Yes, I don't understand people who don't need privacy. Why would anyone want to live in a panopticon? No, really. Having people see you and what you do twenty four hours a day was originally designed for prisons. It's not nice, no matter what kind of person you are.

There's really nothing on my computer that would embarrass me personally were the information collated and sent off. Of more concern to me is the private information belonging to my customers as I also use this system for creating invoices and computer service records. I have a responsibility to my customers to make sure their confidential data doesn't wind up on one of Google's servers.

Don't you know? I am the panopticon.

People who have no need for their own privacy tend to feel the same way about others. They're a scary lot.

That said, yesterday's userfriendly has an interesting comment:
<img src="http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/06feb/uf008810.gif">

Who wouldn't rather the government not know about the prostition ring they run from their basement, or the drug smuggling operation they run from their secluded cottage in the lake country? NOT ME. (furtive glance around)

Every time somebody says "If you have nothing to hide..." I say "But I do!" and they say "Er... oh."

Rather than bashing Google, why not give them kudos for being honest? This internet thing, often refered to as the Information Superhighway(and maybe we should all cogitate on ALL the implications of that---in particular the rather public nature of it), still has to obey the TANSTAFL rule.
One of the reasons I oppose the gov't providing internet(the plethora of counties all over North America wanting to provuide WiFi) is that it blurs the distinction between who owns it. We, Joe and Jane Q. Public, don't own it. Someone else does. The cost(not the price, which is the cash you fork over to use it) may just be that the owners want to look at what we do with THEIR product.
I applaud Al and others who don't want to compromise their privacy, but DID YOU REALLY THINK THERE WAS A FREE LUNCH WITH THIS(or cell phones---which I refuse to have, since I see it as a digital leash that prevents me from being able to disappear when I want to, or GPS for my car.)? The internet, like everything else, is neither entirely good or bad. We've all(and yes, I'm included) just ignored the drawbacks until now. Maybe it's time we had a real sober thought party at some nice pub(any good recomendations, Al?) about how much we're willing to cough up for the really cool service that the internet is(seeing as how I don't drink I volunteer to be the designated driver).

The internet does not breach privacy, people do.<p>I seem to have coughed up 600 bucks a year on the internet, myself. No free lunch. Come to think of it I probably play around 400 a year for the cell phone and maybe 1000 for cable TV. I think for that I should expect some privacy...that, of course, is why I blog about each and every thought I have.

"I think for that I should expect some privacy" Because you paid for a service? Al, you're a lawyer, if it isn't explicit in the contract can you just assume it's there?
That's what I'm saying. I wonder if our email really belongs to us, unless someone comes forward with a really good argument contrary to this. It's like renting a room at a motel. They can enter it, it's theirs. They typically don't----but they can.
And you're confusing price with costs. Costs are something else entirely. The cost of building your car isn't just the $20K you pay for it. It's the smelting of the metals, the CO2 emmissions therefor caused, the burning/reacting of stuff to produce the electricity to power the factory, etc.
I'm not talking about prices. I'm talking about costs. To have the internet, a series of computers able to talk to each other(which comes from standardized protocols), might just require that there be no REAL privacy in it.

What is different about the internet and the telephone system. I assume Bell Canada is not taping my calls and digitally cross-referencing them and that no one else is either except with a warrant. I do prudent things like keep a thick firewall on my computer, scan for spybots regularly and do other things like not post my face in a way that can be cross-referenced. So why would I open the door to Lord Goog and his banal "Do no evil, see no evil, hear no evil" self-assertion.<p>I also lie 97% of the time on this blog to ensure the secret police don't find me when they come for me. I am actually a 21 year old co-ed at Ohio State. I am told I am hot.

"What is different about the internet and the telephone system. I assume Bell Canada is not taping my calls and digitally cross-referencing them and that no one else is either except with a warrant."
That's a good question. But it shows that an assumption is being made. Are they? Can they? Should they? Most importantly, do they? Apparently they do(with they being phone companies). That's how cops get imfo about phone calls.
Does this objection pass the 'reasonable man' test, or is this working off of the 'most sensitive man' test? (not combatative, inquisitive. Hard to tell tone on the internet)
Hmmm, Ohio state isn't that far away. The Wife might not like the idea of me spending so much time online with 'a hot girl from Ohio state'.

I'm not that sort, ry.

Huh?
Reasonable man, or the hot chic? One liners escape me at the moment.