bakedjake - 1:23 pm on Oct 9, 2012 (gmt 0) [edited by: bakedjake at 1:58 pm (utc) on Oct 9, 2012]
They do a scan for advertising purposes not keep your information.
It may still be interception without consent, especially considering the plaintiff had no relationship with Google. Section 1 of BC's privacy act:
Violation of privacy actionable
1 (1) It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another.
(2) The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others.
(3) In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another's privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties.
(4) Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass.
1(4) is interesting, and it will be interesting to see how the case plays out. Note that it specifically says that a violation of privacy is actionable without proof of damage.
I'm not a lawyer, just reading the claim and the law.
The only sensitive details I could think of that would be worrisome might be something illicit like child porn or terrorist related.
I can imagine lots of things I might not want Google to know - what if I'm building a company that might be competitive or detrimental to Google's business interests?
[edited by: bakedjake at 1:58 pm (utc) on Oct 9, 2012]