Google Rolls Out Gmail Redesign for Web Browsers, Featuring Email Snoozing, Confidential Mode, and More

[oneMadRssn]

Um... what? No. I mean, sure I can always take a screenshot, but my mail is mine. Don’t want people to share what you said, then don’t say it.

Maybe I do not get it. When is this going to be a good idea for a company to use? They aren’t going to use it on a coupon because if it really is a one time use they would just make the coupon only work once. If it’s for a rather unfriendly message it will only fuel the fire when the recipient sees it can’t be shared. I get that there are some documents a recipient might not want to share, but that should be their call and not the business.

What the heck is the point of confidential mode and such when you can just screenshot the E-mail?

I'd really rather companies not give people a false sense of security for sending sensitive information. If you can read it, you can save it. This is like Snapchat for E-mail, and everyone knows Snapchat isn't secure either, despite being a lot more proprietary and only accessible through an app.

Nobody ever promised total and unsurpassable security.

This is meant to protect against inadvertent or careless mistakes. Where both the sender and recipient know and agree the email shouldn't be saved, printed, or forwarded, but the recipient might forget or make a mistake, and he/she needs a simple barrier put up to prevent saving, forwarding, or printing. In addition to the above lawyer example, another example is planning a surprise party for a friend. You don't want anyone to accidentally forward that email, and everyone is on board; so nobody is going to be thinking of ways around it with screenshots.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Just switched here. Wow. Looks a lot more cartoony with a lot of whitespace. Text is a bit easier to read. Google Tasks - interesting - I see there is an iOS app for Google Tasks now too.

 

[oneMadRssn]

This isn't anything I know about, so this might be a stupid question, but as an attorney you work for the client right? So doesn't the client always have the right to share your communications. Isn't the privilege a restriction on you?

It is the client's privilege. In other words, it is the client that can assert it and it is only the client that can decide to waive it. Yes, the client always has a right to share the attorney-client communications with whoever they want. So the client can always ask the attorney to resend the email without the restrictions. But attorneys might still want to default to using the restrictions.

However, ethics law has evolved such that it is pretty much presumed that client always wants to keep and assert their attorney-client privilege whenever it is possible unless the client very clearly doesn't want to for some reason. Breaking privilege is the right thing to do sometimes, but only after careful consideration and counsel.

Attorneys have been punished for not taking basic steps to preserve the attorney-client privilege in the past. It could be argued that if sending a more secure email takes only a single extra click, and that single extra click could prevent the client from accidentally and unintentionally breaking privilege, the attorney has a duty to send the more secure email unless asked not to by the client. To some relatively minor degree, emphasis on minor, attorneys have a duty to take some precautions to prevent stupid clients from doing stupid things. This way if the client does go and do something stupid, the attorney can say: "I sent it with some basic protections, the client couldn't have just accidentally forwarded the email. He must have taken intentional and deliberate steps to circumvent the basic protections in order to forward that email. Had he asked me first, I would have advised against it, but he didn't. So I'm not responsible."

 

[Konigi]

Looks quite great! There's so much room for improvement, it seemed like it has not been updated since a decade.

 

[4jasontv]

Nobody ever promised total and unsurpassable security.

This is meant to protect against inadvertent or careless mistakes. Where both the sender and recipient know and agree the email shouldn't be saved, printed, or forwarded, but the recipient might forget or make a mistake, and he/she needs a simple barrier put up to prevent saving, forwarding, or printing. In addition to the above lawyer example, another example is planning a surprise party for a friend. You don't want anyone to accidentally forward that email, and everyone is on board; so nobody is going to be thinking of ways around it with screenshots.

This isn't about security. It's about allowing business to establish even a wink of belief that they have a right to tell me what I can do with my mail.
[doublepost=1524682806][/doublepost]

It is the client's privilege. In other words, it is the client that can assert it and it is only the client that can decide to waive it. Yes, the client always has a right to share the attorney-client communications with whoever they want. So the client can always ask the attorney to resend the email without the restrictions. But attorneys might still want to default to using the restrictions.

However, ethics law has evolved such that it is pretty much presumed that client always wants to keep and assert their attorney-client privilege whenever it is possible unless the client very clearly doesn't want to for some reason. Breaking privilege is the right thing to do sometimes, but only after careful consideration and counsel.

Attorneys have been punished for not taking basic steps to preserve the attorney-client privilege in the past. It could be argued that if sending a more secure email takes only a single extra click, and that single extra click could prevent the client from accidentally and unintentionally breaking privilege, the attorney has a duty to send the more secure email unless asked not to by the client. To some relatively minor degree, emphasis on minor, attorneys have a duty to take some precautions to prevent stupid clients from doing stupid things. This way if the client does go and do something stupid, the attorney can say: "I sent it with some basic protections, the client couldn't have just accidentally forwarded the email. He must have taken intentional and deliberate steps to circumvent the basic protections in order to forward that email. Had he asked me first, I would have advised against it, but he didn't. So I'm not responsible."

That seems reasonable... but I don't like the idea that the general population could become used to business restricting sharing of messages. Once people think that's ok businesses may try and claim more ownership over the message. So while you use case seems valid from a outsiders perspective I am not convinced it's worth the risk.

 

[Karma*Police]

Gmail rolls out Outlook.com.

That’s a good thing! Personally I can’t stand the current gmail interface. It feels like an afterthought or a middle school project.

 

[Isidore]

So, which bits of your message will google not read?

 

[oneMadRssn]

This isn't about security. It's about allowing business to establish even a wink of belief that they have a right to tell me what I can do with my mail.
[doublepost=1524682806][/doublepost]

That seems reasonable... but I don't like the idea that the general population could become used to business restricting sharing of messages. Once people think that's ok businesses may try and claim more ownership over the message. So while you use case seems valid from a outsiders perspective I am not convinced it's worth the risk.

I think you might be overthinking it.

First, we're talking about Gmail. Don't forget the "G" stands for Google. If you use gmail, or you send an email to anyone at a gmail address, you've already consented to having one of the largest businesses on the planet read and index you email communications for the purposes of advertising and who knows what else. (Even if you host your own email server, it's pretty difficult to avoid ever sending emails to people with a gmail addresses or gsuite email domain. One way or another, some significant percentage of your emails will be traveling over google servers.) But in exchange, we get a top-notch webmail client with almost unlimited storage. Quid-pro-quo, some might say.

Second, the author of a message already "owns" the message as it is today. Sure, you can distribute it, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to or that it is legal. For example, if I write an essay and email it to you, you can technically forward the email along to whoever and I can't feasibly stop you. But if you take my email or essay and publish it in a book, I can sue you for copyright infringement and win at least an injunction, in addition to possibly money damages. Likewise, if you publish my email or essay online, I can sue to have it taken down for the same reasons. This doesn't apply to just essays, the copyrights to all written communications belong to the author. The reality of the internet making it impractical or infeasible to stop the dissemination of interesting information doesn't diminish the ownership or rights as they are today.

Third, anyone running a business with any brain cells knows that once something is emailed, it might as well be public. Truly confidential information should never be emailed. This is why hospitals, banks, law firms, accounting firms, etc. don't email sensitive documents - but rather email you a notice asking you to login to their website and view the sensitive documents there in order to control and log access. In other words, businesses have other ways to retain their rights and ownership over written communication. If they cared about that, they wouldn't email it in the first place.

 

[C DM]

Gmail, white edition!

As opposed to it being all that different in that respect before?
[doublepost=1524687969][/doublepost]

Where is night mode? Too much white.

Probably themes, essentially just like before.
[doublepost=1524688079][/doublepost]

So, which bits of your message will google not read?

https://blog.google/products/gmail/...ail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/

 

[npolly0212]

it's live on my account. and after using inbox for the last year or so, i'm not sure this is enough to have me switch back. i was never an "inbox zero" guy before inbox -- now i can't live without it. there's still not a easy way to sweep messages in this new gmail...and the mobile app really needs snooze too.

i might continue to use inbox on my mobile devices and this new gmail interface on desktop.

How do you know if you have the option to use it?

 

[C DM]

Just an FYI for UK and European folk, its not released here yet. I've been told it may be 24 hours.

If you have G Suite for your business like me, you should be able to activate it here:

Apps > G Suite > Settings for Gmail > Advanced settings > End User Settings

How do you know if you have the option to use it?

Looks like regular/personal (free) Gmail users can activate it too:

"Personal Gmail users can opt-in to the new experience, too (Go to Settings in the top right and select “Try the new Gmail.”)."
[doublepost=1524688133][/doublepost]

Just switched here. Wow. Looks a lot more cartoony with a lot of whitespace. Text is a bit easier to read. Google Tasks - interesting - I see there is an iOS app for Google Tasks now too.

I believe you can change some of the spacing using the "Display density" options in Settings.

 

[npolly0212]

Looks like regular/personal (free) Gmail users can activate it too:

"Personal Gmail users can opt-in to the new experience, too (Go to Settings in the top right and select “Try the new Gmail.”)."

Ah got it! Thank you!

 

[iapplelove]

I only use the gmail app for my 2 gmail accounts. Works good enough for my emailing needs.

 

[BuffaloTF]

That’s a good thing! Personally I can’t stand the current gmail interface. It feels like an afterthought or a middle school project.

I agree entirely. I’ve been shifting my mail to outlook and it stands out to me quite a bit how similar this appears now.

 

[randomplaydo]

This isn't anything I know about, so this might be a stupid question, but as an attorney you work for the client right? So doesn't the client always have the right to share your communications. Isn't the privilege a restriction on you?

You're right that the restriction on privilege is on my side. But if the client forwards it off and it gets out in the wild, whatever we were talking about isn't protected anymore. Clients sometimes tend to do things that are not in their best interests lol

 

[le_cagou]

the snooze function now works with the ios app as well.

it's hiding in the three dots menu (top right corner). restarting the app might be necessary for it to show up.

 

[hArrisburger]

the snooze function now works with the ios app as well.

it's hiding in the three dots menu (top right corner). restarting the app might be necessary for it to show up.

Hmmm. Interesting, it's not showing up for me. Must be rolling it out shortly.

 

[hArrisburger]

the snooze function now works with the ios app as well.

it's hiding in the three dots menu (top right corner). restarting the app might be necessary for it to show up.

Are you using a Google Apps account or a native gmail account? I have both and neither are showing snooze. I have deleted and added the app and deleted and added my account with restarts of the phone between each.