What about `third parties´?

Laura Poitras filming the construction of a large
N.S.A. facility in Utah. Photo: Conor Provenzano.

Google has finally admitted they don’t respect privacy?

It was a stunning admission before  the court?
Google made the statement that people can’t expect privacy when sending a message to a Gmail address in a response to a class action complaint filed in multi-district litigation.
in a brief filed recently in federal court, lawyers for Google said,

people should not expect privacy when they send messages to a Gmail account. Consumer Watchdog said today that people who care about their email correspondents’ privacy should not use the Internet giant’s service.

Google’s brief said:

Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter,

a clumsy analogy correlation, if I may say so. Rather, it is a spy who goes fishing letters, written on the envelope, from some letterbox.

people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient’s [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. 

 Definition of in accordance with the Motion to dismiss, (Page 19).

Yes, you are so clever!

According to John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director.

People should take them at their word; if you care about your email correspondents’ privacy don’t use Gmail,

 wrote Consumer Watchdog.
There is a ridiculous claim that some of virus scanning would require to read e-mails.

Also read by NYT.
After 9/11, according to The New York Times, soon U.S. government began compiling a terrorist watch list that was at one point estimated to contain nearly a million names. There are at least two subsidiary lists that relate to air travel.
The no-fly list contains the names of tens of thousands of people who are not allowed to fly into or out of the country. The selectee list, which is larger than the no-fly list, subjects people to extra airport inspections and questioning. These lists have been criticized by civil rights groups for being too broad and arbitrary and for violating the rights of Americans who are on them.
I was in the U.S. at Utah in 2001, but now there is no access.