| 姓名：Wayne |  | 5.188.211.** | | 時間：2021/1/7 上午 08:37:24 | | ☆☆☆☆☆ | | I'll put him on ***s://***.sushigamers.com/stmap_29tcdckv.html?tenormin.lamprene.propecia.viagra ciprofloxacin used for std Google further contends that because of the way that email operates, even non-Gmail users knew that their emails would be intercepted, and accordingly that non-Gmail users impliedly consented to the interception. Therefore, Google argues that in all communications, both parties 璽?? regardless of whether they are Gmail users 璽?? have consented to the reading of emails. The Court rejects Google璽??s contentions with respect to both explicit and implied consent. Rather, the Court finds that it cannot conclude that any party 璽?? Gmail users or non-Gmail users 璽?? has consented to Google’s reading of email for the purposes of creating user profiles or providing targeted advertising. Google points to its Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, to which all Gmail and Google Apps users agreed, to contend that these users explicitly consented to the interceptions at issue. The Court finds, however, that those policies did not explicitly notify Plaintiffs that Google would intercept users’ emails for the purposes of creating user profiles or providing targeted advertising.
| |