Google Gmail Bill Now In CA Senate
[Scoop? I don't see this anywhere I've searched.]
The Google Gmail legislation proposed by California State Senator Liz Figueroa has now been formally introduced and released.
Link to Liz Figueroa press release:
FIGUEROA INTRODUCES BILL TO STOP GOOGLE FROM SECRETLY "OOGLING" PRIVATE E-MAILS
http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/servlet/gov.ca.senate.democrats.pub.members.memDisplayPress?district=sd10&ID=2102
SACRAMENTO - Responding to a world-wide outcry from privacy advocates, Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) today introduced a bill that would forbid Google from secretly scanning the actual content of e-mails for the purpose of placing targeted direct marketing ads. Instead, the Internet giant would be required to obtain the informed consent of every individual whose e-mails would be "oogled."
Link to text of Google Gmail legislation: http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/servlet/gov.ca.senate.democrats.pub.members.memDisplayBillDetail?district=sd10&bill_number=sb_1822&sess=CUR&house=B&site=
[Update 4/22 5:25pm Note there's some sort of legislative maneuver being used here, by modifying an older bill. Make sure to follow the "Amended" link above.]
By Seth Finkelstein | posted in google | on April 21, 2004 10:53 PM (Infothought permalink) | Followups
Maybe a scoop, if the press release's "4/21/2004 [...] today introduced a bill" is more accurate/up to date than the status page's http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1801-1850/sb_1822_bill_20040420_status.html "04/20/2004 [...] Re-referred to committee." Or maybe introduced and re-referred are the same thing .
It might be expected from the press release :-
"Instead, the Internet giant would be required to obtain the informed consent of every individual whose e-mails would be "oogled."
[...]
But those who send e-mails to Gmail subscribers from elsewhere (like Earthlink or Yahoo!) will not be asked for their consent before the whole e-mail conversation is analyzed.
[...]
Figueroa?s SB 1822 would forbid the review of e-mail content unless Google (or any other e-mail provider) first obtains the consent of all the parties to an e-mail conversation."
... that obtaining permission from those who send e-mails to Gmail subscribers from elsewhere ("like Earthlink or Yahoo!") would be sufficient to allow scanning of such e-mails to create contextual adverts.
But in fact the bill as drafted simply bans scanning (except anti-spam, AV, etc) of other subscribers' incoming emails, with or without their permission. Non-subscribers have no choice in the matter :-
"The bill would permit a provider [...] to review and evaluate the content of incoming e-mail or instant messages only from *another subscriber to the same service* and only when that subscriber has consented to the procedure."
[*my emphasis*]
Since same-service subscribers would presumably have to consent (both directions) on signup, the bill would simply require Google (and others who follow) to only scan emails (incoming or outgoing/sent) from their own subscribers.
Is that technically possible?
What about when Gmail subscribers reply to non-subscribers' emails, quoting them in full (hey, snipping may become redundant with 1GB to play with ;)? Are the non-subscribers now/still "parties to an e-mail conversation" re those messages?
What about the subscribers' own emails, forwarded from other their email providers, or imported from a local archive, and thus not distinguished (to the scanner) by a Gmail address From: header?
An easy bill to write: trickier to implement.
Contextual advert scanning is a sideshow, anyway - the real meat is with wider issues, as outlined by
Brad Templeton :-
http://www.imilly.com/google-cookie.htm#gmail
This is the biggest load of crap i have ever seen! Google will obviously have a disclamer or terms of agreement along with their service, that will undoubtably include the fact that a COMPUTER is scanning their e-mails for specific words that trigger side-bar advertisements. Why in the heck is ledislation needed? Forgive my ignorance if I have overlooked anything legal or otherwise.
There is another side: This bill only alows access to the content of emails when "removing spam or for managing computer viruses or other
malicious programs."
But what about a "search" feature? That invloves scanning the contents of the emails, but has noting to do with "malicious" activities.
Even current email services support this, so they too would be outlawed.
Later,
Douglas