have your IP address and every search you've ever run, personally thats more revealing about me than most of my e-mails. Do they log them all in some huge scary database? No. But if you're paranoid enough to worry about bots reading your mail, you should probably think about that potentiality as well. -Ian

  • Mandatory Tinfoil Conspiracy Theory (MTCT) (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:42AM (#8889677) Journal
    You know what I think? I think the whole privacy issue is a "grassroots" campaign initiated, funded, and propogated by the one company scared spitless of Google: Microsoft.

    My girlfriend's cousin's best friend's roommate in college reported that his brother-in-law (who works for Microsoft, so you know it's from a reliable source) tells me he "handles" the PR firm that is managing this whole campaign, to make it look like Google is a big, scary ursine terror, instead of the big fluffy teddy bear they really are. Microsoft has (to date) spent $1.2M buying advertising disguised as special-interest groups, "reporters" for major tech rags, and M&Ms for the office.

    Really. Don't laugh at me like that. I'm serious. It's all part of Microsoft's astroturf campaign to discredit Google.

  • Usability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @01:55AM (#8889740) Homepage Journal
    While 1GB is uber-cool and all that, it looks like gmail is not exactly a revolution in terms of usability and accessibility. Mark Pilgrim, of diveintomark.org, has a review [diveintomark.org] of these aspects of gmail which he summarizes as "The target market for Gmail appears to be vi users who use Internet Explorer... The only way Gmail could be less accessible is if the entire site were built in Flash."

    The thing to be a cross between web mail and a desktop email client: it is written in several hundred kilobytes of javascript.

  • My theory is that Gmail was a wake up call to Microsoft, AOL and YAHOO that they were not ready for. I think that one or all of those companies are pulling strings behind the scenes and THAT is what the fuss about.

    Granted that California senator (or whatever she is) is playing this for the face time during an election year, but one has to wonder if she has recieved any contributions recently to her campaign...

  • Random thought... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rbright ( 54766 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @02:19AM (#8889866)
    Is there any technical reason why you couldn't write some clever code that would allow you to mount GMail as a networked drive, just like Konqueror does with its multi-protocol support?

    Files would be stored as attachments, along with a file allocation table of some sort. Send a mail to yourself to write a file; delete the mail to erase it.. but all totally transparent to you. It'd be a bit slow, but some clever caching/buffering could take care of that.

    You could theoretically get it to span across several accounts to store files larger than a gig. Just add un/pw's to a config file to increase your storage capacity.

    Even if they don't end up providing pop3/smtp, you can still just script the html sessions like YahooPOPs! does.
  • Amazon.com enteres into search business
    Can Amazon Unplug Google?> [business2.com]

  • POP3/SMTP? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pantycrickets ( 694774 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @04:48AM (#8890409)
    Without POP and SMTP support, who really cares? I don't have time to check 50 emails a day on a web interface.

    For web email I use mailvault, and for real email I use gmx, which still gives you free POP3 and SMTP.

  • Searching is actually the weakest feature of gmail (Score:4, Interesting)

    by twelvemonkeys ( 689012 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @10:54AM (#8891390)
    I've had a beta account for about a week now, and ironically enough I find the search feature the most lacking.

    You can only do whole word searches... if you want to search for emails from your friend Bob Chuzzlewit-Pumblechook, and you have ten friends named Bob, you can't shorten your search by searching for "Chuzz", as that will return nothing.

    Kind of ironic, since on any other email client you can search for partial words.

  • Trust, but verify (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:01PM (#8891711) Homepage Journal
    We need to trust Google, and others with similar promises, to progress with our interconnected infosphere. In order to trust people with material this valuable, we subject them to audit. We audit banks, we audit factories, we audit farms, we even audit gameshows. We need to audit Google. Google needs to be auditable. Their source code, while proprietary, needs to be audited by an auditor without other financial interest in Google, unlike the Enron/Anderson incest. And who audits the auditors? Other auditors - like a web of psychoanalysts, or peer-reviewing scientists, the web of trust must be at all levels, and open to verification on demand.

  • Gmail wants to change my brain. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fingerbear ( 602605 ) on Saturday April 17, 2004 @12:15PM (#8891792) Homepage
    I use Google's search toolbar constantly. After a few days of using Gmail, I feel like Google is doing their best to make me even more dependent on searching (which in turn makes me dependent on their company).

    The "Search Mail" box is always at the top of your page, on any screen, and since Gmail encourages you not to delete anything, the Search box becomes the easiest way to find stuff. (If there's a way to sort alphabetically by sender or subject, I haven't figured it out.) I think if I used Gmail regularly, it would make my brain even more more search-reliant in my daily life. It's one thing to have a cookie on my computer, but it's another thing to feel like they're messing with my brain. THAT is a privacy concern.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close