Attorneys for Google filed a brief of 30 pages in the courts of San Jose is to explain how users’ privacy in e: “Like who sends a letter to a business colleague should not be surprised that the secretary of the open receiver, people who use email today do not be surprised if your emails are processed by the recipient’s email provider in the shipping process. Indeed ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily cedes to third parties. ‘”
Consumer Watchdog took those words as a confession of Google about reading the emails of users: “finally admitted that does not respect the privacy”.
The same organization invited those interested in keeping their private communications that do not use Gmail .
The information was published by various media around the world, regardless if you Google “admits that it respects the privacy” your whole business falls under.
The user information is the biggest asset of the company and that it is able to provide its services, being the most important contextual advertising.
That the system of Google succeeds in placing ads related to searches or content of an email does not mean the company employees engaged in spying mails Gmail . All information is processed electronically as well as other advertising services thousands of sites.
Before the debate began Consumer Watchdog , Google merely responded to Mashable: “We take the privacy and security of users very seriously, recent reports claiming otherwise are simply false.’ve built a system security and privacyGmail industry leader. And no matter who you send or receive an email to a user of Gmail , these protections apply. “
In response to Google , Consumer Watchdog said the company chose a wrong analogy: “We hope that a letter sent by the postal service is not read by the postman. Something similar happens when you send an e (…) Why should I wait content to be intercepted and read by Google ? “
Google considers then that this legal battle is unfounded and argues that its practices comply with current legislation, while believed plaintiffs endeavored to throw a “sinister light” on the company.
Also, Google insisted that federal law exonerating hear companies engaged in electronic communications if users agree that “intercept” messages, something that anyone who uses Gmail accepts to open an email account.
The doctrine employed by Google refers to the case of Smith vs. Maryland , where it was considered that the installation of a device to track the numbers marked not an illegal act by the phone company. The legal question the court to decide was whether the client had a “legitimate expectation of privacy”.
The case comes amid a tough fight Microsoft for getting your mail, Outlook.com , exceeds Gmail . In fact, the Redmond-based company launched a harsh campaign against Google , focusing on the privacy of the mail service.