[Techtalk] Gmail (was questions re installing gcc-3.4.2)

[Finne Boonen]

and it attracted the thin foil hat crowd because it tried to snare
techies, wich contain more thin foil hat ppl then the normal crowd I
think

Finne


On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:36:11 +0100, James <jas at spamcop.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Gretchen Dziengel wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:49:50PM -0700 or thereabouts, Darlene Wallach wrote:
> >
> >>What concerns me about gmail is that they keep it and
> >>search it - it would be availble for the govt to access.
> >>It is nobody's business.
> >>
> >>I have no idea what gmail is like. Do you have to login
> >>to google and access it like people do with hotmail and
> >>yahoo email accounts?
> >
> > I have a gmail account - It's exactly like hotmail and yahoo as far as
> > accessing it.  The way they organize threads is pretty good.  (They call
> > it conversations)  Instead of each message listed seperately they list
> > each thread once and when you click on it it displays all the messages
> > on one page.
> >
> > I'm not worried about some automated process scanning my e-mails and
> > displaying ads.  Gmail's privacy statement says my e-mails will remain
> > private unless they are required by law to disclose them and so on.  No
> > different than any other company with my information.
> >
> > The point is Gmail is no different than any other webmail as far as
> > privacy is concerned.  Google just tells you they are scanning so you
> > get good ads where as I haven't been able to find any statements from
> > Hotmail about the privacy of the content of my messages.  Not that I use
> > either Hotmail or Gmail for anything important.  Gmail isn't impressive
> > enough for me to give up procmail and mutt.
> 
> Apart from anything else, Hotmail and co *also* scan the e-mail
> traversing their systems, to detect and kill viruses and spam - they
> just don't make their ads context-sensitive. Gmail's approach isn't any
> more open to abuse than any other email system, it just attracted more
> attention because they were doing something more interesting with it :-(
> 
> 
> James.
> _______________________________________________
> Techtalk mailing list
> Techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://mailman.linuxchix.org/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>