May 07, 2004

Google's announcement of its Gmail web-based email service brought out the usual anti-Google complaints, as well as an interesting spat in the side ring. Some free-market types began verbally roughing up other free-market types over their outcry against the web-based service, which would pay for itself by having a computer search each email in order to insert relevant ads on the page while the email is viewed. Being someone who sees value in each of the positions I've seen articulated, I'll adopt the unusual (for me) role of arbiter for this issue.

First, the critics. Cody Hatch at Prudent Politics says, "It's funny how libertarians and privacy advocates wet their pants over Gmail, but never encrypt their e-mail to begin with." Paul Jacob, in his Common Sense commentary, chides privacy activists over rushing to legislate against Gmail and similar services, sure to be hot on Google's heels. A Cato commentary by Timothy Lee nails the issue down fairly well, while still insinuating that some privacy advocates went overboard in their reactions to the Gmail announcement.

The primary issue seems to be that of consumer choice; a consumer is able to exercise a choice whether to accept Gmail's terms of service or not, so why all the fuss? While I agree that legislating against Gmail is a bad idea -- more law is always a bad idea -- I understand the uproar over Gmail.

The concern I and others have about Gmail isn't so much about the service itself, but the (intended or otherwise) creeping encroachment on information that isn't intended to be shared with outside interests. Most individuals simply don't think much about privacy issues in our society any more. With the popularity of tell-all shows that encourage individuals to air their dirtiest laundry to the widest audience possible, many individuals may have the idea that privacy has already evaporated, or that Americans just aren't interested in privacy. While that may be true of some individuals, it is certainly not true of all. Given the disinclination of most consumers to: read a EULA; read a FAQ before signing up for a service like a free email account; check the legalese or privacy statement on a web site; or inquire about how information they provide during a transaction is treated, those who value what privacy remains available must raise their voices against technological uses that threaten it.

As it turns out, Gmail is upfront about what it's offering, and how it will pay for it. At least, it is for those who choose to sign up for the service. What about those who reply to a friend's email from a Gmail account? They may not be aware that software will be scanning the incoming message in order to serve up related ads. If a person wants to respond to a Gmail message, he or she may be forced to make a choice between maintaining email contact with someone and giving up some privacy.

That's really just one of the numerous possible troubling questions in privacy-related issues. Declan McCullagh addresses the crux of the matter more fully in a March article titled Confidentially Yours:The Difference between Private and Public Snooping. In discussing the differences between state-run snooping and business snooping, or collecting of information, McCullagh seems to take a simplistic view of "government bad, business good". For example, he challenges Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering (CASPIAN), stating:

It is supermarket discount cards, though, that provide one of the best examples of muddled thinking over privacy and one of the most compelling illustrations of how pro-regulation arguments can go awry. For one thing, complaints against grocery store cards, like most other criticisms of data collection by the private sector, are based on harms that are speculative or imaginary.

One that I recently discovered involved states hiring such companies that buy those databases. The state governments paid the companies to find individuals who hadn't paid fines, fees, court costs, and other monies. If that isn't egregious enough, Alabama is moving toward mandating a state-created database of all prescriptions written and filled in the state (and I'm fairly certain they aren't alone in that effort). I doubt many individuals need to be reminded that American Airlines and JetBlue gave their information to the Transportation Security Administration for use in preliminary CAPPS testing.

Now, with examples like these -- and I'm sure there are many more I'm unaware of -- it ought to be obvious why privacy advocates squawk about both state and corporate snooping. Gmail may be okay now, but what happens when the FBI wants their records so it can do some data-mining? Or when Gmail starts hiring individuals to look over email (unlikely, but not completely impossible)? The time to raise questions is before things start careening out of control -- and individual privacy is on dangerously slippery ground.

I view privacy advocates -- of which I count myself as one -- as canaries in a pro-freedom coal mine. We speak up when the state, in whatever form, tries to intrude into individuals' private lives and transactions. It's also important for us to challenge corporations' data-mining and other questionable information-gathering tactics and motivations. Doing so educates other, less privacy-minded individuals about the important issues involved; it also signals to corporations that they have accountability issues to their customers as well. Without these canaries' invaluable chirping, it becomes too easy for everyone's privacy to be eroded -- possibly entirely.

Sunni Maravillosa is the editor for Free Market Net

Archives

Do It Your
Way

I'm Only Interested in Freedom

Law and Liberty

Git Yer Hands Out of my Pockets!

Tactics and hypocrisy