The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said on Thursday that a feature added to the latest version of Google Desktop has serious privacy implications.
Google Desktop 3 Beta, which was released on Thursday, includes a feature that allows users to search for files across multiple computers, by storing copies of the user's documents on Google's servers.
But the EFF claimed this feature "greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy" due to US legislation — the Electronic Communication Privacy Act — which means files that are stored with online service providers enjoy less privacy protection than information stored on a home computer.
"Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index," said EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston.
"The government could then demand these personal files with only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you wouldn't even be notified in time to challenge it," Bankston added.
A Google spokeswoman said on Saturday that "privacy was an important consideration in the development of this feature and we've taken a number of steps to protect the privacy of our users." She said that users must opt in to this feature and that users can select which files they want to share across computers.
She also said the data is only stored temporarily on Google's servers and that it is transmitted and stored securely. She was unable to comment on the points made by EFF.
Google automatically excludes from being transferred any password-protected files and secure Web pages, and users can exclude any other folders or files they want to, Pichai added.
Although the UK has different legislation surrounding the access of electronic data, Peter Sommer, a research fellow at the London School of Economics, said any data that Google stores on its servers could potentially be accessed by law enforcement agencies.
"If a law enforcement agency wants this information from Google, legally they're entitled to do that provide they comply with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act," said Sommer. "From a practical perspective, law enforcement agencies are always looking for places where they can get a great deal of information without much effort."
Talkback
Thank you for your info on google desktop 3,i downloaded it and only then did i read your summary!..[yes i am a dill!] I have now gotten rid of the thing..again thank you!
I downloaded GD3, and from what I can tell, the default settings DO NOT allow sharing of your files.
If goolle is getting this information without the consent of people, what right does anyone have to it. Including google. I think electronics are going too far, my info is mine, and no one has the right to enter my computer to get it. I don't beleive that advertisers have the right to enter my computer with adds or cookies without first getting my permission. This is like someone entering my home and going through my filing cabinets.
Isn't something that it's not the fact we are worried about a large company miss-using our information to profile us or having a hacker get access to our private lives, but now we are scared that the goverment will use underhanded methods to gain access to our lives and that they will use that information against us to fit it into a puzzle of their design at a time of their choosing. It's our fault though, we've allowed this through the fear campaign thats raged for the last four years. We are not supposed to have a say in our lives anymore, it's too inconvienient for the large companies that pay the bills to get their people elected to the government that will profile us.
"Google wasn't immediately available for comment on Friday.." Doesn't google have a policy of not talking to zdnet/cnet ? Unless you've patched it up, you should say so.
I'm glad to say that relations are now restored between Google and ourselves. On this occasion, they didn't respond by the time we 'went to press'. We have had an answer since, though, so we're updating the story now.
Cheers
Graeme