adamyntium

Category: law

  • Thinking about going to law or business school? Here are some pointers.

    Are you thinking about going to law school or business school?  Or perhaps—like crazy yours truly—both at the same time?  This blog entry covers the following:

    – Is law school right for me?
    – Is business school right for me?
    – How do I narrow down which school to apply to or attend?
    – Okay, I picked a school and got in!  Now how do I prepare?!

    *  *  *

    Is law school right for me?

    Maybe.  Dont believe the hype in either direction ;-). 

    Signs that point to yes:

    • You like sifting through fine details
    • You are sure you EITHER want to practice law in some way *OR* are a real go-getter trailblazer who is secure forging a non-traditional path.
    • You like learning (I mean genuinely enjoy stuffing new facts into your head regularly, thinking hard about challenging issues).
    • You are comfortable mentally grasping and juggling ambiguities but ultimately comfortable making a hard and fast decision.

    Signs that point to no:

    • You’re very unassertive.
    • You don’t like dressing up.  While you CAN get a law degree and go into a career that doesn’t require you to dress “professionally,” the odds are against you.
    • You are dead-set on making the world a better place.  I add this with some reserve, but in my heart I believe that people who go into law with 100% altruistic motives tend to get jaded and burned out.  Want to really change the world?  Start your own company, join the Peace Corp, do volunteer work every weekend.  While you CAN do this stuff with a law degree, it just doesn’t seem like the most time or cost efficient method, IMHO.

    Is business school (an MBA program) right for me?

    Again, maybe :-D. 

    Signs that point to yes:

    • You love your company and they’ve offered to pay for your MBA to help you advance up the ranks.
    • You’re fascinated by the nitty-gritty underlying details of business… operational issues, financial underpinnings, etc.
    • You have a strong scholastic or employment track record but are looking to move in a different direction (e.g., from Finance to Marketing) and want to leverage new knowledge, new contacts, and a new line on your resume.
    • You’re looking to start a company, have a comfortable buffer of time and money, and can afford a two year thoughtful search for a winning partner or partners.
    • You really like people.  You like learning from them, working with them, challenging them and being challenged by them.

    Signs that point to no:

    • You hate, absolutely loathe buzzwords. 
    • You deplored college, studying, books, etc.
    • You’re not a people person.  The idea of “networking” not only scares but disgusts you.
    • Your company isn’t going to pay for your MBA and you don’t have reliable indications that an MBA will dramatically increase either your pay or your job satisfaction.  Remember the opportunity costs here: not only two years of often-high tuition (+books, etc.), but also two years of lost pay, two years behind in moving up a corporate ladder, etc.
    • You lack the grades / background / ambition to attend a top-tier (at least top-third) business school.  I might sound really snotty here, but IMHO, if you’re betting that the mere presence of “MBA from UnheardOf School U” on your resume is going to impress HR people, you’re sadly mistaken.

    *  *  *

    Okay, you’ve decided you want to go to business school or law school.

    How do I decide which schools to apply to, which school to attend?

    • Classes and clubs:  Look at the list of classes offered.  Ignore the every-school-offers-these classes like Torts and Contracts or Marketing and Accounting and such.  Are the “extra” classes in areas that fascinate you and are relevant to your career aspirations?  In other words, if you’re wanting to go into Entertainment Law—aside from quite possibly focusing on schools around major entertainment markets—you’ll want to be sure that a lot of relevant classes are offered in this context… e.g., Entertainment Law (duh), Intellectual Property, Negotiating, etc.  If you’re interested in starting your own company, you’ll want to see lots of entrepreneurship-related classes on the list!  Similarly, find out what academies and clubs are not only present but active on campus (e.g., Environmental Law Society, Marketing Professionals in Asia…).
    • External ratings:  Thumb through a book of ratings.  Sure, you can’t believe everything you read, but if one of the schools you’re considering has topped the list on the “Most Unpleasant Law School to Attend” or “Most Cutthroat Colleagues” for three years running, there’s a substantive takeaway there, eh?  Additionally, as unfair as it is sometimes (especially with schools resting on their laurels), reputation does count for a lot.  Graduating with a B average at Wharton vs. an A average at a no-name school, well, you can guess what will turn more HR-folks’ heads.
    • Location:  Unless you plan on getting into a top top top school (Wharton, Harvard Law…), know that your best chances for internships and employment right out of school will be in the geographic area of your school.  In other words, don’t go to a Chicago law or business school if you’re not interested in working in the Chicago / Indianapolis area.
    • Gut: VISIT!!!  When you’ve narrowed it down to 2-4 schools, fly out there and visit.  I know, I know, it may be expensive, it may be hard to take time off work, but even a $2,000 investment in this area will pay off in the long-run in terms of not only you making the best choice… but in knowing you made the best choice.

    *  *  *

    You’ve finally decided on THE school for you.  Great!  Now you’re wondering…

    How do I prepare for my first day of classes?

    Well, first I’ll tell you what *NOT* to do.  Don’t stress.  Don’t go out and buy textbooks and try to pre-learn material.  Don’t try to become an expert in trademark law or e-marketing or finance before you show up to school.  Instead, here are a few things you may indeed want to do before you arrive at your new school:

    • Get organized:  Find a system that works for you to help you manage your notetaking, appointments, and to-do list… whether it’s all computer programs, just paper notepads and books, or a combination of the two.  Get into a groove.  Know your system backwards and forwards before you step foot onto campus so you don’t waste time learning tools, figuring out processes; you need to be productive and organized the day you arrive.  Read my more extensive previous entry about organizing your life.
    • Practice being a people person:  If you’re really shy or not yet adept at networking, practice this before you get on campus.  Whether it’s toastmaster nights or exhibit hall’ing or social dances… practice introducing yourself, effectively chit-chatting, and LISTENING.  These skills—both in grad school and beyond—will perhaps be your greatest asset combo… more important than rote knowledge or usually even your grades in school!
    • Be prepared with the right physical stuff:  These include not only a stellar laptop (know it forwards and backwards, with software, BEFORE you arrive on campus!) but also a comfortable knock-‘em-dead interviewing outfit or two, lots of even-more-comfy and not-too-stuffy business casual wear, a snazzy (not too wild) haircut, and so on.  Hey, if you have a few months before you arrive on campus, why not also try for a new-more-fit-you; a deadline when you’re about to meet new colleagues, make new friends, and interview for summer internships is likely a fine motivator to *NOT DIET*, but rather change your lifestyle to be healthier and thinner.

    *  *  *

    And finally… you’ve made it to campus, you’ve started your first week and you’re pondering:

    How do I stay in tip-top shape and excel without losing my mind?

    • Eat right:  Fast, unnatural food is your enemy.  It will make you think sluggishly, get tired more quickly, and possibly make you look like a fat slob.  Not to mention hamper your sex life. 
    • Sleep well:  You know your body.  If you need 8 hours, get 8 hours.  And if you think you “do just fine” on 5 hours, you’re probably kidding yourself.  I know it’s insanely hard, but try to also keep to a somewhat-regular schedule.  Get up around the same time, even on weekends, even if it means taking a short nap.
    • Exercise:  Get some.  Doesn’t matter if it’s walking, biking, kickboxing, canoeing, etc., as long as it includes both aerobic and a strength-building components.  You WILL think better and sleep better and look better when you’re getting regular exercise.  Add workout times to your calendar (even your public one) so this part of your life doesn’t get squeezed out.  Teaming up with a workout-buddy (of either gender) can be very motivating, too, because it’s much more shameful to cancel when you know someone else is counting on you to be there ;-).
    • Destress:  Whether it’s yoga, meditation, praying, or simply sitting under an apple tree for an hour a week, do it.  You need to clear your head of derivatives, legal arguments, and grade point averages.
    • Socialize smartly and regularly:  Even if you’re not a drinker, try to make at least some of the weekly bar nights.  99% of the people will still respect you when you drink apple juice, but you’ll lose the networking, the friending opportunities, and more if you simply fail to show up.  Conversely, if you ARE a drinker, drink less than everyone else.  Going to an Laws of Corporate Taxation class (or trying to study ancient Torts minutae) with a hangover is a fate I’d not wish on anyone.  Drinking issues aside, make sure you allot at least some time every week to hang out with people outside of class, whether that’s the bar, a Christian Outreach club, an intramural rugby team or whatever.  You NEED that time away from your books, and—more importantly—you emotionally need connections that don’t have to do with an 801b wireless LAN or a finance studying group.
    • Don’t dwell unhealthily on the past or the distant:  Don’t harbor regrets.  And don’t spend all your free time calling home (to Mom, to boyfriend, to best friend in Boise, etc.).  Time spent on past and distant connections is time and emotional energy you can’t apply to the present and the local.  This doesn’t mean you should fail to learn from the past or break all ties with your girlfriend or best friend back home; rather, I urge you to balance your life and set appropriate expectations amongst the people you care about.
    • Avoid being an ass, and don’t burn bridges!:  You may hate your Contracts prof.  You may have hilarious and scathing stories to tell about your ex you shacked up with during your MBA section last quarter.  But zip your lips and stay mostly positive.  You don’t know when you’ll need the respect of that Contracts prof to link you up with your most-desired law firm, and you don’t know when you’ll depend upon your ex for a connection to that internship in Prague.  Beyond just future needs, I’ll just note this:  People may laugh at or even with the guy with the perpetually vocal, scathing, bitter wit… but they likely won’t want to work with him, hire him, or even help him.  Yes, this relates to gossip, too.  When in doubt, don’t say it, don’t even e-mail it, and definitely don’t post it on the Web.
    • Take notes, take notes, take notes.  Process them NIGHTLY:  The very act of note taking can help keep you awake during a boring lecture.  But more importantly, writing stuff down (or typing) will help stuff stick in your head more.  Even if things don’t make sense right then (I remember not even being able to spell a lot of the phrases thrown at me during lectures, much less understand some of the complex legal theories), trust me when I reassure you that you’ll have a better chance of understanding stuff later if you take notes from the get go.  And hey, don’t make the same mistake I did by writing notes and then processing/organizing them 2 days before your midterm; that’s the stupid, stressful way of preparing.  Instead, force yourself to organize/outline/clean-up the notes the same night you wrote them, or at the latest the next day (the upcoming weekend is too late, and will you really get to your notes then anyway?).  As suggested in my aforementioned previous article on organizing your life, especially take note on the people you meet:  name, what they looked like, where they’re from, what they’re studying, how you can help them, how they can help you, etc.  This database will be golden for you, honest!

    *  *  *

    Whew!  Okay, that’s enough for now, I think.  I hope this list is helpful, and—as always—please feel free to post suggested changes or additions in the comment box below!

  • Yet another reason why I’m disgusted with our legal system

    So the cops in Louisiana that beat that defenseless guy bloody are pleading not guilty, despite all the video evidence.

    This just makes me sick. I can totally understand issues regarding extenuating circumstances (insane overwork, high stress, etc.)… all of which might reasonably serve to mitigate punishments.

    But to actually claim, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that you’re not guilty? For crying out loud, I want to live in a society in which people freely offer the following:

    “Yep, I’m guilty. I did what I’m charged with doing.” plus one or more of the following:
    – “And I’d like to sincerely offer apologies to the following people…”
    – “And here’s why I respectfully ask for leniency.”
    – “And here’s what I plan on doing to insure this never happens again.”
    – “And here is how I propose to compensate my victim(s) / society…”

    I suppose there are many societal issues that contribute to this lack of responsibility-taking / lack of forthrightedness.

    1) Our legal system’s horrid bias against any person or entity that simply says “I’m sorry.”
    2) Insanely out-of-whack punishments (e.g., admit to smoking an ounce of marijuana, go to jail, especially if you’re black).

    I wonder if the legal systems in countries outside of America lend themselves to less-frequent asinine “not-quilty” pleas or more frequent apologies from offenders. Anyone know?

    * * *

    Related entry:
    When your lawyer won’t let you say “I’m sorry”

  • Why (some) law firms and lawyers annoy me

    Disclaimer: I have a law degree, but — for a variety of reasons — decided not to practice law even before I attended law school. Long story 😀

    —

    So yesterday I received an e-mail with the following boilerplate as the sig:

    This E-mail message is private and confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. All emails sent by me remain my property. You must obtain written permission to forward in part or whole any message, data contained within, MX and other header information. Doing so without my written permission constitutes an agreement between me, you and the party you forwarded the information to pay me a sum of no less than $5000. This is a legally enforceable contract between me, you, and the party to whom you forwarded the information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, reproduction, modification, or publication of this communication is illegal and prohibited by law. Please delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies. This message is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent written confirmation of its contents. The sender therefore disclaims all responsibility and accepts no liability of any kind that may arise from any person acting, or refraining from acting, upon the contents of the message without having had subsequent written confirmation. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at the following number:

    [REALLY large font]Moron, Idiot & Associates Inc.[/font]

    Url: www.moron-idiot.com

    Office: 555-555-5555

    E-fax: 555-555-5555

    E-Mail: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Moron Idiot & Associates Inc.

    Bad enough as it is, but — here’s the clincher: it was sent to a discussion group that I moderate! I politely told the person that:

    1) The mere size of his sig was discourteous to list members.
    2) Beyond that, it was the biggest bunch of bovine excrement (not to mention unenforceable nonsense) I had ever seen in a sig, and that was saying a lot.

    He wrote back angrily with the following:
    1) Was I trying to dictate what sigs were and were not allowed in this group? How dare I!
    2) In today’s society, not enough people respect intellectual property, dammit, and he was doing his part to change that!
    3) Okay, so maybe it didn’t form an enforceable contract [you don’t say!], but it was the principle of the matter, and hopefully it’d serve as a deterrent from evil people forwarding his e-mails to others.
    4) His LAWYER FRIEND specifically wrote it up for him, and she knew what she was doing!
    5) Had I passed the Bar, or was I illegally practicing law by commenting on his sig?

    * * *

    Is there a more potently annoying combination than a stupid lawyer and her gullible friend? Or, if I may wax conspiratorially, perhaps she secretly loathed the fella and decided to have a little fun with him?

    And seriously, people, why *DO* so many law firms (and other companies) add such drivel to their e-mails? I especially love it when friends at these loser organizations send me a one-line reply like, “Sure, 7pm for drinks sounds great!” followed by 37 lines of balderdash. Can’t they at least selectively turn the dodo-sig on and off?

    Do any of these companies actually think:
    1) These “contracts” are enforceable (without consideration much less consent)?!
    2) That evildoers will think twice about forwarding juicy e-mailed tidbits just because of a stupid toothless sig?
    3) That there aren’t dozens or hundreds of people who think their firms are complete twits for crufting up folks’ e-boxes with such assinine bloviations?

    When will these ridiculous sigs die a well-deserved death? And what can you and I do to hasten the matter?

    * * *

    And while we’re on the topic of other lawyer-related-annoyances…

    Why do people still use “Attorney at Law” in promotional literature, yellowpages ads, etc.? Yes, yes, I vaguely recall the historical significance of such a label, but really, do we have Attorneys at Plumbing or Attorneys at Yodeling nowadays? Wouldn’t “Attorney” or “Lawyer” suffice?

    Also, why do law firms (and, admittedly many other professional firms) insist on using their partners’ names as the company name, e.g., “The Law Offices of Fredericks, Hollywood, and Vine”? What else should they call their law firm? Hell, I don’t know, and I don’t care, but the current convention just smacks of oft-difficult-to-spell pomposity to me. One might protest that, well, how might one distinguish the many law firms in a given city from one another, and I’d say, hell, there are 1,179 Chinese Restaurants within 20 blocks of my apartment, and they seem to manage. Accenture isn’t someone’s last name, and they don’t seem to be doing appreciably worse than the Delighted Tushes and Poop Wiserhouses of the world. And wouldn’t the world (or at least the courtroom) be a bit more charming if folks were represented by attorneys from the “Happy Law and Doughnuts” firm, or “Lucky Rabbit Foot” law firm or “Fire Dragon Boat” law firm?

    Don’t get me wrong. I like lawyers overall. I eat and dance with many of them and one day I’m sure at least one will save my sorry ass (unless, of course, he or she has read this blog entry, in which case they/’ll likely just throw me to the wolves). But the institution of law itself is, IMNSHO, in ripe need of reform, and not just the sort of chocolate tort reform our congresscritters (themselves, the worst sort of lawyers) are busy shoving in each others’ faces.

    * * *

    Oh, if the nitwit who posted the above sig file is reading this? Please feel free to sue me. I could use the extra publicity for my blog 🙂

  • Reeker madness and our society’s lenience towards drunk drivers

    So, apparently this rather dumb fella went to bail out his brother-in-law using money that reeked of marijuana.

    Long story short… the dispatcher suspected the guy was a-foul (smelling) of the law, the guy’s car was searched (with his consent), “a pipe and a small amount of marijuana was found” and now “he could face six months to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine.”

    Brilliant!

    So here we have a guy who may be a bit dull around the edges, but is basically harmless, and he’s quite possibly about to be dinged as much as much as a quarter or more of his yearly salary or locked for a quarter of a year in prison, where we taxpayers will foot the bill for his food and medical care and such and he can learn how to become a hardened criminal.

    When on earth are we going to reform our completely assinine drug laws in this country?

    When are we actually going to seriously attack problems that matter, like homelessness, poverty, educational inequality, alcoholism, and drunk driving?

    * * *

    It’s the latter issue in particular that gets me. First, let me note up front that I’m relatively a prude: I’ve never tried drugs (including tobacco), and I rarely drink alcohol. But drugs and alcohol have touched my life deeply.

    A wonderful cousin of mine was ravage by drugs and — thankfully — was forcibly placed into rehab and is now doing great.

    Back in high school, when I ran a goofy and popular singing telegram business and charged a whopping $2.50 per in-school telegram, I remember this charming girl coming up to me, handing me cash and a note to give to her friend when my group sang, looking me in the eyes with a warm smile and asking, “So it’s a deal, right?”

    That Saturday, two days later, she was dead… broadsided by a speeding drunk driver. And I was asked by her parents to play piano for her funeral. Thursday was the first and last time I had ever talked with her, and only briefly at that, but she left a strong impression with me nonetheless. I truly believe that — combined with my own parents’ strong and smart guidance — this experience has caused me to be both immensely wary about driving after drinking and to feel very strongly about the issue of drunk driving in general.

    * * *

    I don’t know what punishment her killer received. But I do know, from many other reports I’ve read since and from what I’ve seen personally, that our country hardly takes drunk driving seriously. Instead, we choose to lock up people who smoke a bowl with friends or take away tens of thousands of dollars of their college scholarship money.

    How many people have been killed as a result of drinking alcohol?
    How many people (especially children exposed to second hand smoke) have been killed by cigarette smoking?

    And just how many people have been killed a result of marijuana smoking? I don’t know about you, but I sure haven’t seen any headlines. “Three teens killed by stoned driver.” Um, nope. “Stoned man goes on a shooting rampage.” Uh, no. “Eight Kentucky residents tragically die from a marijuana overdose.” No? Didn’t think so.

    For crissake, when is this country going to wise up? When will we start addressing real problems instead of chasing boogeyman and harming innocent people and their families? I just hope I live to see the day…

  • Let’s kill, er, tax all the lawyers!


    Governor Rick Perry and the Legislature can’t agree on a school finance plan, but Michael Boone has an idea he thinks can’t fail. Here’s how he would sell it in a TV ad campaign. 

    The ad would show pictures of schoolchildren in desks and seniors in their gardens. A soothing but concerned voice talks of underfunded schools and overtaxed homeowners. 


    Then comes the punch line: “If you want to lower your property taxes 50 cents and put a tax on lawyers, vote YES on Saturday.” [Emphasis mine] 


    That idea, Boone said, would be so popular that “they won’t have enough voting booths.”
    Boone has standing to propose such an idea. He’s a lawyer. 

    – from “A lawyer’s case for lawyer tax” in the Houston Chronicle, May 16, 2004

    The article gets even wackier from there.

    Boone is a staunchly pro-Bush Republican. A Republican, favoring increased taxes? For improving schools? What next, a Liberal war-hawk? Oh wait, there’s Lieberman… 😀

    On a serious note, I don’t quite get the supposed attraction of this tax. Saving a whopping 50 cents on one’s property taxes doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that’s bound to excite folks to the degree suggested in the article, even if it is coupled with a tax on what many perceive to be an odious and overpaid profession (DISCLAIMER: I’m a law school graduate myself).

    Of course, increased money for schools is — at least in theory — a good thing, so I can’t argue with that. But this opportunistic Robin-Hood’ing doesn’t quite seem like a very logical way to go about it. Why not a tax on overpaid sports crybabies, er, athletes… say, .1% of their income? That should be enough to pay for a few thousand extra teachers each year in Texas. Or how about a tax on crappy actors/actresses? Wait, that might corrupt schools with too much money.

    My point is… why a specific tax on lawyers, other than to satisfy the typical “Lawyers are scum” pandering? Sure, lawyers are sometimes obscenely compensated, IMHO, or at least obnoxiously greedy. But all of that isn’t really limited to lawyers, is it?

    * * *

    In summary, I usually would applaud pretty much anything that helps schools. But a ‘lawyer tax’ — no matter how quirkily appealing — just doesn’t seem to be an appropriate option.

  • The RIGHT way to AUTHOR privacy policies

    You’d think that companies would “get it” by now. Most don’t.

    Privacy policies aren’t rocket-science, but they’re absolutely critical to the long-term success of a company. Without earned trust and strong communications, firms have little hope of surviving, and thank goodness!

    So without further ado, here is my free advice to companies wanting to create or update a privacy policy:

    A privacy policy must do all of the following:
    – INFORM: Let visitors know, in accessible language, how the site collects and manages data acquired
    – REASSURE: Offer confident and truthful promises about the safeguarding and respect of this data
    – PERSUADE: Successfully invite visitors to fully utilize the site’s functions, and to provide honest data and feedback without fear
    – PROTECT: Guard the company itself against basic legal or public relations challenges that may arise from improper or incomplete disclosures

    Ideally, every company should offer both a comprehensive privacy policy (though preferably not in ‘legalese’ — whip those lawyers into speaking English, please) and also a concise one paragraph summary of what they will and won’t do with their customers’ data.

    And then — though I shouldn’t have to say this — they need stick by their promises… and they’ll then be rewarded with greater loyalty and fewer lawsuits 🙂

  • Gmail’s not the problem: A look at misguided and dangerous privacy positioning

    HARK! A powerful new technology! Let’s [try it / ignore it / ban it]!

    History repeats itself. When new technology is developed, there are the early adopters who coo excitedly, those living under a rock who grunt “huh?” and varying degrees of those who issue warnings, which — at least as of late — seem to fit into one of several convenient categories:
    1) Fighting against terrorism
    2) Safeguarding values (e.g., “Protecting the children!”)
    3) Protecting privacy

    To simultaneously save me from getting writer’s cramp and enable you to finish reading this essay in under two hours, I’m just going to tackle the issue of privacy for now.

    * * *

    Examining privacy

    First, let’s take into consideration the two fundamental aspects of privacy:

    1) SECLUSION: Right to be left alone; protection from intrusion, interruption, etc.
    2) SECRECY: Right to keep one’s personal life from prying eyes

    Much ado has been made of Gmail’s alleged or potential violations of both types of privacy by other individuals (advertisers, hackers, employees) or entities (Google, other companies, government agencies). And admittedly, with seemingly so many potential loci for abuse, it’s understandable that many folks are concerned about a project of the scope of something like Gmail.

    However, in this essay, I’d like to offer my opinions as to why these risks are outweighed by benefits and — more importantly — why focusing on ‘reforming’ (or even suspending) Gmail harmfully takes our eye off the real problems in our society.

    * * *

    Assessing privacy issues in the context of Gmail

    It’s easiest to dispense immediately with the ‘right to be left alone’ aspect of Gmail. Unlike the flashy, gaudy, intelligence-insulting “You’re winner number 314159!” pop-ups that pollute leading Web mail services (and much of the rest of the Web), Gmail’s ads are deliciously unobtrusive. They don’t blink, they don’t flash, they just sit there quietly on the side — barely noticeable. And since Gmail does not insert so much as a tag line (much less ads) in any outgoing mails, it becomes even more difficult to forward an argument that Gmail creates an interruption or other intrusion into one’s daily life.

    One might counter that the very presence of contextual ads may create a feeling of queasy intrusion. However, Gmail has (in my testing) been pretty cautious about placing ads next to apparently-personal or otherwise sensitive e-mails, and of course, it does not place any ads next to e-mail marked (automatically or manually) as spam. Still, there’s admittedly the possibility of an unpleasant juxtaposition of a heartfelt e-mail with a angst-inducing related ad, but such an occurence is also possible via a song on a radio, an ad on TV, a seemingly random phone call, and so on. Our minds are rich in imagination, and capable — for better or worse — of astounding leaps of correlation. Once again, this is not something one should hold Gmail responsible for, IMHO, and it hardly seems to fit into the issue of privacy. And of particular note, the Gmail text ads are lightyears away from the ludicrous example of a billboard in one’s living room, as one clearly-clueless senator has suggested in tandem with her anti-Gmail legislation.

    So what we’re left with, then, is the more meaty and complex aspect of privacy-as-secrecy. With Gmail’s one gig of storage, it’s no doubt that many folks will practically be entrusting their life’s story — AND secrets — to Google. And in this area, I honestly have no easy answers. I will, however, attempt to address the various pieces:

    – Security breaches / the bored employee
    Google has an excellent history of data integrity, having (to my knowledge) avoided any data theft from its multi-billion dollar AdWords or AdSense programs. But other big players haven’t been quite so successful. Many of Amazon.com’s anonymous viewers found their screen names exposed a few months ago (frankly, much to my evil delight, since many if not most of the anons were shills and twits). On a less innocuous note, many Hotmail users found their accounts suddenly ‘open to the public’ due to a security exploit that Microsoft then understandably scrambled to fix.

    Could Google stumble here? Nothing’s impossible. Unfortunately (and in fairness to Google), however, this is a universal problem. Though I’d frankly trust Google with my data over most other companies, I think it’d be a mistake to assume that anyone’s data is 100% safe, anywhere.

    On a similarly sobering note, I’ll add that it’s trivially possible for an Information Systems worker at your company or your ISP to read your incoming and outgoing mail. Google has vehemently highlighted precautions it’s taken to prevent this happening at their company, and frankly, I believe them. Would you, as a highly-compensated employee, risk your job at such a coveted organization for the opportunity to snoop into likely banal exchanges? Seems unlikely to me. But that aside… once again, this is not a Gmail issue. This is a general e-mail issue.

    – Selling/giving data to other companies
    As a Google (AdWords) Advertiser and Publisher (AdSense), I can tell you point-blank that Google does an incredible job at protecting the data of both its users (visitors to Google.com and AdSense Web sites) and its advertisers. As both an advertiser and publisher, I am absolutely unable to glean any personal information about people who click on my ads. Google actually maintains a very strict separation between its departments, and were it (or another company) to risk this integrity in the future, the brand would be tarnished beyond recovery (and it’s not like there’s not competition!). In other words, unlike with almost every other transaction we partake in In Real Life, I firmly believe we can trust Google not to share our personal info with other companies.

    – Giving our secrets to federal governments… oh yeah, and lawyers
    If Ashcroft applied enough pressure to Google next month and insisted on wiretapping a few dozen “suspected terrorist” accounts, I’m betting that Google would buckle.

    Wow, that’s probably not what you expected me to say, is it?

    I’ll surprise you further: I have no doubt that lawyers are indeed salivating at the likelihood of millions of people getting Gmail accounts and storing voluminous amounts of discoverable data, perfect for future lawsuits.

    Of course, Ashcroft and — to a less chilling but likely more common extent — Dewey Cheatem and Howe have been subpoening mail records from Hotmail, Earthlink, Comcast, Big 10 universities, Fortune 500 companies, and so on. Gmail just expands the scope.

    But Gmail isn’t the problem

    And now we get to the meat of this essay, in which I argue — after acknowledging Gmail’s unwilling-but-likely facilitation of government and lawyerly snooping — that Gmail is absolutely, positively not the problem.

    Electronic Freedom Fighter and longtime smart-geek Brad Templeton gives us a good start here via his entry on Privacy and Gmail, which includes:

    …there are also some deep issues here, worth discussing with not just Google but all the other webmail providers

    …but Brad doesn’t go far enough. E-mail privacy concerns aren’t — or at least shouldn’t — be just limited to Webmail. As noted above, your mail is susceptible to snooping no matter where it resides… unless you’re one of the 0.0000002% of geeks who use encryption, and that’s likely to send up a red flag to Ashcroft anyway ;-). And though Brad’s suggestion that Gmail incorporate a more user-friendly form of encryption has merit, I think it’s a mere bandaid on larger problems. In fact, I’m generally uncomfortable with the feeling that Brad places the onus of responsibility (and solutions) upon technology, rather than those who abuse human rights via such technologies.

    As we move these things [record of peoples’ lives] online and outside, we build some of the apparatus for a surveillance society.

    I strongly disagree. This is like saying that when Japan set up high-speed rail transit, the country created the apparatus for criminals to flee farther and faster. Or as long distance calling costs have become insanely cheaper over the last 15 years, it’s made it much, much easier for people to plot nefarious acts over the phone more affordably.

    The introduction of new technologies — or the exponential improvement of existing technologies — facilitates opportunities for good and for not-good. But blaming the technologies (particularly communication technologies) is horribly wrong for two reasons:

    1) It stifles innovation, and keeps costs artificially high.

    Can you imagine how much more work — and perhaps more value — Google could be putting into Gmail if they were able to spend less time fighting PR fires?

    2) It takes our attention off of the real culprits: federal powers without sufficient accountability or checks or balances, not to mention a legal system which rewards, even necessitates antagonism over consensus.

    Let’s stop blaming tools, and start fixing the deeper problems

    We should channel our indignations towards privacy-enroaching intrusions such as the Patriot Act. We should vote our representatives — Democrat or Republican — out of office when they value false security over liberty. We should demand accountability, and insist that our journalists actually ask tough questions in Washington D.c. (and around the world). We should, as Brad rightly notes, fix The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA).

    Wringing our hands over Google isn’t just misguided, it’s dangerous in that it blinds us to the root of deeper problems in our society:

    1) As a society and individually, we’re generally unable to intelligently weigh risks.

    In our quest to “fight terrorism” we forget that far more people die from spousal abuse, drunk driving, malnutrition, etc. Will Ashcroft start scanning our e-mails for keywords relating to those causes of death? That’s (thankfully) doubtful, but only because he — and most of the FOX-watching public — is unable to thoughtfully weigh risks and benefits.

    In the vast storage that Gmail offers, non-profits can save and find key documents that help them better deliver social services. Grandparents can pull up pictures of their grandkids. Self-employed folks can be more productive, boosting their bottom line and doing their part to also buoy the economy. Sure, these are all butterfly-flaps, so to speak, in the ongoing history of society, but in the aggregate it adds up to a lot of good.

    2) We are tragically misinformed and poorly educated and we don’t seem to care.

    We fail to take our liberties seriously until we see sensationalist articles in the paper or hear about grandstanding bills proposed by a tech-ignorant senator.

    When I recently chatted with some friends here in the generally tech-savvy area of San Francisco about Gmail, nearly half suggested to me that they wouldn’t touch Gmail with a ten-foot pole. “They’re gonna read all the e-mail I get!” was the oft-expressed concern. Clearly, these people had no clue that their e-mails are already “read” many times enroute to their destination, nor did they think to actually visit Google’s Gmail pages to get the real info about what the service would and would not be doing. Funny, but I don’t recall my friends worrying about the privacy of their e-mail before.

    I don’t think the masses are misinformed because they’re dumb (though there’s certainly some of that). Rather, we absorb AND support the lowest common denominator in journalism. Not only does sex sell, but so does any bad news — whether it’s relevant or even true. “Duh, Sherlock” I hear you saying, teasing me for pointing out the obvious.

    But if it’s so obvious, why aren’t people like Brad and other prominent technologists decrying the lack of journalistic integrity and dearth of basic technological education and knowledge in our society? I have no doubt that if more people knew and truly understood the tenuousness of our personal privacy in society (with regards to credit card purchases, political affiliations, and yes, e-mail), they’d be concerned and mobilized to change the fabric of society and government… rather than throwing stones at a Webmail provider that’s providing a richer offering than its competitors.

    In summary…

    We need to focus on the fundmental roots of the erosion of our privacy, and realize that Gmail is a serendipitous wakeup call, not a culprit.

    True… Gmail, in itself, is not likely to lead to absolute world peace, and indeed, it’s admittedly easy and sometimes tempting to overstate what may be more of an evolutionary rather than revolutionary technological offering. But every moment people spend attacking this or any other communication tool amounts to time and efforts distracting us from the real (and real serious) issues facing our nation and our world.

    * * *

    Related entries:
    – Brad Tempton’s essay on The GMail Saga
    – My review of Gmail
    – My writeup of Gmail tips and tricks
    – Blog posts (via Technorati) on Gmail and Privacy

  • Two big, uh, points against Booble

    I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV. But I did graduate from law school and I know a pretty open-and-shut case when I see one.

    Booble, the “adult search engine” that is claiming to be a “parody” of Google, has been sent a takedown notice by the latter and has subsequently sent a defiant reply, perhaps just milking this for all the free publicity.

    It’s pretty clear to me that Booble’s lawyers should have used training bras before filing their argument, because while they may be abreast of (mostly) relevant case law, they’re nonetheless gonna be sadly deflated from a court loss.

    Here’s why:

    – Booble has not done enough to be seen as a parody rather than a predator
    Had the Booble folks been a little less airheady, they would have included a PROMINENT disclaimer at the TOP of their pages, rather than in tiny point at the bottom. Additionally, Booble is directly profiting from Google’s likeness (via porn site sponsorships)!

    – Booble is profiting from business in Google’s space!
    By positioning itself within Google’s space, not only does Booble cause likely consumer confusion, it also directly competes with Google (where undoubtedly people seeking porn often turn to for their needs).

    Booble’s going down. The only questions are what damages will be assessed, and whether Booble will have the assets to pay up.

  • Swing dance, go to jail

    Water-swilling swing dancers… threat to a moral and orderly society. They Must Be Stopped!

    Or so goes the thinking of some pretty aggressive Salt Lake City law enforcement officials, as noticed by this (verified) forward:

    In Salt Lake City, during the 2003 Utah Lindy Exchange, the organizer Nate Landon was “Arrested” at 3 am for violating a little known City Ordinance that Prohibits dancing between 2 and 8 am. He was issued two misdemeanor citations for No business license, and dancing after 2. The Police broke up the dance, and yelled at all 50 participants to vacate the building, or everyone was going to jail. We are working on getting rid of this ordinance – but be sure you check out your own city ordinances before hosting an after hours dance. Nate rented a Dance Studio, and they knew he was going to be hosting the dance from midnight to 4 am, and even they were not aware of this dance ordinance.

    – Pam Genovesi (Salt Lake City, 2003) (as reported via the no-doubt-equally-culpable www.lindyexchange.com)

  • Cell phone ban, schmell phone ban… I have BETTER ideas!

    Last week, the New York City Council took the brave and apparently necessary step of legislating common courtesy by passing a resolution to ban cell phone conversations in public places such as theatres and restaurants.

    Surely we’ve all wanted to throttle clueless morons blathering stuff like “Hey, you wouldn’t believe what quiet and tender romantic scene is on the screen now, honey!” and since we’re incapable of actually asking the clueless twit to shut up ourselves, it’s so nice that we have the force of law to help!

    However, I feel that the New York City Council didn’t go far enough. If *I* were in charge, I’d tackle the following more pressing problems:

    Everything but the Kitchen Stink:
    All those who fail to bathe, or who put on enough cologne or perfume to mask their apparent non-bathing should be fumigated and then fined. Especially if they’re sitting next to me on a plane.

    Stupid Rude Americanism:
    Whether in the U.S. or abroad, Americans should be flatly prohibited from treating service staff like maggots, obnoxiously shouting with friends on public transportation, or complaining loudly, “This isn’t like we got at home!”

    Advertising by Half:
    “Fares starting at $99!” (round trip purchase is required, taxes and fees likely to increase fare by more than 50%). What idiocy. Do we see this in any other sector? “Delicious Pizza! Just $5” (includes half the pizza, full pizza purchase required, crust safety-and-stability fee extra, pizza oven taxes also additional). Or how about “Full body massage… just $25!” (includes only right half of body… left side of body massage must be purchased as part of this special).

    I would praise American gas station managers for at least their honesty and completeness in advertising since they include taxes in the price listed on their signs… but they’re also the idiots who price stuff at TENTHS of cents. Gimme a break — and I don’t mean the one penny windfall I get when I buy ten gallons!

    —

    When it comes down to it, actually, I think the issues I tackle above are a lot more important than the wimpy cell phone concern. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to grab and stomp on someone’s infernal mobile than it is to de-stink the person, or make them less provincial (though being bigger than they are helps, too).

    On a more serious note… our apparent need to legislate good manners — along with common sense driving tips re: driving-while-yacking — is rather alarming to me. America is already the Laughingstock of Labels (Warning: Do not change lawn mower blades while motor is on); it’s not a huge leap before we’re seen as the village idiots who can’t wipe our own posteriors unless we’re legally compelled to do so.