April 13, 2004 6:45 PM PDT
Google to consider Gmail changes
- Related Stories
-
Gmail likely to clear U.K. privacy hurdles
April 13, 2004 -
Google's Web mail no joke
April 2, 2004 -
Why Gmail gives me the creeps
April 2, 2004 -
Google to offer gigabyte of free e-mail
April 1, 2004
The search engine giant unveiled Gmail in late March to about 1,000 people in what it called a limited test. Nevertheless, it immediately produced an uproar over plans to offer Web surfers up to 1GB of storage for free, subsidized by advertising based on keywords scanned from messages and delivered over the service.
Google spokesman David Krane said the company plans to listen closely to the responses of test users and other interested parties during a three- to six-month test period. He said Google may make changes based on the recommendations it receives, but it hasn't yet made any definitive decisions.
"We are in the very earliest phases of testing, and we are actively soliciting and analyzing feedback from users and third parties, including privacy groups," Krane said. "We're definitely batting about a number of options for changes to the service, but we have not yet made any specific commitments or announcements about changes to come to Gmail."
Google's plans have drawn a sharp reaction from privacy advocates, who worry about potential abuses of a system that might allow the company to permanently store millions of e-mail messages and scan their content.
On Monday, Sen. Liz Figueroa, a Democrat from Fremont, Calif., said she was drafting legislation that would prevent Google or any other company from examining the content of e-mail in order to serve up ads.
Last week, Privacy International urged Britain's information commissioner to take action against the service, although that official appears unlikely to take a hard line.
Krane said the company was surprised by the amount of interest in Gmail, given its limited release. He would not speculate about possible alterations to Gmail's controversial advertising component. He offered a "no comment" when asked whether it would be economical to offer millions of people up to 1GB of storage for free without advertising to help pay for it.
Krane also highlighted some privacy enhancements of Gmail over some other e-mail services. For example, he said, the application does not automatically display images in e-mail, potentially reducing the threat of tracking technology frequently included in e-mail known as Web beacons or clear GIFs.
"The reaction so far has been very favorable from people who have tested and used it," Krane said.
See more CNET content tagged:
Gmail,
Google Inc.,
search engine company,
e-mail,
search engine
I have been watching, horrified, as the attacks on GMail become increasingly vicious and have now reached the level of attempting to prevent the product from ever reaching the mass market.
I am writing this letter to lend to Google what it needs most in this battle--*moral support*.
The worst part of the outcry against GMail is that it has absolutely nothing to do with GMail.
Why do I say that?
First, privacy is a non-issue with GMail. Google has already addressed the real issues, confidentiality and security, more than adequately. The term "privacy" is used to evoke connotations of spies and peeping toms.
Second, Google has no power to coerce anyone to use its product. Google's only "power" is the strength of its products: its ability to offer its customers a deal worth taking. If a user does not wish to see ads or have Google retain residual copies of his correspondence, he can decline to use GMail. If the "privacy advocates" thought that users did not understand the alleged (i.e., invented) dangers of GMail, they could initiate a campaign to educate potential users on the "dangers" GMail or call for a boycott.
However, no one has called for a boycott. Why not? Because it would be a cosmic joke--everyone expects GMail to be a phenomenal success. Why? Because GMail is good--perhaps because it is great.
Why does the idea of a significantly improved, insanely low-cost e-mail service generate such an outcry?
The ugly answer is a combination of anti-corporatism, hatred of profit, and--more fundamentally--hatred of the good and the successful because they are good and successful. In today's culture, the more successful a company (or an individual)becomes, the more it is despised, shackled, and punished. Witness Microsoft, witness Martha Stewart.
If the widespread antagonism to success (particularly to *commercial*success) ever changes, it will be because the best, most productive, most profitable companies of the world--companies like Google--had the courage to stand up for themselves, asserting the fact that what they do is irreplaceably *good* and life-enhancing--and that their success should be celebrated--not vilified or destroyed.
Thanks, Google, for giving us your great products. Here's to a successful, abundantly profitable GMail.
Sincerely,
Blake Scholl
Seattle, WA
Email: bscholl@gmail.com
I have been watching, horrified, as the attacks on GMail become increasingly vicious and have now reached the level of attempting to prevent the product from ever reaching the mass market.
I am writing this letter to lend to Google what it needs most in this battle--*moral support*.
The worst part of the outcry against GMail is that it has absolutely nothing to do with GMail.
Why do I say that?
First, privacy is a non-issue with GMail. Google has already addressed the real issues, confidentiality and security, more than adequately. The term "privacy" is used to evoke connotations of spies and peeping toms.
Second, Google has no power to coerce anyone to use its product. Google's only "power" is the strength of its products: its ability to offer its customers a deal worth taking. If a user does not wish to see ads or have Google retain residual copies of his correspondence, he can decline to use GMail. If the "privacy advocates" thought that users did not understand the alleged (i.e., invented) dangers of GMail, they could initiate a campaign to educate potential users on the "dangers" GMail or call for a boycott.
However, no one has called for a boycott. Why not? Because it would be a cosmic joke--everyone expects GMail to be a phenomenal success. Why? Because GMail is good--perhaps because it is great.
Why does the idea of a significantly improved, insanely low-cost e-mail service generate such an outcry?
The ugly answer is a combination of anti-corporatism, hatred of profit, and--more fundamentally--hatred of the good and the successful because they are good and successful. In today's culture, the more successful a company (or an individual)becomes, the more it is despised, shackled, and punished. Witness Microsoft, witness Martha Stewart.
If the widespread antagonism to success (particularly to *commercial*success) ever changes, it will be because the best, most productive, most profitable companies of the world--companies like Google--had the courage to stand up for themselves, asserting the fact that what they do is irreplaceably *good* and life-enhancing--and that their success should be celebrated--not vilified or destroyed.
Thanks, Google, for giving us your great products. Here's to a successful, abundantly profitable GMail.
Sincerely,
Blake Scholl
Seattle, WA
Email: bscholl@gmail.com
William M Gary
Tech News Geek (almost)
William M Gary
Tech News Geek (almost)