CreateDebate


Debate Info

78
82
Ethical Unethical
Debate Score:160
Arguments:118
Total Votes:222
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ethical (52)
 
 Unethical (54)

Debate Creator

verdagon(10) pic



Google is Ethical reading our Emails

Ethical

Side Score: 78
VS.

Unethical

Side Score: 82
6 points

They're not really using the information to find out about our private lives, they are just counting types of words to determine what interests are for ad purposes.

Side: Ethical
2 points

Google is just using an algorithm to pick up key words. It's similar to your email provider "reading" your emails to detect spam. A real person isn't actually reading your emails.

Side: Ethical
bschalic(6) Disputed
1 point

That argument would not hold up for any other category involving privacy. For example "Im going to look through all of your internet history, I'm not going to tell anybody what I saw, I just want to check it out" or "I'm going to go through your house and touch everything you own, I won't take anything, I just want to". Both of those, especially the second would be a big invasion of privacy, and regardless of the reasons for invading privacy in this manner it imo is unethical

Side: Unethical
1 point

Good point, but Google is not going to do that. Most likely there will be a system that filters out words and phrases that share similarities to the type of thing Ads would say.

Side: Ethical
1 point

It still feels a little sketchy for them to be parsing through emails. Even if their intentions are solely for ad purposes what determines if they can be trusted or not?

Side: Ethical
1 point

I agree with this, also how can we verify they are only doing this? I feel as if we need some evidence or proof that this is all they are doing.

Side: Ethical
tssanfor(4) Clarified
1 point

While they aren't having someone explicitly look through them, the emails are still being searched, and could contain private info, even if it is only used for ads.

Side: Ethical
3 points

there is a fundamental difference between "parsing" and "reading". The computer parses the email and chunks it into relational data that is associated with marketable phrases and relevant ads.

Since it isn't read by a human and the data is transient, i don't see a problem with it.

Side: Ethical
username111(5) Disputed
1 point

Maybe its the way the question is worded, but I don't want Google "reading" my emails even if it is by a computer.

Side: Unethical
blackhat(1) Disputed
1 point

your email that is being sent (and even this webpage) has to be "read" by a computer at some point.

Side: Ethical
neverland(5) Disputed
1 point

No-one is forcing you to have a gmail, you could cancel it... or you could opt-out of part of their ad service. Although that requires figuring out how to :(

Side: Ethical
Reddata(3) Clarified
1 point

This is a good point. Taking this logic further, Google posed the counter-argument: “Automated scanning lets us provide Gmail users with security and spam protection, as well as great features like Priority Inbox.”

If you don't want Google examining the contents of your emails, then how would you justify any other automated services based on email content? That might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it's a compelling argument.

Supporting Evidence: Google Accused of Wiretapping in Gmail Scans (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Ethical
1 point

Although it may hurt their source of information, more information on opting out would allow them to provide the services as well as giving the privacy people might want at the same time.

Side: Ethical
3 points

Before signing up for gmail, you agreed to their Terms of Service. If you weren't comfortable with the statements outlined in this document you shouldn't have created your gmail account. In fact, if you are so outraged by the situation, gmail is a free service offered to the public... don't use it.

Side: Ethical
mnguye57(5) Clarified
2 points

You also have the ability to opt-out of interest based ads if you are unhappy with it.

Side: Ethical
2 points

Exactly, if you aren't comfortable knowing google will use the content you access to display ads >>> cancel your gmail account. Enough said.

Side: Ethical
1 point

Exactly. There are plenty of competitors, and it is a user's right to "speak with their wallet" and pick a competitor.

Side: Ethical
1 point

The privacy statement of gmail's TOS explicitly states they will use content of gmail's service which you view to display ads. The policies explain that content you access over gmail's service is not your own. This can be extended to incloude emails from non-gmail users that you view while signed into gmail. See below for the exact language used by google.

---

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

Information we collect We collect information to provide better services to all of our users – ... to more complex things like which ads you’ll find most useful or the people who matter most to you online.

---

It is not explicitely stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but the legal requirements permitting them to do so is in their TOS.

Furthermore, consider ads are a major source of revenue for google, how they determine what ads to show you can be considered a trade secret. In this case, of course they are not going to tell users how they perform this act because if they did competitors could follow suit and steal their idea.

Thus it makes logical sense such an explicit definition of how the information to display ads is not part

Side: Ethical
Reddata(3) Disputed
0 points

What statement in the Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/ terms/) says that Google plans to parse the content of emails?

Side: Unethical
neverland(5) Disputed
0 points

Read closer. You give up your rights to privacy in no intensive terms when you click agree.

Side: Ethical
bschalic(6) Disputed
0 points

No one reads the ToS and everyone knows it. Also, an issue is that even if you don't have a gmail account and you email someone who does the email gets dissected by google. So even though you have not agreed to have your emails read it will happen regardless depending on who you email.

Side: Unethical
neverland(5) Disputed
1 point

'Other' users emails either sent by you to non-gmail or received by you from non-gmail accounts are covered by their policies document. This are part of the 'content' which you access and prescribe you have no ownership of by using gmail's service. Thus the content then becomes covered under what information they collect that is used for the purpose of ads. Yes the language is broad in google's documents, but if you read carefully it covers the case you have mentioned.

Not reading the TOS doesn't mean you aren't bound by it.

Side: Ethical
SaladSlayer(6) Disputed
1 point

Just because no one reads the ToS does not mean it has no value, ethical or lawful.

Side: Ethical
2 points

Google is like a big brother, it would never hurt us! Google has a very in depth code of ethics that is designed not only to protect themselves but the users as well.

Side: Ethical
bschalic(6) Disputed
1 point

"Google is like a big brother". Big Brother... '1984'. Wow... just wow. (If you have read the book '1984' you will understand what I am saying). You are assuming that people never break ethical codes, and if that were true we would not have a Professional Responsiblities class.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Big brother is always watching. Sounds scary to me, I hope Google isn't always watching.

Side: Unethical
ccsheeha Disputed
0 points

This argument uses the fallacy of appeal to authority. Can you point us to the code of ethics that Google uses, or somehow demonstrate how their accessing of our information is legitimate through their code? And, more importantly, how if at all does their code correspond to the SE Code of Ethics as laid out by IEEE?

Side: Unethical
digestedtree(13) Disputed
2 points

My post may not have good logic, but it isn't an example of an appeal to authority. If you understood what that fallacy meant, you'd understand that an appeal to authority would be more akin to saying that Google is ethical reading emails because it isn't illegal by US law. Served.

Side: Ethical
2 points

Google doesn't care what we're doing. They're not using it for negative purposes. Sure, ads are annoying but there aren't there to hurt you.

Side: Ethical
username111(5) Disputed
1 point

It doesn't matter whether they are using it for negative purposes. I still don't want people other than myself reading my emails.

Side: Unethical
mnguye57(5) Disputed
1 point

You have the option to opt-out if you don't want Google to scan your emails.

Side: Ethical
2 points

Someday I hope to be able to cache my own memories with Google's services. Google makes good products (Google+ is an exception to the rule) so we should recognize that Google is ethical in everything they do, including reading our Gmails.

Side: Ethical
PurpleHat(2) Disputed
1 point

How does making good products make Google an organization authorized to access our personal information?

Side: Unethical
1 point

That is true. It is still a free service and should be treated as such.

Side: Unethical
SaladSlayer(6) Disputed
1 point

The quality of the products does not correlate with their ethical practices.

Side: Unethical
2 points

Unfortunately, a lot of users believe that they're entitled to a free service, such as Gmail. The problem is, these services cost money. Google has to pay for development, servers, etc. Not to mention, Google is a business, and businesses need to make money.

In order to offer Gmail as a free service, it has to use targeted ads to generate revenue. The thought of Google "reading" our e-mails is unnerving, but the fact of the matter is its a program, not a person, and it is entirely opt-in.

Being an opt-in service, Google can do whatever it wants. Nobody is forcing you to use Gmail, and if you're uncomfortable with the idea of software analyzing your emails for keywords, you are free to use a different service.

Side: Ethical
Reddata(3) Disputed
2 points

I wouldn't call it "opt-in" since the privacy-infringing settings are default. You're correct in asserting that concerned users are not forced to use Google services. However, users aren't told that the contents of their emails are being examined. They are opted-in by default. This is deceptive and an infraction of users' expectations of privacy.

Google Lets Users Opt-Out
Side: Unethical
1 point

I agree. If I'm using a service, I want to know what the consequences are to me as a result. There is nothing in the privacy policy or terms of service stating that my email will be parsed and personalized ads generated due to my email content.

Side: Unethical
bschalic(6) Disputed
2 points

With an argument like this, any free service gives the corresponding business the right to do anything it wants to with the service in order to make money. The way the first paragraph is phrased it seems like it is saying "businesses need to make money, so damn anyone or anything that gets in the way of that. Is privacy important, yeah, but businesses need money so forget it. Is freedom from slavery important, yeah, but businesses need to make money and they can make more if they have free labor" (im escalating to make a point). Basically, what I am trying to say is being a business that needs to make money does not allow for being free to do whatever it takes to get money.

Side: Unethical
1 point

another part of this is that commercial google account don't have to be subsidized with ad revenue, and could be immune to this kind of email parsing.

Side: Ethical
NdecisivHulk Disputed
1 point

Why does the matter in which Google generates its revenue to provide this service matter at all? If they can't support their service in an ethical fashion then they shouldn't offer it at all.

Side: Unethical

Exactly, i second something .

Side: Ethical
1 point

If you are using Google's services, you have no right to privacy when using their products.

Side: Ethical
bschalic(6) Disputed
1 point

Using this logic you have no right to privacy when you use any product, even when you make a password for Ebay or register a credit card with Amazon.

Side: Unethical
username111(5) Disputed
0 points

I disagree. Then should we be concerned with how they use such information?

Side: Unethical
slewson(6) Disputed
0 points

You have the right to be concerned with how they use your information, but you're not entitled to any input on how it is used.

Google does not force you to use its services. If you disagree with how they use your information, it is your right to "speak with your wallet" and choose a competing service.

Side: Ethical
1 point

Although Google scan emails for relevant ad content, their "security procedures strictly limit access to and use of users’ personal information, and require that each of us take measures to protect user data from unauthorized access." The data is not used for harm and users know about it.

Side: Ethical
1 point

I agree with this statement, they are given only limited access so why not let them access what they need for their purposes.

Side: Ethical
bikematt(5) Disputed
1 point

While I personally don't take issue with Google accessing small portions of data for account personalization and advertising, I think they should be more transparent in their efforts. As I've mentioned in other posts, it seems wrong for Google to gain access by default and rely on the user to go in and turn access off if they so desire.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Even if you were worried about people who did have limited access to what personal emails you have; opting out let's you receive the benefits of the service as well as not giving up the information's you want to keep private.

Side: Ethical
1 point

When the world comes to an end... google will survive. They are umbrella corporation.

Side: Ethical
1 point

This makes all too much sense.... its starting to scare me a little to say the truth...

Side: Ethical
1 point

They are pros and cons to letting google read our emails but I believe that the Pros outweigh the Cons in this scenario.

Side: Ethical
bikematt(5) Disputed
1 point

You may be right, but it would help to know what these pros and cons are.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Although the benefits do seem to outweigh the cons, it's would be good to know exactly what the benefits of contributing to the service would provide; either way, opting out is always an option too.

Side: Ethical
1 point

By scanning our emails, Google does provide some benefits apart from the interest generated ads such as better spam filters; however they should be more transparent on what they actually do with the information, so people have more information before choosing to simply opt out.

Side: Ethical

I trust Google before NSA.---------------------------------------------------

Side: Ethical
1 point

I would agree with this statement. What harm could Google possibly do by reading a few emails that the NSA can't already do.

Side: Ethical
Philip88(6) Disputed
1 point

Are we obligated to trust any certain group with information we don't wish for them to have. I feel like we should trust neither of them.

Side: Unethical
4 points

Google was found to not have explicit consent from Non-Gmail users for automatically scanning their emails.

Supporting Evidence: Lucy Koh's Order Denying Permission to Dismiss (digitalcommons.law.scu.edu)
Side: Unethical
4 points

Very well said. If it's not a direct part of their terms of service and if express consent is not given, then the content of the emails is being accessed in a way which violates the user's right to privacy.

Side: Unethical
lplewa(7) Clarified
2 points

Google was also found to not have explicit consent from Gmail users as well (there is nothing specific in their Terms of Service or Privacy Policy about automatic scanning), but I think there is a stronger case for the privacy of non-Gmail users.

Side: Ethical
Sm4rt(12) Disputed
1 point

it's imposible to sent a mail without reading it first, it's like trying to make a photocopy of something without seeing the original. All is it just advert on Microsoft's Outlook.com which does exactly same. .

Side: Ethical
neverland(5) Disputed
1 point

It is not explicitly stated 'how' gmail will use the content to provide customized ads but what if google considered that information a trade secret or their own intellectual property?

Thus it makes logical sense it isn't present. I would assume gmail's lawyers thought of this but it was shot down. I would be curious to know why/how.

Side: Ethical
Sm4rt(12) Disputed
1 point

Moron, how does the email server sends your mail without reading it first ?

Side: Ethical
3 points

Google's privacy policy (http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/ privacy/) does not disclose that Google parses the content of user's emails. Because this behavior is not disclosed in the privacy policy, users of Google's email service have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using the service. It is thus unethical for Google to examine the contents of emails delivered using their service.

Side: Unethical
2 points

This was a big point in determining that Google did not have explicit consent from its users.

"The Court finds that Gmail users’ acceptance of these statements does not establish explicit

consent. Section 8 of the Terms of Service suggests that content may be intercepted under a

different set of circumstances for a different purpose — to exclude objectionable content, such as

sexual material. This does not suggest to the user that Google would intercept emails for the

purposes of creating user profiles or providing targeted advertising."

Supporting Evidence: Lucy Koh's Order Denying Permission to Dismiss (digitalcommons.law.scu.edu)
Side: Unethical
2 points

I agree, I think the fact that there is no explicit mention of having your email content exposed for Google's use in their ToS is the key here.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Yes, I feel like this is the key point. Although they mention collecting data for ads, it is not explicitly mentioned and therefore people can reasonably expect their email's content to b private.

Side: Unethical
2 points

Email messages contain private information, Google shouldn't be watching it

Side: Unethical
slewson(6) Disputed
1 point

Google isn't "watching." There is no person reading your emails, judging you on what you did last night or tattling about something you did wrong. Its just a program that parses your messages and looks for keywords.

Side: Ethical
mnguye57(5) Clarified
1 point

Google is simply scanning your emails for data used to generate ads that may interest you in order to fund the free service that is Gmail.

Side: Ethical
lplewa(7) Disputed
1 point

I don't think this is a common misconception, but I may be wrong.

Side: Unethical
NdecisivHulk Disputed
1 point

If they want to modify their parsing program in a meaningful way, they're going to have to have a human look at the input it's taking and output it's generating. If they want to test it as best as possible they're going to want to use legitimate input, e.g. actual emails. What better testing input is there to use than the massive userbase that Gmail has? There is no guarantee that a human is reading my emails but there's no guarantee that one isn't, either.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Emails should be treated like letters. If I send a letter to the post office I expect that it will be delievered to the recipient un-opened and un-read.

Side: Unethical
Sm4rt(12) Disputed
1 point

Email is not a letter, to be send must be read by email server and send as a signal to other one where it will be read by destination server... every email service works same.

Side: Ethical
1 point

I agree, while those letters must be "read" at some point, at no point should any of the words be used for any purpose by Google or any third party.

Side: Unethical
neverland(5) Disputed
1 point

It looks like they tried to cover it with broad statements in the terms and privacy agreements, that users agreed to -- but the terms were too broad to be applicable.

Side: Ethical
dpu2010(1) Disputed
-1 points

Those statements don't necessarily correlate. Just because information is private does not exclude every possible party from viewing the information.

Side: Ethical
2 points

IF THIS ARGUMENT GETS ENOUGH UPVOTES I WILL HUG A BEAR WHILE WEARING A SUIT COVERED IN EXOTIC HONEYS

Side: Unethical
dpu2010(1) Disputed
1 point

This is not an argument at all. There is no way to argue without logic.

Side: Ethical
blackhat(1) Disputed
1 point

you can argue - just not very well. You are making the fallacy fallacy. Just because an argument is fallicious does not make the conclusion untrue.

Side: Unethical
blackhat(1) Disputed
0 points

this argument appeals to absurdity and the internet culture (which is rape culture)

Side: Ethical
2 points

Google's interest-based ads are turned on by default. While it is good that they give the user the ability to opt-out, if they so choose, it doesn't seem ethical to turn this setting on by default. A user may not be fully aware that Google is parsing their emails for advertising by default.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Especially for new Gmail users they should at least bring up a little pop-up telling them how to opt-out of personalized ads when they sign up for their account.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Users of Google software have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Google has routinely violated that privacy simply for the sake of increasing their own profits.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Reading email without probable cause (of a crime or something) is an invasion of privacy.

Side: Unethical
blackhat(1) Disputed
1 point

humans are not reading the emails, it's parsed by a computer. For a human to read the email, it requires a warrant.

Side: Ethical
username111(5) Disputed
1 point

The question is whether Google is ethical "reading" our emails. I understand they are parsed by a computer. But that isn't the question. The question should be worded differently if this is not what it is intending.

Side: Unethical
neverland(5) Disputed
1 point

Because you don't own the content of which you access over gmail (see their policy statements) their is no requirement here. That seems like a bad policy if you ask me, but that is how they worded the documents you accepted to use gmail's service.

Side: Unethical
dpu2010(1) Disputed
-1 points

That might be what Google says publicly, but Google can change its terms that you agreed to any time.

Side: Unethical
ccsheeha Clarified
1 point

This sounds like an argument under the fourth Amendment. Google is not a legal entity, and therefore does not have any sort of pertinent relationship to the Fourth Amendment. Google can, however, be subpoenaed by a legal authority to present such information in the event that legality is an issue.

Side: Ethical
1 point

Google reading our emails is an invasion of privacy. Regardless of how they use it, one is entitled to private conversations between the emails recipients and themselves.

Side: Unethical
1 point

In reading our emails, Google is creating a conflict of interest with the public.

Side: Unethical
1 point

Google even scans messages sent to an active Gmail user from a non-Gmail user who never agreed to their Terms & Services.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/05/google-seeks-to-dismiss-gmail-privacy-lawsuit-says-it-has-right-to-scan/

Side: Unethical
runner250(5) Clarified
2 points

Apparently there was a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling in 1979 of Smith vs. Maryland that said citizens "lose their right to privacy" whenever they hand personal documents over to third parties.

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Yes+we+Read+Your+Gmail/article33184.htm

Side: Ethical
1 point

An interesting read. This could be the early signs of a precedent being set for access to more and more personal information by large corporations.

Side: Unethical
1 point

I don't think the parsing of email in itself is unethical, I think the fact that there is no mention of this anywhere in the ToS, yet still happening, is unethical. If Google is going to have access to and use your information it should be disclosed in the ToS.

Side: Unethical
1 point

For something like parsing the content of email, something that the average user expects to be private, they need to get some form of explicit consent. Since it is never specifically mentioned, they do not have that consent from the users and as such should not be parsing this data.

Side: Unethical
Kanchi21(5) Clarified
1 point

Not necessarily requesting consent, but informing users that their information could be scanned and used for whatever reasons as well as informing users how to opt out at the same time.

Side: Ethical
1 point

Scanning our emails for any purpose is unethical as we have the right to have our mail be private. Whether it be for Google's own ads or any other purpose.

Side: Unethical