Nine reasons not to worry about Gmail
Some people worry about Gmail, data ownership and privacy. But not Nitin Jagga.
He provides nine reasons 
why concerns about Gmail are “bogus”.
Three of the reasons are actually Gmail features that have “entranced” him, but it is still a useful collection of the kinds of arguments that people will put in Gmail’s defence.
Is the argument convincing? Hmmm…..
UPDATE: As Christian points out in the comments, Nitin’s post is a word-for-word rip-off of an article by Tim O’Reilly published in 2004.
Similar Posts:
- New Google Beta App?
- More on Gmail, privacy and data ownership
- Storing email on Gmail?
- Turning your back on Gmail
- Gmail, AOL and Privacy
Tags: data ownership, Don't worry be happy, email, GMAIL, Google, privacy
February 25th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Interesting?¢‚Ǩ‚ÄùNitin Jagga’s nine reasons look awfully familar: The Fuss About Gmail and Privacy: Nine Reasons Why It’s Bogus (Tim O’Reilly, Apr. 16, 2004)
February 25th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Yes, it does look awfully similar :)
Thanks for pointing that out.
February 27th, 2006 at 1:01 am
Hi,
Thanks for your consideration, but, my blog is targeted towards a limited set of people and though the stuff is copied exactly without being doctored from the same site of O’ Reily but that’s for the information of the people (who are very limited in numbers) for my blog only. There’s nothing like I am a cheat or something (just for the info. of my own targetted readers).
If you still persist Mail me back on jagganitin@gmail.com and I’ll definitely publish your comments for me, that you wrote, “cheat”.
Thanks and Regards
Nitin Jagga
February 27th, 2006 at 1:18 am
Persist in doing what?
Plagiarism
February 27th, 2006 at 1:20 am
A couple of thoughts on that:
1) Try to have at least the slightest idea about how the Internet and the WWW in general and welogs in particular work.
2) Give credit where credit is due, link to the original article, only quote a paragraph or two (use the blockquote-tag for that). I’m sure even your limited target audience will be able to follow a link.
3) If you’re really only interested in reaching a (very) limited audience, consider an e-mail newsletter instead of a weblog. I know it’s quite old-school but it works!
4) I still don’t see you giving any credit to Mr. O’Reilly on your blog.
5) See 1).
February 27th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Hi,
Your anger is quiet correct, but i think plagiarism is not the correct word to be used here, as i am not targetting any benefits out of what i do. However, i accept my mistake and i am rectifying it.
Please take a look here
http://jagganitin.blogspot.com/2006/02/fuss-about-gmail-and-privacy-nine.html
Thanks and Regards
Nitin Jagga
March 8th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Oh no, just because it’s the internet, does not mean plagiarism isn’t the right word. You took something and didn’t give credit for it — you may try and pass it off as ignorance, but that doesn’t mean what you did isn’t wrong.
…and I see you put your reference in the quotes, not at the head of the document — another sneaky thing to do. It doesn’t matter in the end, you can’t write your own, you won’t go far.
March 8th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I think you’ve been awfully angry on me for that, and if i would have been stealing something, I wouldn’t have published your comments stating thief and probably ignored all your mails. But being at least responsible for something I do myself, I replied to you, in probably and precisely the polietest of all the manners. Still you wanted the update, here it is, and BTW, I’ve published your latest comments as well (because I’ve always believed in transparency).
Please check the following link out……
http://jagganitin.blogspot.com/2006/02/fuss-about-gmail-and-privacy-nine.html
If you still want some modifications, please let me know, and if justifiable, will be done.
Regards
Nitin Jagga
March 9th, 2006 at 3:37 am
What are you talking about emails and comments? I’m certain you don’t mean me — no disrespect kid, but I don’t have time to harrass you, nor do I feel the need.
That being said, i still don’t think you’ve done enough — you’ve blatantly copied, word for word, another article and posted it as your own. Only in the comments do you note, allll the waaaaay in the bottooom, that it’s a copy.
Do you understand the harshness of this? Since you copied it and pasted it it, it’s written in first person — obviously people are going to assume that you wrote it then — which must be your intention. If you wanted to just paste it in for your readers, why not link to the article and stating how you read this unique article go here (enter link). Or, if you wanted to put it on there for your readers, at the very top you should note that it’s copied word for word from the article and link to it — at the top, not way at the bottom.
You even clearly wrote “Thanks for your consideration, but, my blog is targeted towards a limited set of people and though the stuff is copied exactly without being doctored from the same site of O?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ Reily but that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s for the information of the people (who are very limited in numbers) for my blog only. ” You have a limited audience — so your attempt to post this without referencing the original article, in first person — is an obvious attempt to make it sound like it came from you.
So you want to fix this without me publishing it across the net? Take it down, or put at the top that it’s taken from XX article and that you are copying and pasting it here for your readers, but that you didn’t write it. At the top, not the bottom.
Or better yet, take the whole thing down, and put a link to the original article, or the combo I suggested above.
Your method of posting a little at the bottom and running away does not show transparency… in any way shape or form.
Also to note, all of O’Reilly’s documentation is copyrighted, which puts you in legal violation if it’s written in first person without proper listing of your intentions prior to the articles readers knowledge. That comes with years of being a writer, so you know.
So are you going to reference at the top with a link, just put a link, or do I get to email O’Reilly and cross publish this?
March 9th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
See, I did what you said, I’ve put up a reference at the top of the article and reposted it.
Please check the link that i’ve given you in the previous comments. First things first, I’ve made all the necessary corrections you desired. Secondlyl, I stay in a country called India, where Cyber Laws exclude blogging.
But since I don’t want any legal mesh hanging around my neck, Please check the link I provided, or I am providing it here again for your convinience.
http://jagganitin.blogspot.com/2006/02/fuss-about-gmail-and-privacy-nine.html
Regards
Nitin Jagga
March 9th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Thank you Nitin — very honorable to take charge of this incident, and offer a solution that fast. I commend you and respect you for your decision, and the fact that you’d lay it out for us to see. My apologies if I came off harsh.
March 9th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
My fault I accepted it without any issues. Anyways, No need for offering apologies, in fact I should rather thank you for teaching me something, which I had done, rather inadverdently.
I am happy that finally you are not angry with me (at least you don’t appear to be, right now).
I saw your blog a little bit. Do you work for Apple Inc., or are you a student doing your own R & D, or are you a free lancer. These tech. blogs have always interested me.
Regards
Nitin Jagga