# And you thought your email was safe...



## Erin99 (Aug 15, 2013)

Shocking news. Google reads every email sent to a Gmail account for use in finding keywords to better target ads. I'm shocked. To think my emails have been opened and read, even automatically by a piece of software...

Google: don't expect privacy when sending to Gmail | Technology | The Guardian

Odd times, I noticed that after I'd written an email to someone, a few days later ads would match it. I even got paranoid and searched for backdoor trojans on my PC, and I *never* get those!

As the article says: _In its motion to dismiss the case, Google said the plaintiffs were making "an attempt to criminalise ordinary business practices" that have been part of Gmail's service since its introduction. Google said "all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing."

According to Google: "Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS [electronic communications service] provider in the course of delivery."_

I'm sorry, but I don't send _personal information_ to a business unless I choose to do so! My emails go to friends and family - not businesses. I DO NOT choose for Gmail to slyly check my email for - no, not keywords related to terrorism or any excuse like that - but for ways to spam me.  And Google is *not* my personal assistant. And personal assistants don't spam you once they read your mail.


----------



## Boneman (Aug 15, 2013)

But spammers are going to have a field day, messing with Google's mind, I'm sure! And they'll deserve everything they get....


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2013)

To be fair to Google - not something I find easy to type - even I knew that they did this and I don't have a Gmail account. As far as I recall, it was mentioned before the service was launched.


Besides, unless one's emails are encrypted, they are out there on the Internet in a way that's more analogous to a postcard than a letter.


Where there _is_ an issue is that while the fact that they do this reading is probably recorded somewhere in the terms and conditions/whatever of Gmail account holders, it isn't mentioned to those without a Gmail account but who send emails to Gmail accounts. I'm assuming Google - whose attitude on, say, scanning books in copyright, was cavalier (and I'm being kind here) - doesn't bother to check whether the sender is a Gmail account holder when it looks through an email's contents.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 15, 2013)

Just a  thought (inspired by Google's own analogy of a letter). If I receive a letter, I don't expect the postman to have opened it and read it first.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 15, 2013)

This has always been the case with Gmail. Every service Google provides has one aim - to collect user data. The chrome browser is spyware, and why do you think Google spent all that time and effort to build Android?

Other companies - ie, Apple - will collect user data, but so far as I understand it only Google is both as obsessed and technically capable of processing such huge volumes of data.

Most people don't mind because they don't put a value on privacy - something Google has long taken advantage of. And where privacy safeguards exist, Google has often sought to circumvent them, as with the recent Safari browser issue.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 15, 2013)

As I have said elsewhere on chrons. I hate this sort of stuff with a vengence but I'm also pretty fatalistic about it. As our private affairs become more and more electronically documented they will also inevitably become more and more public. There is no such thing as perfectly secure electronic data. Anything anyone comes up with to make such data secure will _always_ get hacked sooner or later. So the loss of privacy is, I think, a regretable (*big* understatement there) side effect of the digital world we now live in. Our bridges are really well and truly burnt.

As I say I hate this, but the younger generations are growing up surrounded by this technology and they have much less of a problem with it; they put a much much lower value on privacy. And that is why I am convinced that the days of privacy are now very much numbered.

As to Google themselves, well duh!, does anyone really believe that any company that gets that big is actually going to approach its business philanthropically? I think not. And don't think they are alone. I wouldn't mind betting all free email suppliers (MS hotmail, Yahoo mail etc.) do exactly the same but are just keeping their heads down hoping Google will take all the flack.


----------



## Erin99 (Aug 15, 2013)

Sigh. But no argument makes it right, as we all know. How can companies ethically choose to look through people's private discussions? And yes, I realised it would have been in the terms and conditions, about them checking email - as horrid as that thought is - but to _use_ the data for spam??? (And no, I don't often check terms and conditions. Shocking, I know. But every site has them - it's over the top, and they're often soooo large - my poor dad finds that by the time he's read a site's T&C, the site's logged his session out and lost the account he was trying to set up! - so I'm one of those great customers who just tick the agreement box regardless.)

I worry about what such a large company will do with our data, as most do. Reminds me of the time Google street cars were found to be collecting open wifi data before Google claimed it was an accident.

I, too, fear we as a society are losing our privacy. I must admit, I'm a very naive person at heart, as much as I hate to admit it, so it's taken a while for me to comprehend just how bad some companies' ethical practices are. I _still_ want to believe that Google never meant anything bad by it all... 

And yet, on the flip side, I know how valuable Google ads are to places like this forum. Brian's often said he relies on the revenue it brings in. If Google are targeting my ads (grrr!), surely that means there's more chance of success of click-throughs for ads, thus helping site owners.


Another point is one Brian mentions. Google are _always_ collecting their users' data. I find this more and more when I designed websites for local businesses (friends of Seph's family, but still). I get the business owners emailing me to complain that churches and random sites are coming up in their Google searches before their own site - until I explain that "Web customisation" is enabled by default in Google, and if they turn it off they'll see their true ranking, which is higher.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 15, 2013)

I wonder how Google would react if we started collecting_ their_ data? Cease and desist springs to mind.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2013)

Leisha said:


> Reminds me of the time Google street cars were found to be collecting open wifi data before Google claimed it was an accident.


We know that this was accidental because Google has had to be forced to delete** the data... Er....





** - Yeah, right, it has definitely been deleted. No doubt about that; none whatsoever.


----------



## Erin99 (Aug 15, 2013)

Heh. I bet they wished the street cars had come with terms and conditions that stated their data-collection intentions, and if you let the car drive past, you were agreeing to them. I could see it one day: "No sir, you have no right to complain. Our website stated that the cars were doing this". 


Did they get ordered to delete backups? Backups of backups? Perform a _thorough_ deletion? And how many statistics and patterns had been drawn up about the data _before_ it got deleted?

Blimey! I sound like I'm paranoid!


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Aug 15, 2013)

Well, I just sent ten emails to myself proclaiming myself a fan of ikebana flower arranging techniques. I will report the results of same... 

Seriously, though. Is anyone surprised? I'm really not. Tesco's use my data to target me with deals. (Mostly involving the purchase of wine, so that's telling me something... ) Its the world we live in, and the price we pay for having the convenience of something like email. Is it ethical? No, probably not. But no large corporation is now, or ever has been, fully ethical. They just don't normally get caught.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 15, 2013)

Google's ten core principles.

Ten things that we know to be true ? Company ? Google

And, yes, I Googled it. Perhaps if I keep doing this over and over, the data they collect from me will force them to start looking up their own backsides.


----------



## Parson (Aug 15, 2013)

*Springs, *I long to see your first  ikebana flower arrangement.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 15, 2013)

Right or wrong this Pandoras box is not going to close. I think the questions we should be asking are about how we adjust to live in this brave new world.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 15, 2013)

Vertigo said:


> Right or wrong this Pandoras box is not going to close.



Don't necessarily agree, Vertigo.

Nothing ever stays the same. Giant corporations have gone to the wall by not responding to changing trends. There's a small trend starting for more privacy on the net, who knows where it will end? But one things seems to be certain - Google seem to think they are big enough not to bother about other people's opinions and I think that's a mistake.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 15, 2013)

And they can't say they don't know about our opinions.

Well, they could, be would we believe them?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Aug 16, 2013)

Opinions they don't give half a flying horse crap about, if Youtube is any indication. (And it is; you wouldn't BELIEVE the horrid tortures they put that thing through!)


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 16, 2013)

Vertigo said:


> Right or wrong this Pandoras box is not going to close. I think the questions we should be asking are about how we adjust to live in this brave new world.


 
The answer is to stop using Google products. Same with any other company that goes down this road. 

Ironic that one of their business principles is 'Do No Evil'. It's also interesting that their business practice would indicate that they seem to think it is like a switch (Good, flick, Evil) with nothing of consequence in between.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 16, 2013)

mosaix said:


> Don't necessarily agree, Vertigo.
> 
> Nothing ever stays the same. Giant corporations have gone to the wall by not responding to changing trends. There's a small trend starting for more privacy on the net, who knows where it will end? But one things seems to be certain - Google seem to think they are big enough not to bother about other people's opinions and I think that's a mistake.


 


Foxbat said:


> The answer is to stop using Google products. Same with any other company that goes down this road.
> 
> Ironic that one of their business principles is 'Do No Evil'. It's also interesting that their business practice would indicate that they seem to think it is like a switch (Good, flick, Evil) with nothing of consequence in between.


 
I'm sorry, I think you are both wrong here; you are focusing on just one company - Google. And, no matter how immoral their behaviour (and I _do_ agree with you; in my opinion it _is highly_ so), they are far from being alone. This is a trend we are seeing across the globe from small companies to large ones. From Google and Facebook through pretty much every government on the planet, to small companies that sell every bit of personal data they can get their hands on.

To try and address this by taking action against a single company is like trying to win a battle by only killing the most brightly attired soldier on the other side. To try and attack all the enemy soldiers and so win the battle is... well, we might have managed it a couple of decades back if significant action had been taken, but now, in my opinion, we've simply left it too late. These practices are now well and truly entrenched and, with the global nature of data today, attempting to control it now will simply move the data collection to countries that aren't prepared to sign up to such action.

If you really want to do something about it then you need to boycott not Google or Yahoo or Facebook or Apple or Microsoft but you would need to boycott the internet itself, because ultimately the internet is the real 'culprit' in this case. And, frankly, good luck with that. 

It's time to open our eyes to the fact that over the last couple of decades the world has changed and it's not about to change back no matter how loudly we scream that that this isn't where we wanted to be. I'm not happy with that but most younger people I have spoken with (say mid twenties and down) generally have no problem with it at all. In fact they expect it.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

Vertigo said:


> I'm sorry, I think you are both wrong here; you are focusing on just one company - Google. And, no matter how immoral their behaviour (and I _do_ agree with you; in my opinion it _is highly_ so), they are far from being alone. This is a trend we are seeing across the globe from small companies to large ones. From Google and Facebook through pretty much every government on the planet, to small companies that sell every bit of personal data they can get their hands on.


I agree.

Twice my firewall software has asked me whether I wanted the site I was visiting to take control of my webcam. One of these sites was owned and run by the BBC.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 16, 2013)

Now that *is* scary Ursa! You'd never know who might be watching you hard at work and reporting on how many times an hour you picked your nose


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 16, 2013)

To save you from having to wear a full-body tinfoil suit**, I suggest you cover your webcam when*** you're not using it. (A sticking plaster will do, or a carefully folded business card. Actually, it's best to use both.)






** - With enough space inside to let you get your finger to your nose unseen, obviously.

*** - Which should be all the time.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 16, 2013)

Hehe! 

I don't have a webcam except the built in one on my laptop and I have never even set that up. Also I rarely use the internal laptop screen. I plug into full size screens in both of the main locations where I work. So I think I can avoid the that particular problem. Incidentally I have come across people who always drape a folded card over their laptop webcam when they're not using it. It's all a bit sad really!


----------



## Pyan (Aug 16, 2013)

Yahoo's almost as bad. I opened my inbox when I got in this evening and found this:




> *Dear pyanfaruk,*
> 
> Yahoo! wants to make sure your address book is filled with the  most current and valid emails to those family, friends and contacts you  need to reach.                                         We noticed that you had emails in your address book that are  no longer valid, so we have removed them.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Email addresses that have been removed:
> 
> ...


Cheek!...


----------



## The Judge (Aug 16, 2013)

*stares open-mouthed.*

*worries about the laptop webcam whatsit and whether it can see me even though I've never used it*

*closes mouth hurriedly*

I've not had that, but I am getting p*ssed off when I'm forever being asked to give  my mobile phone number to online thingummmies.  My mobile phone is for me to use in an emergency, not for [redacted] to pester me about claiming for oversold insurance I've never had and for injuries in accidents I've never sustained.

I'd like some Ikebana ads if there are any going.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 16, 2013)

Judge, what you have to do is buy some ikebana books and you'll soon start seeing ads for them. Actually you don't even have to go that far. Just spend a little time browsing ikebana books on Amazon or googling them (you'll need to do a few searches before it cottons on) and then hey presto you'll being seeing ads for them pop up all over the place 

Edit: oh and I know exactly what you mean about those PPI phone calls. Particularly annoying as I _have _tried to make a claim and got turned down and then made them go and review it again (and got turned down again )


----------



## Parson (Aug 16, 2013)

pyan said:


> Yahoo's almost as bad. I opened my inbox when I got in this evening and found this:
> 
> 
> Cheek!...



Joins Judge with mouth hanging open! They can do that?!!  I've always been quite cavalier about the privacy issues. I may just change my mind dramatically!!


----------



## quantumtheif (Aug 17, 2013)

Its becoming pretty hard to trust big name email services. I suppose that is why one of the biggest rules in starting a business is to create a private email address.


----------



## jastius (Aug 17, 2013)

there is also the issue that google retains copyright on ANYTHING e-mailed using g-mail.even if it from an outside e-mail service to a google account. 
how many of you e-mail parts of WIP to yourself or others with a g-mail account? technically google now owns your script. 

now i will go one further. since they own it, they can publish it, sell it or even give it away without having to compensate you in any fashion. 
or if it is crap and you abandon it they can embarrass you with it later.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 17, 2013)

Do they scan attachments as well or is it just the contents of the email itself?


----------



## Mouse (Aug 17, 2013)

You guys do know you can install ad blockers, right? So then you won't see ads. I don't see ads anywhere, it's great. 

But if Google want to email my Yahoo account some ads based on my searches, they better go to Ben Barnes and ask him to don a corset asap. And maybe get him to hold some pots of jam while he's at it.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 17, 2013)

Mouse said:


> You guys do know you can install ad blockers, right? So then you won't see ads. I don't see ads anywhere, it's great.



And tracking blockers as well, Mouse.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 17, 2013)

Yep, I have a little 'do not track' eyeball sitting up in my toolbar.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 17, 2013)

mosaix said:


> Do they scan attachments as well or is it just the contents of the email itself?


As a cynic, I'd suggest that it depends on their view of the value of the content of the attachments.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 17, 2013)

A question: If Google have copyright, they are (effectively) the owner of a document. At least, that's the way I see it. 

What I'm wondering is, if that document is found to be libelous, would Google be a defendant in any case brought against it or would it be the original creator of the document?


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 17, 2013)

Actually I think that might be a little alarmist; from the Google T&Cs:



> Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
> 
> When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
> You can find more information about how Google uses and stores content in the privacy policy or additional terms for particular Services. If you submit feedback or suggestions about our Services, we may use your feedback or suggestions without obligation to you.


 The licence to use etc. bit is a pretty standard open source licence wording. Effectively what it states is that once you have put your content on Google it is essentially open source. However note that such open source licences do not include _anywhere_ the authority to *sell* your works or in fact make any money from them directly.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 17, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> A question: If Google have copyright, they are (effectively) the owner of a document. At least, that's the way I see it.
> 
> What I'm wondering is, if that document is found to be libelous, would Google be a defendant in any case brought against it or would it be the original creator of the document?


That leads to some interesting questions.

Would someone claiming to be libelled try to sue lawyered-up Google or only the document's author?

If the author lost the case, would Google be in danger of facing an action where the result (apart from arguments about Google's liability) was a foregone conclusion because of the earlier case? (I'm guessing not, but you never know with the UK's history of libel cases.)

Would Google find it itself having to get involved in funding the defence in the case against the writer (because it couldn't let them lose without facing a claim for damages)?


I know this seems a bit odd, but when John Major (our ex-Prime Minister) was seeking damages for something written in a publication, he went after everyone involved, including the company that distributed the publication to newsagents and shops. This was, I believe, in order to seek out the weakest link in the chain between writer and reader.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 17, 2013)

Can you link me to something that definitively states Googles claimed ownership of this copyright because I can't find anything concrete that states this other than unsubstantiated blogging claims?


----------



## Lenny (Aug 17, 2013)

Did we not discuss the legalese of storing files online in the Dropbox thread a while back?

Any service that gives the user any form of storage must have some rights to that file in order for the service to function. This includes cloud storage services, obviously, and any e-mail service that lets its users send and receive e-mails with attachments.

Hosting and storing are obvious rights, as is communicating ("if you want to send this file to someone, you must let us send this file").

Publishing, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and distributing your file are given so that people you send it to can view it (or you can view it on a different machine) The other rights are required because a service like Gmail requires many, many servers (with approximately 450 million users, Google cannot store all of the data on a single machine).

The rights to reproduce, modify, and create derivative works are there so that Google has the permission to move the file around their servers - it's not like moving a paper printout from one filing cabinet to another, where the file never changes. When you copy or move a file from one machine to another, you cannot say that the original collection of bits that were on Computer A are now on Computer B. Instead, Computer B has reproduced the file. Modifying will cover things such as compressing the file so that it takes up less space on the server. Creating derivative works allows Google to show users a translation of your file (say you receive a French document. Google lets you view the file using their document viewer, which also gives you the options to translate the file into your own language).

The Google T&Cs even go as far as to state that the rights you grant are for: "the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones".

As Vertigo said, nowhere in the T&Cs does it give Google, or any other service who stores files (as they all have, effectively, identical T&Cs) the authority to sell your works or make money from them directly.

---

In regards to Google "reading" your e-mail... er, yeah? They're an ad company. They sell you ads. They make money by being able to sell ads that users are going to click. If this is suddenly news, then I guess I've spent the last eight or nine years, during which I believed that Google "read" your e-mails, as a conspiracy theorist.

All the major e-mail service providers do it - Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple. Facebook and Twitter do it with any content you put on their services.

But they don't actually "read" your e-mail, do they? There's no human at the other end with a clipboard and a checklist clicking his tongue when he sees and e-mail from Mrs. Jenkins expressing her love for Crocs, it's all automated algorithms coldly storing what they know about data point AC1296FF as 1's and 0's.


----------



## Abernovo (Aug 17, 2013)

Apart from that, Vert, the rights of author's copyright is protected under various laws, including US and, in particular, California law, which is where Google is based. Can you imagine them p-, er, annoying Hollywood with that sort of stupidity?

Anyway, John Scalzi wrote his last book on Google Drive/Docs, so I don't think it's too big a worry on the copyright front. 

EDIT: what Lenny said. And, re the reading, they use an algorithm to get keywords, right? Which is why the ads they do _occasionally_ send me are so funny!. I must have some odd web histories, although not search history, as I removed my permission for them to use that. You can do that, you know. Sure, they can still access it, but they don't have my permission to do so, which means that other than to give worrying results to the authorities (not a concern for me, I can explain it all) any use they make of it would be illegal and leave them open to prosecution.


----------



## Vertigo (Aug 17, 2013)

I think Lenny has nailed it there. I have done quite a lot of work both using and contributing to open source code and writing freeware (and shareware). This T&C/licence is similar to the typical freeware one. The full open sources licences generally permit modification of the original and *selling* derivative works; this specfically does not give those rights, it merely grants permission for the host to manipulate your files. And that, as Lenny has pointed out, simply permits Google to do stuff like copy your files to a back up which requires the permission of you, the copyright holder. This is absolutely not a surrender of your copyright, though I think it is often misinterpreted as such


----------



## Erin99 (Aug 17, 2013)

Lenny said:


> In regards to Google "reading" your e-mail... er, yeah? They're an ad company. They sell you ads. They make money by being able to sell ads that users are going to click. If this is suddenly news, then I guess I've spent the last eight or nine years, during which I believed that Google "read" your e-mails, as a conspiracy theorist.
> 
> All the major e-mail service providers do it - Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple. Facebook and Twitter do it with any content you put on their services.
> 
> But they don't actually "read" your e-mail, do they? There's no human at the other end with a clipboard and a checklist clicking his tongue when he sees and e-mail from Mrs. Jenkins expressing her love for Crocs, it's all automated algorithms coldly storing what they know about data point AC1296FF as 1's and 0's.



No, I think my problem is not that they're read (by machines), though it would be nice if they were _truly_ private, it's that Google _use_ that info. I do not want my emails - which might discuss things I hate (as discussions do), or talk about things I have no interest in seeing ads for - being used to spam me. If I want that, I should be allowed to tick a tickbox to tell them my preferences, like with Yahoo!. Shouldn't I? 






Py - I hope Yahoo!'s not wiped my email!!!


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 18, 2013)

I'll admit I've always been paranoid about information. That's probably why I don't use Gmail and only have one email account (which usually consists of purchase and dispatch information). I don't see why any company other than the vendor I'm dealing with should have any right whatsoever to this information. If I were to peek into the private buying and selling practices of Google, I'd be viewed as some kind of hacker but, when they do it, it is business practice. 

Frankly, I don't care if the system is automated or viewed by human eyes. 
It doesn't matter if they only use it for marketing or advertising purposes. I don't care if it is stored as 'cold algorithms'. It is wrong.

Any system of this nature is open to abuse. It is (in my opinion) the internet equivalent of phone tapping and, whilst government organisations may have good reason for doing so, I don't see why a company solely focused on commercial enterprise should - even if, as they proudly boast, they 'Do No Evil'.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 18, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> That's probably why I don't use Gmail and only have one email account (which usually consists of purchase and dispatch information).


But have you sent an email to someone with Gmail? If you have, Google will likely have scanned it.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 18, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> But have you sent an email to someone with Gmail? If you have, Google will likely have scanned it.


 
No. I rarely send emails. And now that I know about this, I will never send anybody that uses Gmail and email. P.S. I don't text and I don't use Twitter or Facebook. like I said, you may think I'm paranoid but, in the words of Popeye....I yams what I yams.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 18, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> I'll admit I've always been paranoid about information. That's probably why I don't use Gmail and only have one email account (which usually consists of purchase and dispatch information). I don't see why any company other than the vendor I'm dealing with should have any right whatsoever to this information. If I were to peek into the private buying and selling practices of Google, I'd be viewed as some kind of hacker but, when they do it, it is business practice.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care if the system is automated or viewed by human eyes.
> It doesn't matter if they only use it for marketing or advertising purposes. I don't care if it is stored as 'cold algorithms'. It is wrong.
> ...



What Foxbat said.


----------



## Erin99 (Aug 18, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> No. I rarely send emails. And now that I know about this, I will never send anybody that uses Gmail and email. P.S. I don't text and I don't use Twitter or Facebook. like I said, you may think I'm paranoid but, in the words of Popeye....I yams what I yams.



Have you ever PMed anybody? If people have PM notifications on, your PM will go to their email... Though, admittedly, _your_ email address will not be visible.


----------



## Overread (Aug 18, 2013)

In the end our whole legal system is playing catch-up with the digital world. It will probably still be a good few generations before our legal profession is fully up to date and starting to be more pro-active in policing the digital world (lets not forget more higher ups in the legal world likely grew up in a very non-computerized world). 

Until that time the companies will get away with a LOT of things because there is both no legal barrier and if there is one its simply not possible or feasible to actually put it into practice. The digital world has advanced stupidly fast and now is the time that it can be easily abused.









Also Hi Loopycat!


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 18, 2013)

It's when the UK's libel lawyers get a system that analyses all the world's emails and cloud-stored/shared stuff that the writ will really hit the fan.


----------



## Erin99 (Aug 19, 2013)

OR!!! Hello! LOVELY to see you around! This place always draws us back, doesn't it?

What you say makes a lot  of sense - I've often said the same thing, that the internet it too unfathomable for those who grew up without it and don't care to understand as long as their emails and browser work - but we are suffering because of it. Hopefully in the future, something will get sorted out and laws will catch up to the digital age. But when??? When enough people stand up and say "Enough's enough?"

Ursa, do you have a pun for _every_ occasion? Sometimes, I think you're a robot hidden under a bear's fur. If I met you and you didn't pun on-the-spot, I'd be disappointed.

Actually, I think I'd be over the moon, since I grew up in a household of punners and run screaming when I hear one. My sister, Momoko, still says how fun it was to match wits with you while she was here briefly.


----------

