<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">This could be a big judgement, contributing to
jurisprudence on and with regard to the Internet..<br>
<br>
States and big business have unilaterally begun to treat private
content transmitted on the Internet differently than content that
is transmitted over phone or by post in terms of its complete
privacy... This is a wrong reading, but states and big business -
both wanting access to private info - are in cahoots to make this
inappropriate interpretation.<br>
<br>
The neutrality of the carriers must be restored. They should make
their money by just getting paid for carriage or putting up ads
around the carriage system - but not by tapping into the monetary
value of private data/ information<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 27 September 2013 06:35 AM,
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:07E054BF-2ED6-42A5-8464-A2D1C99B0B30@hserus.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
<br>
--srs (iPad)</div>
<div><br>
Begin forwarded message:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><b>From:</b> David Farber <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:farber@gmail.com">farber@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date:</b> 27 September 2013 4:42:47 IST<br>
<b>To:</b> "ip" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ip@listbox.com">ip@listbox.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> <b>[IP] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might
Violate Wiretap Law, Judge Finds</b><br>
<b>Reply-To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dave@farber.net">dave@farber.net</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Begin forwarded message:</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>From: Dewayne Hendricks <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dewayne@warpspeed.com">dewayne@warpspeed.com</a>></span><br>
<span>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning
Might Violate =?windows-1252?Q?_Wiretap_Law=2C_Judge_Finds_=</span><br>
<span>Date: September 26, 2013 5:41:26 PM EDT</span><br>
<span>To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net - Sent by <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dewayne@warpspeed.com">dewayne@warpspeed.com</a>></span><br>
<span>Reply-To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com">dewayne-net@warpspeed.com</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Google’s Gmail Keyword Scanning Might Violate Wiretap
Law, Judge Finds</span><br>
<span>By DAVID KRAVETS</span><br>
<span>09.26.13</span><br>
<span><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/gmail-wiretap-ruling/">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/gmail-wiretap-ruling/</a>></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>A federal judge today found that Google may have
breached federal and California wiretapping laws for
machine-scanning Gmail messages as part of its business
model to create user profiles and provide targeted
advertising.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>The decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was
rendered in a proposed class-action alleging Google wiretaps
Gmail as part of its business model. Google sought to have
the federal case in California dismissed under a section of
the Wiretap Act that authorizes email providers to intercept
messages if the interception facilitated the message’s
delivery or was incidental to the functioning of the service
in general.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>“Accordingly, the statutory scheme suggests that
Congress did not intend to allow electronic communication
service providers unlimited leeway to engage in any
interception that would benefit their business models, as
Google contends. In fact, this statutory provision would be
superfluous if the ordinary course of business exception
were as broad as Google suggests,” Judge Koh wrote.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Gmail, including its business service called Google
Apps, is the world’s biggest email service, with some 450
million users globally.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>The decision is also a blow to Yahoo, whose free email
platform with more than 300 million users also scans email
to deliver ads. Microsoft’s rebranded free Outlook webmail
offering does not scan messages of its 400 million users.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>It was the second time this month that a federal court
has found Google potentially liable for wiretapping.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Just yesterday, Google asked a federal appeals court to
reconsider a recent ruling finding Google potentially on the
hook for wiretapping when it secretly intercepted data on
open Wi-Fi routers.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>The Mountain View-based company said the September 10
decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will
create “confusion” about which over-the-air signals are
protected by the Wiretap Act, including broadcast
television.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>That case concerns nearly a dozen combined lawsuits
seeking damages from Google for eavesdropping on open Wi-Fi
networks from its Street View mapping cars. The vehicles,
which rolled through neighborhoods around the world, were
equipped with Wi-Fi–sniffing hardware to record the names
and MAC addresses of routers to improve Google
location-specific services. But the cars also gathered
snippets of content.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>The search giant yesterday petitioned the San
Francisco-based appeals court to reconsider its decision
that allowed the case to proceed at trial — a ruling that
upended Google’s defense.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Like the appeals court ruling, Judge Koh’s decision guts
Google’s wiretapping defense in the Gmail case.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>No trial date has been set.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>“The ruling means federal and state wiretap laws apply
to the internet. It’s a tremendous victory for online
privacy. Companies like Google can’t simply do whatever they
want with our data and emails,” said Jon Simpson, the
privacy director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica,
California.</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>[snip]</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/">http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/</a>></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>David Farber</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Carnegie Mellon University </span><br>
<span>Adjunct Professor of Internet Studies</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>University of Pennsylvania</span><br>
<span>Alfred Fitler Moore Emeritus Professor of
Telecommunications</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Cell: +1-412-726-9889</span><br>
<span>Email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:dave@farber.net">dave@farber.net</a></span><br>
<span></span><br>
<span>Public Key Fingerprint: 2133 594F 87C6 DC11 8BCD 6897
F46C 3C84 91C7 03FA</span><br>
<span></span><br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>