From Section 1 and 2 below. Highlight and extract any different sentences. If there are none, then say that.

Section 1:

Labeling a subject line as "PRIVILEGED" does not automatically exempt the lawyer from confidentiality obligations under Rule 1.6. While this wording clearly indicates intent, it ultimately depends on how the platform handles email data and its policies. Although this designation may serve as a declaration of privacy interest by the sender, Google's systems may still process the email content unless technical measures are taken to encrypt the correspondence completely. Google, by design, may collect and use information regardless of the subject line label. Simply marking a communication as "PRIVILEGED" is not enough to alert Google to protect the specific information contained. The language does not provide legal protection against background data mining practices. Attorneys must understand that such designations do not constitute the informed consent required by Rule 1.6. The absence of true encryption and control over the data further undermines the attorney's obligations under Rule 1.6, which requires lawyers to be proactive in safeguarding client information. Therefore, choosing a platform that does not require client consent for data mining activities is critical. Using services that prioritize client privacy can help ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations. To properly meet these standards, lawyers must give clear advice to clients about the risks of using these services, rather than relying solely on labeling emails. Failing to do so could jeopardize the attorney-client privilege and lead to potential ethical violations.

Section 2:

Labeling a subject line as "PRIVILEGED" does not automatically exempt the lawyer from confidentiality obligations under Rule 1.6. While this wording clearly indicates intent, it ultimately depends on how the platform handles email data and its policies. Although this designation may serve as a declaration of privacy interest by the sender, Google's systems may still process the email content unless technical measures are taken to encrypt the correspondence completely. Google, by design, may collect and use information regardless of the subject line label.

Simply marking a communication as "PRIVILEGED" is not enough to alert Google to protect the specific information contained. The language does not provide legal protection against background data mining practices. Attorneys must understand that such designations do not constitute the informed consent required by Rule 1.6. The absence of true encryption and control over the data further undermines the attorney's obligations under Rule 1.6, which requires lawyers to be proactive in safeguarding client information. Therefore, choosing a platform that does not require client consent for data mining activities is critical. Using services that prioritize client privacy can help ensure compliance with confidentiality obligations. To properly meet these standards, lawyers must give clear advice to clients about the risks of using these services, rather than relying solely on labeling emails. Failing to do so could jeopardize the attorney-client privilege and lead to potential ethical violations.