Testing Gmail

About three weeks ago, a well-connected friend offered me the chance to beta-test Gmail and -- oh, my doubts and scruples! -- I jumped at it. I've learned a great deal since then, as much about myself as about Gmail.

Briefly, a well-designed product, even one that's not quite ready for prime time, can be very seductive. As many others have said, the interface is clean and attractive, the filing and labeling systems are a delight, and large files are transmitted without a hitch. I even got the user name I wanted most -- quite a feat according to the Washington Post , which reports that "people are willing to trade all sorts of things for the right to snag a choice e-mail identity" at sites like Gmailswap.com.

At first, Gmail allowed me to receive messages, but not send them. Later, I could send messages only in response to incoming messages that I had already assigned at least one label (or keyword, designed to retrieve messages). My well-connected friend predicted that I would achieve fame as the person who broke Gmail.

It took ten days for Google to respond to my first help ticket, with the disappointing suggestion that I might have better luck if I traded Internet Explorer in for a more esoteric browser, such as Mozilla or Firefox. By the time they answered my second request, two days later, the problems seemed to be resolved and Gmail was working like a charm.

I'm being careful to use the Gmail account only for non-sensitive messages. I've signed up for e-letters, registered on newspaper sites, and chit-chatted with my daughter. In all honesty, I've barely noticed the ads so far. And for reasons beyond my comprehension, I haven't received a bit of spam yet.

I keep telling myself that this is only a test, a way to acquire firsthand experience with a major cultural phenomenon. Once everyone can get a Gmail account, maybe I'll just give mine up.

But I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Gmail is sorely testing my principles. It's a wonderful product. Google has made a serious attempt to respond to the criticisms levelled by privacy advocates, whose fears have been downplayed by a number of high-profile journalists. The debate, in itself, speaks well both of Google and of the assembled clout of the privacy community.

Legislation pending in California would prohibit Gmail's content-based ad placements without the consent of both the sender and receiver of the message. Such a remedy, if enacted, might be overly restrictive and difficult to enforce. But I'm not yet convinced that the enormous Gmail database will not someday be used for purposes less benign than Google intends.

In the growing enthusiasm for Gmail, I wouldn't like to see the privacy issue swept aside. At a minimum, before people adopt Gmail, they should consider what this free service could actually cost in the end.