According to Nobel Laureate Gabriel García Márquez, "all human beings have three lives: public, private, and secret". It is in our nature to want privacy, yet in the internet age, it has never been easier to access the details of our private lives.
In May 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden lifted the lid on just how far intelligence agencies are able to reach into our online lives. The news came as a shock to many, though agencies such as the US National Security Agency (NSA) have had this capability for years.
A recent article in The Guardian highlights the dynamic tension in this debate. Consumer Watchdog, a US-based advocacy group, has taken umbrage with Google's admission that the content of Gmail messages are automatically scanned. Suits and counter-suits are flying back and forth.
Email providers have given themselves the legal right to scan people's email by including it in their Terms of Service to which people must explicitly agree before they can use the service.
For example, Gmail's privacy policy states:
We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads.
None of us like to think it's the case but our email has always been scanned – not only by Google but almost every other email provider, by employers concerned about proprietary leaks, and by intelligence agencies too.
Email providers have no voyeuristic interest in the day-to-day lives of their users. They are using automatic content scanners to weed out spam and to give them the means to place targeted advertisements on your screen, the price you pay for this otherwise free service.
Intelligence agencies are not interested in the the lives of ordinary people either. They sift through the torrent of data looking for covert criminal and terrorist activity, information that might prevent the flight you are travelling on from blowing up mid-air, or to apprehend organised criminals.
Great expectations
The central issue in all this is that people have an expectation of privacy online where that privacy has never actually existed. The internet is a public place and we should adjust our expectations accordingly. If we do not say anything on the internet that we would not say standing on a soapbox at Speakers' Corner, we have nothing to worry about.
The question is, do people have a moral right to privacy? Arguably they do, but it is a case of the collective good outweighing people's individual rights, at least in terms of preventing terrorist attacks and curbing organised crime.
So there is a line that must be drawn, but no clear place to draw it. Case by case, we need to weigh up where the interests of the greater good ends and the individual's right to privacy begins.
A disturbing trend for some is the recent move by Google to cross-reference and aggregate data from across its range of services. Google Now – a mobile app that acts as an intelligent personal assistant – combines information from your email and calendar, the directions you get from Google Maps, and so on.
Designed to work with or without Google Glass, it uses a natural language user interface to answer questions, make recommendations, and perform actions on your behalf.
For some, this is one step closer to Nirvana. To others it is a sinister plot to strip us of what little privacy remains.
A scan-free email service?
So what are your alternatives if you want email privacy? The news is not encouraging. All of the major providers scan email contents for commercial purposes and may be compelled to pass on information to the government. There are anonymous email providers, but it is doubtful whether any of them can guarantee complete protection against a determined intelligence agency.
These providers include Tor Mail, FastMail, Send Anonymous Email, Anonymouse, Mailinator, Anonymous Speech,Hushmail, Send Email, Hide My Ass!, and Guerrilla Mail. This list is indicative, not exhaustive and makes no recommendations.
As Márquez observes, humans have an implicit need for privacy. He goes so far as to say that each of us has a secret life, one that we reveal to no-one and which is the expression of our essential self – perhaps our best self.
It is vital to realise that privacy on the internet is an illusion. All we have is the relative privacy of knowing that our words are mixed in with a trillion other words. Unless we are up to no good, no-one will be paying any attention to them.
The worst that will happen is that you might see an ad for a discounted Cruise Holiday next to the email you wrote about how stressed you are at work.
Explore further:
Google to merge user data across more services

baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2013So basically they're wasting their time. And in my opinion they are breaking the law. After all, if they are allowed to scan our emails, then why does a detective require a court order to wiretap someone's telephone? There is an obvious inconsistency here.
sirchick
5 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2013Argiod
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 23, 2013dtxx
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2013Urgelt
3.6 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2013By placing this argument into the passive voice, the 'scanner' isn't identified. So what happens when we phrase it into the active voice?
We have agreed to permit our communications providers to scan our communications in order to provide better communications services to us.
What did we *not* agree to? We did not agree to an alphabet-soup of Federal and other agencies to capture, store and read our communications without a warrant, creating a body of law which we aren't permitted to know about, with a 'due process' which is devoid of adversarial argumentation or transparency. We did not agree to be lied to by our President or by the leadership of the NSA. We did not agree to making any legal challenge of this authoritarian nightmare impossible. Those little things aren't in the terms of service to which we agreed with our ISPs.
rug
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 23, 2013Yes we did, it's called the patriot act and homeland security act. Not enough people raised up to battle these acts before they were placed into law. If you didn't fight it you have no right to bitch about how it's used.
LarryD
1 / 5 (2) Aug 23, 2013rug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2013megmaltese
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2013Completely agree, using Gmail since ages and clicked ads maybe 10 times.
The real news is, anyway, that we are all controlled, BB is here, since years.
We just don't know it yet.
We're getting used to the idea, it will take years, but we will.
Orwell was so on the right track.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (10) Aug 23, 2013Protect Knowledge base- Save earth planet and life Support. Space for Peace must evolve Common Living index.Intellectually hollowed Societies have less future and become more
in-secure Minds-Potential conflict generation must be avoided.
Claudius
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2013When the people who voted it into law (The Congress) admit they did not even read it. With this in mind, would it have mattered if people had bitched? Also remember the atmosphere created by the mainstream media and the government at the time and since, as Hermann Goering said:
"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
zaxxon451
5 / 5 (3) Aug 23, 2013"Up to no good" can mean a lot of things depending on who is in power.
rug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2013There were lots of us that understood the dangers involved with either of these acts were introduced. We bitched and yelled with no good to show for it. There simply wasn't enough of us.
Yes! Our elected officials know their jobs depend on us voting for them. If they don't do what we want we don't vote for them. It's that simple.
And that atmosphere disabled your ability to reason? Well, looks like your weren't the only one. Half this country is unable to reason.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 24, 2013rug
1 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2013HAHAHA now thats funny.
yorktime
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2013Yeah, until that unmarked white van across the street abducts you in the middle of the night. They found the text message you half-hardheartedly wrote about wanting to kill all your coworkers in a bloody rampage after that stressful day. Keep some lube close with that outlook, Mr. Author.
peter09
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2013I know that I am totally innocent ...... .. You ... I am not so sure .....
Signed
Herr Flick.
alfie_null
1 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2013If people cared enough about privacy, we'd have widespread adoption of end to end encryption (e.g. pgp). Figuring out how to use it is less complex than learning to drive. So they don't. So why the churn?
PhyOrgSux
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013and
Sorry but IMHO these sort of statements have the same logic as in "if she would have worn a longer skirt, she would not have gotten raped". So never mind that she had a "moral right" to expect not to be raped.
Although in principle I agree people should use PGP/GPG, you cannot use it with every system. And it does not necessarily stop service providers such as GMail and Yahoo from seeing the text of your email.
Besides that not all of us have agreed to have our emails scanned (only those using the major email service providers like Google have probably agreed to that) - yet our emails are likely getting scanned by the government. Except of course those encrypted with e.g. PGP...
PhyOrgSux
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 24, 2013It may not always be because of the amount of people.
For example we had this kind of a case:
1. We had over 100K people demonstrating against the latest Iraq war before it started and yet The Gov't went and started it anyway.
2. During the decade between the first and second gulf wars, the US media spent more effort in demonizing Saddam Hussein than what the European media did. As a result we got a discrepancy between ourselves and our EU allies (who had more domestic opposition against the war due to people who had not been conditioned to see a need for it).
In the end, the media is your mouthpiece to the public. If the major players in media put up a storm and support your cause, you may only need a handful of supporters. But still if The Gov't does not want to change, good luck.
Claudius
1 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2013Consider that the Congress has less than 10% approval. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of voting? Perhaps the voting system is rigged, as many suspect. So if it is rigged, exactly how is our not voting for them supposed to work? It's that simple.
rug
1.1 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2013It's simple math. People > Government.
Claudius
1 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2013Oh, really?
https://www.youtu...Y2tnwExs
Claudius
1 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2013https://www.youtu...YyiyWOH4
If you still think elections are honest, have you ever considered the benefits of owning your own bridge? Just think, you could erect toll booths and easily recoup your investment in a short time. I have a bridge just for you in Brooklyn.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2013If it were up to people to stand up and say: 'we want everyone to be monitored', the bill never would have passed.
The bill passed because it was implemented in a way in which it was almost impossible for it to not have passed. They worked out the probababilities well before the proposal. The government knew, with a relatively high degree of certainty, what the outcome would be.
The bill passed because it was designed to pass. Anyone thinking differently underestimates the power of strategic planning.
Kron
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 24, 2013kochevnik
1 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2013Now that presidents have declared their right to kill anyone, anywhere for any reason or no reason at all it's really a free-for-all decade of drone death from the sky. No wonder banksters have built an underground city in the Appalachian mountains