[Gondring]

I believe that your emails are scanned in order to target advertising. If this bugs you, you will probably not want an account.

Note that they scan and permanently archive incoming e-mail, too, so don't send e-mail to a gmail account unless you want it permanently available to Google. (This archiving is even if you delete your account.) Their policies are very open ended as to what they can do with your information...they basically give away a large account as incentive for you to give them your e-mail.

Note that there are very sneaky terms that few people read. Most companies say they will release your identity and records to the FBI if subpoenaed. But what would you say if you give away the right of Google to let the FBI--or the International Criminal Court--on their own whim. We might not have an ICC now, but if in 20 years we continue on this path, your e-mail might come back to haunt you. Click here for more info on why I don't reply to gmail messages.

[summer]

RE your post #52 - I found your post REALLY interesting -- and I wonder if everyone on this thread who currently likes g-mail is aware of that fact. Thanks for sharing.

[summer]

Re your posts #51, #52 and my post #87

This is not the NYT article I was originally thinking of, but it's quite similar in content, as another court is protecting a blogger's identity here:

Delaware Supreme Court Declines to Unmask a Blogger

October 6, 2005, Thursday

By RITA K. FARRELL (NYT); Business/Financial Desk

Late Edition - Final, Section C, Page 3, Column 1, 471 words

DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 471 WORDS -The Delaware Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that if an elected official claims he has been defamed by an anonymous blogger, he cannot use a lawsuit to unmask the writer unless he has substantial evidence to prove his claim. That standard, the court said, ''will more appropriately protect against the...

Correction: October 8, 2005, Saturday Because of an editing error, an article in Business Day on Thursday about the Delaware Supreme Court's refusal to help a city councilman identify an anonymous blogger referred incorrectly to the information he obtained from the blog's publisher. It was an I.P. address (or Internet Protocol address), which identifies a specific computer, not a Web address.