[besson3c]

It seems that everybody and their dog has a Yahoo, Hotmail, or gMail account these days. Do you think that people realize that nothing is actually free, and that they are paying for this email account by way of their eye balls being exposed to particular ads, their email being mined and sold to advertisers, and/or helping the political cause of this respective company by allowing them to own your data and making it relatively difficult to reclaim?


Just wondering if these sorts of issues are ever considered by most people, or whether most are simply ambivalent about this stuff?

[SpaceMonkey]

With GMail, I rarely if ever even notice the ads, and I've long since given up on the idea that any form of electronic communication is truly "private."

[theDreamer]

I agree with SpaceMonkey.
With Gmail the ands are all text based at the top of the screen, plus I also have ad blockers if I really want to get rid of them.
Do you realize that even with a paid email account they are selling your email account to outside sources making double the profit?

[turtle777]

I don't trust free providers with my email.

I sue Gmail, Yahoo etc only for signup for websites that have some spam potential. My personal emails are under my control on my domain / hoster.

-t

[Doofy]

My email is all located on a box right next to me. No ads, no data mining, no snooping, no spam.

[zro]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My email is all located on a box right next to me. No ads, no data mining, no snooping, no spam.

Same. Nothing beats free IMAP.

[Chuckit]

The idea of ads does not bother me, nor does statistical analysis.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by theDreamer 

I agree with SpaceMonkey.
With Gmail the ands are all text based at the top of the screen, plus I also have ad blockers if I really want to get rid of them.
Do you realize that even with a paid email account they are selling your email account to outside sources making double the profit?

Which paid email providers are doing this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zro 

Same. Nothing beats free IMAP.

How do you deal with SMTP servers that require a matching reverse DNS entry for your domain, such as AOL?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you deal with SMTP servers that require a matching reverse DNS entry for your domain, such as AOL?

You get the domain-master at your ISP to put the appropriate rDNS entries in the appropriate places.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It seems that everybody and their dog has a Yahoo, Hotmail, or gMail account these days. Do you think that people realize that nothing is actually free, and that they are paying for this email account by way of their eye balls being exposed to particular ads, their email being mined and sold to advertisers, and/or helping the political cause of this respective company by allowing them to own your data and making it relatively difficult to reclaim?

Yes which is why I don't use free email accounts. While I'm not a ted kaczynski live in a cabin type of person, I do guard my privacy as best I can. I do have a problem with google (or any other company) scanning my emails which is why I don't use them..

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You get the domain-master at your ISP to put the appropriate rDNS entries in the appropriate places.

Ahhhh... so you're on a static or sticky IP? It's cool that your ISP will do this for you, not many that I know of will...

[besson3c]

So, to all of those that have indicated that they don't use a free email account, do you think that your average person is aware or concerned about these issues, or do people think that their email comes from the email gods?

Seriously, what is your sense about people's level of concern/interest/curiosity about this sort of thing?

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, to all of those that have indicated that they don't use a free email account, do you think that your average person is aware or concerned about these issues, or do people think that their email comes from the email gods?

Seriously, what is your sense about people's level of concern/interest/curiosity about this sort of thing?

No, I think most people are blithely unaware and/or don't care. We are being condition to accept the lack of freedom and privacy

[Chuckit]

I think the average person can work out whether or not there are ads on his webmail page, yeah.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, to all of those that have indicated that they don't use a free email account, do you think that your average person is aware or concerned about these issues, or do people think that their email comes from the email gods?

Seriously, what is your sense about people's level of concern/interest/curiosity about this sort of thing?

I think the average person is oblivious and has little interest in learning more about most tech stuff. It's kinda scary that people use some pretty advanced technology without a clue as to what the consequences may be.

For example, my Dad insisted on buying a Dell (fer crissake). He refused to pay for a cable line, so he got NetZero. Then they wanted more money, so he switched to some free service for email and internet. He really didn't care, just as long as it was free.

Now his computer is a virus infested advertising machine with highly personalized crap that pops up out of nowhere constantly.
He swears the next computer will be a Mac.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think the average person can work out whether or not there are ads on his webmail page, yeah.

Can they work out the fact that their attention (or inattention) to these ads has some value?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

No, I think most people are blithely unaware and/or don't care.

I would agree with this assessment.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I think the average person is oblivious and has little interest in learning more about most tech stuff. It's kinda scary that people use some pretty advanced technology without a clue as to what the consequences may be.

For example, my Dad insisted on buying a Dell (fer crissake). He refused to pay for a cable line, so he got NetZero. Then they wanted more money, so he switched to some free service for email and internet. He really didn't care, just as long as it was free.

Now his computer is a virus infested advertising machine with highly personalized crap that pops up out of nowhere constantly.
He swears the next computer will be a Mac.

Yeah, I know from first hand experience that most people are obvious to the fact that internet services are limited resources that have associated costs. For example, many people seem to be caught off guard when their email applications here peg our SMTP servers sending (legitimate) mass email and don't realize that the number of requests our servers can handle at a given time is finite.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhhh... so you're on a static or sticky IP?

Yep, static.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's cool that your ISP will do this for you, not many that I know of will...

There's only a couple in the country who do this kind of thing - most have folks on dynamic IPs. Upside is that they're great with stuff like that, downside is that I'm paying about twice the average monthly rate that an "ISP for the masses" would charge. I like my static IPs and my own SMTP, so I'm willing to pay the higher cost.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can they work out the fact that their attention (or inattention) to these ads has some value?

I think most people have figured out that's why ads exist. I don't think most people (and this includes me) have figured out why it makes any difference to me whether or not I've figured that out.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep, static.



There's only a couple in the country who do this kind of thing - most have folks on dynamic IPs. Upside is that they're great with stuff like that, downside is that I'm paying about twice the average monthly rate that an "ISP for the masses" would charge. I like my static IPs and my own SMTP, so I'm willing to pay the higher cost.

What is your upload speed like? This sounds sort of like some of the commercial broadband packages I've seen here, but I haven't really looked into these options thoroughly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think most people have figured out that's why ads exist. I don't think most people (and this includes me) have figured out why it makes any difference to me whether or not I've figured that out.

Don't you ever feel that you want some things of your own to be private? Do you feel that your computer is private, or would you be okay with rotating ads on your desktop? Maybe some people feel that their email should be private in the same way?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by osiris 

...he switched to some free service for email and internet....Now his computer is a [strike]virus[/strike] adware and spyware infested advertising machine with highly personalized crap that pops up out of nowhere constantly. ... He swears the next computer will be a Mac.

Yes, because his machine has adware solely because it's not a Mac. It has nothing to do with the fact that he signed up for a crappy free ad-run ISP...not to mention that I'm guessing his free ISP either has Mac spyware, or won't allow users to use their service on a Mac, since *gasp* free Internet services are invariably ad-supported.

To the OP:

I find the whole concept of "zomg I need to guard my privacy so much on the internets" rather amusing. Nothing in your life is private if you:

• Have a library card.
• Use a check card or credit card.
• Travel.
• Subscribe cable or satellite television.
• Have a cell phone or, ofr that matter, and landline phone.
• Use the Internet.
• and the list goes on...

People seem to think that corporations and the government greatly care about them as individuals. This just isn't true. Unless you have openly made threats against your country, odds are extremely great that the government isn't watching you. They couldn't care less about you. You think I'm worried about Google's automated system (read: no people involved there) scanning my email and putting AdWords ads in the Gmail interface? Hell no! There isn't anything in there that is so private that I'm terrified of a computer reading it. If I ever need that kind of privacy (which has yet to happen), you think I'm even going to use the Internet at all to transmit that kind of information? You think I'll even use a phone? This is why we have this magical thing called face-to-face communication. It's also why encrpytion methods such as PGP/GPG exist. Say it together, class: If you want to keep it private, don't put it on the Internet. Period.

You think that your life is private by using your own email server and by avoiding sites that use AdWords? Please. Just by having a server that stores your email and connecting it to the Internet, you're at risk for exploitation. Perhaps your risk is lower because you take extreme measures to secure your servers, but the risk is still there. Not to mention the fact that the people you send email to may or may not be as unbelievably paranoid (and egotistical, since such paraoniacs are convinced that they and their lives are so important that a faceless corporation actually gives half a sh!t about them) as you are, and therefore what you write is likely getting "scanned" by an ad service regardless of what you do.

The only reason that people care so much about "protecting their identity" on the Internet is because with the advent of the blogging revolution, it is extremely easy to get the word out to naive and impressionable individuals that Google is (gasp) putting contextual ads in your email. If you have ever owned a library card (and you actually have to give up real identifiable personal information to get a library card, as opposed to Gmail, which requires nothing more than a computer and the ability to type a captcha accurately), you've made it extremely easy for your local government to form a complete profile on you based on the books you read. If you've ever owned a credit card, the credit card companies and the banks could easily form a quite accurate profile of your likes, dislikes, personality traits, characteristics, living habits, etc, based on a couple credit card statements. If anything, I would be more concerned about my privacy in the real world than on the Internet, where it's quite easy to remain completely anonymous and faceless to everyone you come across in cyberspace.

I just find it interesting that people who so have so blithely used non-Internet services for years (or even decades) suddenly think that, after all this time, everyone else actually gives crap on a stick about them and what they do with their lives.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your upload speed like? This sounds sort of like some of the commercial broadband packages I've seen here, but I haven't really looked into these options thoroughly.

Really, the only thing different is the static IP block, contention ratio and level of customer service. I'm getting 256 up, which is the same as everyone else here who has normal ADSL (the newer ADSL Max goes to 800-odd).

Note that around 200 of that 256 up is permanently saturated with data (throwing tune data out, etc.) and nobody bothers me about it at all. Likewise, if I saturate the downstream on a permanent basis nobody says a word about that either. That might be a little different than most regular ISPs, I guess.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yes, because his machine has adware solely because it's not a Mac. It has nothing to do with the fact that he signed up for a crappy free ad-run ISP...not to mention that I'm guessing his free ISP either has Mac spyware, or won't allow users to use their service on a Mac, since *gasp* free Internet services are invariably ad-supported.

No Macs allowed and/or + free = ads is not news to you or I, but like I said, people are unaware of the full consequences. They assume that they'll get an ad every month, not have their machine taken over.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If I ever need that kind of privacy (which has yet to happen), you think I'm even going to use the Internet at all to transmit that kind of information? You think I'll even use a phone? This is why we have this magical thing called face-to-face communication. It's also why encrpytion methods such as PGP/GPG exist. Say it together, class: If you want to keep it private, don't put it on the Internet. Period.

You think that your life is private by using your own email server and by avoiding sites that use AdWords? Please. Just by having a server that stores your email and connecting it to the Internet, you're at risk for exploitation. Perhaps your risk is lower because you take extreme measures to secure your servers, but the risk is still there.

Just because you don't have private data to send over the 'net, don't assume that nobody else does. My email server automatically kicks in with the 2048-bit encryption when appropriate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

People seem to think that corporations and the government greatly care about them as individuals. This just isn't true. Unless you have openly made threats against your country, odds are extremely great that the government isn't watching you. They couldn't care less about you. You think I'm worried about Google's automated system (read: no people involved there) scanning my email and putting AdWords ads in the Gmail interface? Hell no! There isn't anything in there that is so private that I'm terrified of a computer reading it. If I ever need that kind of privacy (which has yet to happen), you think I'm even going to use the Internet at all to transmit that kind of information? You think I'll even use a phone? This is why we have this magical thing called face-to-face communication. It's also why encrpytion methods such as PGP/GPG exist. Say it together, class: If you want to keep it private, don't put it on the Internet. Period.

You think that your life is private by using your own email server and by avoiding sites that use AdWords? Please. Just by having a server that stores your email and connecting it to the Internet, you're at risk for exploitation. Perhaps your risk is lower because you take extreme measures to secure your servers, but the risk is still there. Not to mention the fact that the people you send email to may or may not be as unbelievably paranoid (and egotistical, since such paraoniacs are convinced that they and their lives are so important that a faceless corporation actually gives half a sh!t about them) as you are, and therefore what you write is likely getting "scanned" by an ad service regardless of what you do.

The only reason that people care so much about "protecting their identity" on the Internet is because with the advent of the blogging revolution, it is extremely easy to get the word out to naive and impressionable individuals that Google is (gasp) putting contextual ads in your email. If you have ever owned a library card (and you actually have to give up real identifiable personal information to get a library card, as opposed to Gmail, which requires nothing more than a computer and the ability to type a captcha accurately), you've made it extremely easy for your local government to form a complete profile on you based on the books you read. If you've ever owned a credit card, the credit card companies and the banks could easily form a quite accurate profile of your likes, dislikes, personality traits, characteristics, living habits, etc, based on a couple credit card statements. If anything, I would be more concerned about my privacy in the real world than on the Internet, where it's quite easy to remain completely anonymous and faceless to everyone you come across in cyberspace.

I just find it interesting that people who so have so blithely used non-Internet services for years (or even decades) suddenly think that, after all this time, everyone else actually gives crap on a stick about them and what they do with their lives.

I think we are talking about different definitions of privacy here. With regards to your definition which deals more with identity theft and privacy *invasion*, I agree with you.

My definition of privacy involves simply choosing to not be bombarded with ads and the like with email, and choosing to avoid your personal email space being adding to the collection of data that is not yours. This is more like not wanting rotating billboards around your house which you are still paying off...

Perhaps privacy is not the best term to characterize this, maybe "space" is better. Do you have places that you would prefer to be sacred and uncluttered with ads and commercialization? Is this sort of premise something you can relate to?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just because you don't have private data to send over the 'net, don't assume that nobody else does. My email server automatically kicks in with the 2048-bit encryption when appropriate.

You would definitely not be a happy Republican in this country then given measures such as the Patriot Act. I'm starting to believe that you actually are a Libertarian, and not just a US Republican in Libertarian clothing

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just because you don't have private data to send over the 'net, don't assume that nobody else does. My email server automatically kicks in with the 2048-bit encryption when appropriate.

BTW, is the encryption occurring at the SMTP server level with negotiating with other SMTP servers that also support SSL, or are you using an SSL cert or PGP? The reason I ask is because the latter is more of a client thing than a server one, but I'd like to learn about what you are doing on your server if it is a technique I'm not privy to

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm starting to believe that you actually are a Libertarian, and not just a US Republican in Libertarian clothing

Well duh!

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just because you don't have private data to send over the 'net, don't assume that nobody else does. My email server automatically kicks in with the 2048-bit encryption when appropriate.

Oh, absolutely. If I had anything majorly private to send via email, you can bet your ass I'll be encrpyting the hell out of it. But there are secure, private methods of transferring sensitive data - I'd never recommend using any email service to send anything confidential. Encrpyt it, upload to your own server space, and password-protect access to the folder that serves the file. But, overall, the average user does not have super uber awesome secret data to send over the Internet.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My definition of privacy involves simply choosing to not be bombarded with ads and the like with email, and choosing to avoid your personal email space being adding to the collection of data that is not yours. This is more like not wanting rotating billboards around your house which you are still paying off...

The thing is, the only way to avoid your email being "added to the collection of data that is not yours" is to (a) run your own personal email server on hardware that is at a location you control, and (b) only send email to other addresses on that server.

Now, as far as not wanting ads (regardless of how relevant they are) in your email, Gmail has, hands-down, the most unobtrusive ads of any of the major free email services - and a simple Greasemonkey script (if you use Firefox, which you should be doing anyhow) will remove them entirely. If you want free email, that's going to mean ads. There's no way around that.

On the other hand, I was slightly peeved that AT&T Yahoo! started putting ads in Yahoo! mail for @sbcglobal.com addresses, as well as an @yahoo.com that is merged with an AT&T account (this would be for accounts for DSL subscribers, like me). I pay $15/mo for Internet access, so I'd like ad-free email. Of course, I do get POP3 access to my account, so I'm not even forced to use their interface - I can use Eudora, Thunderbird, Outlook, Entourage, Apple Mail, etc.

Which is the nice thing about Gmail - it's the only free email provider that also gives free POP3 access. The other big ones (Hotmail, Yahoo!, AOL mail) require you to upgrade to a paid premium account to get that luxury.

Perhaps privacy is not the best term to characterize this, maybe "space" is better. Do you have places that you would prefer to be sacred and uncluttered with ads and commercialization? Is this sort of premise something you can relate to?

Okay. That is a better clarification. I was looking at it from the aspect of all the nutjobs who made a federal case over Google having relevant text-based ads in Gmail's interface. As far as ads in my "personal spaces online" go, no. I despise ads. I can tolerate AdWords, since they're so unobtrusive and easily blend into whatever site I'm using. But animated flash and GIF banner ads? Hell, no. I use AdBlock Plus like it's my bitch. My only website of sorts is on LiveJournal, and I would never accept ads there. But that's less of a privacy thing and more of an aesthetics thing, since ads make my layout look ugly.

However, just like TV and radio and magazines and movies and books (and, if Futurama is accurate, my dreams), it can't be free without advertising. Of course, by that token, XM should be ad-free, as should cable and satellite television (Comcast and Time-Warner are rolling in money. They can afford to drop the ads almost entirely), but the media has trained us like puppies to accept that advertising is everywhere. The Internet is no different, except that it is much more accessible as a medium for creation to the average Joe, and we somehow think that entitles us to an ad-free existence. It's just kind of a fact of life. If you want a well-designed, robust, fully backed up, frequently updated web application or service, you have to accept the fact that that kind of convenience and security comes with a price - it costs a lot to constantly do more development work on an application, and unlike software that comes with licensing costs, the Internet pays for it through ads.

At least Google has figured out a way to effectively implement ads in such a manner that doesn't involve a giant 300x300 animated Flash Netflix ad taking up half the page on CNet.com. Just sayin'.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

BTW, is the encryption occurring at the SMTP server level with negotiating with other SMTP servers that also support SSL

Yep, it's at SMTP level.
Just your bog standard SSL set to kick in when negotiating with specific remote servers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Oh, absolutely. If I had anything majorly private to send via email, you can bet your ass I'll be encrpyting the hell out of it. But there are secure, private methods of transferring sensitive data - I'd never recommend using any email service to send anything confidential. Encrpyt it, upload to your own server space, and password-protect access to the folder that serves the file. But, overall, the average user does not have super uber awesome secret data to send over the Internet.

What is unsafe about sending encrypted email?

The thing is, the only way to avoid your email being "added to the collection of data that is not yours" is to (a) run your own personal email server on hardware that is at a location you control, and (b) only send email to other addresses on that server.

I do option "a" myself, but at least with a commercial email host you can peruse the service agreement and determine whether your data will be mined, whether it is backed up, and how they treat your privacy rights. This is not a guarantee of actual privacy, but it is a step up from a free email provider where you play by their rules in return for free email.

Now, as far as not wanting ads (regardless of how relevant they are) in your email, Gmail has, hands-down, the most unobtrusive ads of any of the major free email services - and a simple Greasemonkey script (if you use Firefox, which you should be doing anyhow) will remove them entirely. If you want free email, that's going to mean ads. There's no way around that.

Agreed, which is why I was asking about whether people are bothered by ads in their email. One might assume that based on the popularity of free email that people don't care, but I was wondering if there was more to it than that, and was trying to get a sense of the general pulse here...

Which is the nice thing about Gmail - it's the only free email provider that also gives free POP3 access. The other big ones (Hotmail, Yahoo!, AOL mail) require you to upgrade to a paid premium account to get that luxury.

I believe that Yahoo offers IMAP access (although it isn't widely publicized), but yeah...

Okay. That is a better clarification. I was looking at it from the aspect of all the nutjobs who made a federal case over Google having relevant text-based ads in Gmail's interface. As far as ads in my "personal spaces online" go, no. I despise ads. I can tolerate AdWords, since they're so unobtrusive and easily blend into whatever site I'm using. But animated flash and GIF banner ads? Hell, no. I use AdBlock Plus like it's my bitch. My only website of sorts is on LiveJournal, and I would never accept ads there. But that's less of a privacy thing and more of an aesthetics thing, since ads make my layout look ugly.

I figured we'd be in basic agreement here. So, have you talked to others about how they feel about these sorts of things? What is your general perception?

At least Google has figured out a way to effectively implement ads in such a manner that doesn't involve a giant 300x300 animated Flash Netflix ad taking up half the page on CNet.com. Just sayin'.

Yes, it is a good thing that they have set the bar accordingly....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep, it's at SMTP level.
Just your bog standard SSL set to kick in when negotiating with specific remote servers.

Cool, I do the same thing... Just FYI, a lot of SMTP servers don't run SSL negotiation because it is computationally expensive. If you really want to put your privacy in your own hands, you ought to check out PGP. There are plug-ins to both OS X Mail and Thunderbird to PGP sign and/or encrypt your mail. Don't know about Entourage....

We work with our security department here and they have us PGP sign and encrypt stuff... It's a pretty standard and effective security measure.

The downside is that your recipient will need to support PGP and have your public key to be able to read encrypted messages, but you can still sign your messages, as well as send yourself important things encrypted.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Cool, I do the same thing... Just FYI, a lot of SMTP servers don't run SSL negotiation because it is computationally expensive.

It's pretty obvious, but I never really considered it (most of my secure stuff is actually to servers I own, which usually hit about 5% tops on the processor). So thanks for pointing it out.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you really want to put your privacy in your own hands, you ought to check out PGP. There are plug-ins to both OS X Mail and Thunderbird to PGP sign and/or encrypt your mail.

Yep, that's next on my list of security measures if I need to go more secure than I currently am. Noticed they had a plug-in for Mail.app, which is my client of choice.

(and hey, doesn't Mail.app 2+ accept Thawte certificates too?)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

(and hey, doesn't Mail.app 2+ accept Thawte certificates too?)

Yes, but the problem with the free SSL certs is that anybody can request a free SSL saying that they are you, so receiving an SSL cert in an email basically just equates to "somebody saying they are you requested this SSL cert, here it is".

With PGP, you can create your public key, have it automatically uploaded to one of the free public key servers. In order to verify you, your recipient will have to obtain your public key that matches the identity of the one you sent - be it from you or the public key server.

If your public key is modified somehow, people will get error messages if their public key doesn't match the one you have, and you will get error messages within your own mail system if your public and private keys do not match.

[Doofy]

K, cheers.

[besson3c]

Just to totally take this in a whole new direction, this is why I find it bizarre that here in America we are data mining phone conversations, and some people are actually for us spending more of our resources to increase this level of data mining...

What about email? Should we pay our government to mine email that various email providers are forced to turn over? What about private email servers? Even if the government did manage to pass a bill that forces private email servers to fork over their data for mining, what about encrypted email?

If I was a terrorist, why would I make plans over the phone when I could just send encrypted email?