I disagree. Google is not intercepting traffic willy nilly: you _sent_ the traffic to Google, when you emailed [email protected]. Comparing Google reading traffic that was transmitted to it with a wholesale "any traffic online and be lawfully intercepted and profiled" is exaggerating the scope of what is going on here.
Also, what is the prosecution hoping to gain here? If they win, and Google can't serve relevant ads… are we out of a good email service? (I suppose Google could still try to serve ads, but they just would be in the dark w.r.t. the email content.)
How about when you emailed @guardian.co.uk? @specsavers.com?
Under the covers they're using Postini + Gmail. Did you consent to sending that traffic to Google?
Wat about people living in LA, who have no option but to send their traffic to Google when they e-mail their local Government at @lacity.org?
NOAA, State of Wyoming.. the list goes on.
http://www.google.com/intx/en_uk/enterprise/apps/business/cu...
This whole debate about the appropriateness of a content-driven ad-supported business model has been front and center all along.
It should be sorted out in the marketplace, not the court room.
If you follow Google's notion of implicit consent to such practices, then any traffic online can be lawfully intercepted and profiled. When you send data over a third party router, you give permission to spy on yourself. I don't think so.