Privacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., and London-based Privacy International denounced Gmail as an intrusion that must not be permitted to exist.
The objections lodged against Gmail are telling, because they illuminate two different views about how to respond to new technologies.
This approach differs from traditional privacy activism, which alerts people to a product's potential dangers and lets them make up their own mind.
The objections lodged against Gmail are telling, because they illuminate two different views about how to respond to new technologies. The protechnology view says customers of a company should be allowed to make up their own mind and that government regulation should be a last resort. Privacy fundamentalists, on the other hand, insist that new services they believe to be harmful should be banned, even if consumers are clamoring for them.
"Whether it's on this issue or a host of other issues, the de facto position of many privacy groups--EPIC being the lead--is antitechnology," said Rob Atkinson, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute. "It's to shut new IT technologies down before we use them."
Atkinson, by the way, is no Newt Gingrich-voting Reaganaut. His institute is part of the Democratic Leadership Council, once chaired by then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton in 1991.
Banning technologies
It's not just activist groups. The same mind-set has infected some politicians, too.
In February, California state senator Debra Bowen, a Democrat, introduced a bill to regulate radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. It says that before they can be used for information collection, a business "shall obtain written consent."
Even if you agree with Bowen's approach, it seems chronologically questionable. In a world where we can open a bank account over the Internet, why require a signature on a piece of paper? Bowen's legislation only makes sense if her intent is to make the technology so unwieldy that few people will use it.
EPIC and its allies went even further, saying in a November 2003 position statement that some uses of RFID tags "should be flatly prohibited."
Figueroa's bill is so broad, it would ban far more than just Gmail.
"RFID is a great technology," Atkinson says. "Again, the issue is to get the right rules in place. But they don't want to hear that. They're anti-RFID."
Last week, EPIC and Privacy International gave a "Brandeis" privacy award to the California state senator who has introduced a bill to forcibly pull the plug on Gmail. Sen. Liz Figueroa, a Democrat from Fremont, was given the award for her "excellent work to protect and champion privacy," the groups said in a statement.
Figueroa's bill is so broad, it would ban far more than just Gmail. It would prohibit any Web e-mail or instant-messaging service from doing innocuous things like giving its users the option of filtering dirty jokes, turning ":)" into a smiley graphic, transforming text phrases like "www.news.com" into clickable links or offering important features like e-mail search or mailing-list filtering.
"EPIC claims to be protechnology, but fundamentally, they want to dictate uses of technology and prevent successful commerce among consenting adults," says Jim Harper, a privacy advocate who runs Privacilla.org. "E-mail scanning of various types has been going on for years. It suddenly became a 'privacy' concern, when it became used (for) commercial purposes (by) Google. I think that shows that those activists are anticommerce, not proprivacy."
It's worth noting that EPIC has done laudable privacy work in other areas. It has campaigned against anti-encryption laws, opposed the Clipper Chip, and used the Freedom of Information Act as a tool to pry important information out of government agencies.
The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation chose not to join the anti-Gmail coalition. EFF Chairman Brad Templeton said in an essay last week that Google might want to consider some changes but that "it would be ridiculous to see it banned, as Sen. Figueroa would suggest."
EPIC said Figueroa was scheduled to receive the privacy award before the Gmail flap happened. But EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg added: "It seems to me extremely appropriate that Sen. Figueroa would receive a Brandeis award for her efforts to update privacy law to prevent snooping into private communications."
The thinking is that the EFF can accomplish a lot more by moderating its demands on Google. Whether other privacy groups will adopt a similar tack is looking less and less likely.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
rather stupid to bother with Google's email when any interenet
access service also provides ad-free email. What is it that Google
thinks they are providing that' snot already there?
Anyhow, I repeat the observation, if you don't like the ads, don't
use Gmail.
Life can be simple at times
rather stupid to bother with Google's email when any interenet
access service also provides ad-free email. What is it that Google
thinks they are providing that' snot already there?
Anyhow, I repeat the observation, if you don't like the ads, don't
use Gmail.
Life can be simple at times
They feel so strongly against technologies invading our privacies (even when elected by the individual) that they want them banned -- what about smoking? It kills thousands of people every year ... why aren't they worried more about getting cigarettes banned? How many people are estimated to be killed by GMail. Without scientific research, I think I can still venture a close estimate.
I'm for having the personal rights of being able to make a judgment call for myself ... if I want to smoke, use GMail, eat potato chips, drink soda, thats my decision. Be honest people -- just tell the public that you think we're too stupid to make a choice for ourselves and you think you're the only enlightened ones who can...
I just don't understand the idea of "privacy rights" being more important then "personal rights". This logic would say that we shouldn't educate people on political elections -- we should just ban the candidate we don't like ... hmmm ... that sounds like a familiar style of government, and its not a democratic republic.
Disappointing ...
They feel so strongly against technologies invading our privacies (even when elected by the individual) that they want them banned -- what about smoking? It kills thousands of people every year ... why aren't they worried more about getting cigarettes banned? How many people are estimated to be killed by GMail. Without scientific research, I think I can still venture a close estimate.
I'm for having the personal rights of being able to make a judgment call for myself ... if I want to smoke, use GMail, eat potato chips, drink soda, thats my decision. Be honest people -- just tell the public that you think we're too stupid to make a choice for ourselves and you think you're the only enlightened ones who can...
I just don't understand the idea of "privacy rights" being more important then "personal rights". This logic would say that we shouldn't educate people on political elections -- we should just ban the candidate we don't like ... hmmm ... that sounds like a familiar style of government, and its not a democratic republic.
Disappointing ...
conversations, make calls that have bank or credit card
information, or any other important information from a cell
phone, wireless phone, or in a room with a baby monitor. My
uncle once hooked up some sort of scanner in our backyard and
it was amazing the information you could get. Yet I would use
Gmail.
Why, because I would not ever use it for anything private or that
would have important important information in it. I currently
won't use Yahoo email for private email because I don't trust
their security. 90% of the email I get is completely frivolous. If
google wants to know what movie I just saw or work gossip then
I don't care. The information they get will be personal, but not
private.
When one of my family members insist on mailing out every
digital picture they took on their vacation I will have the space.
When I'm at work instead of needing to explain to someone with
limited tech knowledge how to ftp a file to me I can just have
them email it. No worry about the 10mb limit I have with that
account. When I want security and privacy I'll keep using my
kerberized/encrypted account otherwise I'm going to have fun
with that 1GB.
conversations, make calls that have bank or credit card
information, or any other important information from a cell
phone, wireless phone, or in a room with a baby monitor. My
uncle once hooked up some sort of scanner in our backyard and
it was amazing the information you could get. Yet I would use
Gmail.
Why, because I would not ever use it for anything private or that
would have important important information in it. I currently
won't use Yahoo email for private email because I don't trust
their security. 90% of the email I get is completely frivolous. If
google wants to know what movie I just saw or work gossip then
I don't care. The information they get will be personal, but not
private.
When one of my family members insist on mailing out every
digital picture they took on their vacation I will have the space.
When I'm at work instead of needing to explain to someone with
limited tech knowledge how to ftp a file to me I can just have
them email it. No worry about the 10mb limit I have with that
account. When I want security and privacy I'll keep using my
kerberized/encrypted account otherwise I'm going to have fun
with that 1GB.
What do we call this split in tech ideology? Protechnology vs. Privacy fundamentalism? Can't a privacy fundamentalist also be pro-tecnology? It's more like a business move than a technology move on Google's part. It seems like we need some clearly defined stereotypes here before we begin labeling people. How bout pro-google vs. anti-Microsoft, no wait that's almost everyone. Where do the mac people go? Are they pro-technology? (notice how I said they to "other" and alienate the mac users) Can we just call it the anti-regulate-my-software vs. anti-potential-privacy-invasion (or the pro this and that,but without the manipulative wording) debate so that everyone can be fairly represented without abortion-style wording like protechnology? Were all geeks anyway...
I stopped using hotmail today; Thank you google.
What do we call this split in tech ideology? Protechnology vs. Privacy fundamentalism? Can't a privacy fundamentalist also be pro-tecnology? It's more like a business move than a technology move on Google's part. It seems like we need some clearly defined stereotypes here before we begin labeling people. How bout pro-google vs. anti-Microsoft, no wait that's almost everyone. Where do the mac people go? Are they pro-technology? (notice how I said they to "other" and alienate the mac users) Can we just call it the anti-regulate-my-software vs. anti-potential-privacy-invasion (or the pro this and that,but without the manipulative wording) debate so that everyone can be fairly represented without abortion-style wording like protechnology? Were all geeks anyway...
I stopped using hotmail today; Thank you google.