4 ms·

Why not have end-to-end encryption except for replies that begin with '@google'? That should be the best of both worlds.

notatoad 10y ago
but assistant is supposed to be reading all the messages in the conversation, in order to provide relevant replies. why not just use one of the many other apps that does provide end-to-end encryption, if it's something you want? Some feature sets are simply not compatible. If people keep insisting on end-to-end, google will implement it and then scan all your replies on either end and send them to their servers after the end instead of intercepting them, so they can tick off the E2E box. It's better for everybody's privacy to simply accept that some apps aren't private than trying to shoehorn privacy into apps that are antithetical to it.
- Guest98123 10y ago
  Oh, I have no interest in using the app because I don't trust Google. I just wanted to make a point about how they could include end-to-end encryption while still having their assistant provide similar functionality to their examples; looking up sushi making videos, finding restaurants, and providing directions. It's obvious why they don't though, and it's the reason I'll be skipping this app.
- MrQuincle 10y ago
  The assistant can reside on your phone, either integrated in the app or communicating with the app. You will have end-to-end encryption. It is just a definition of what "end" means. The phone? The app? The screen? Your eyes? With real end-to-end encryption nobody should be able to read over your shoulder and it should be delivered directly to your retina. Note that such an assistant can itself be connected to the internet again. Personally I'm not against a setup like this. I have encrypted communication through corporate servers, but would like to open up my end to this or other parties. Edit: I didn't mean you didn't say this already, just wanted to explore the point you already made.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  > assistant is supposed to be reading all the messages in the conversation, in order to provide relevant replies. They could totally have made assistant run locally, but it's easier for them to run it on a server: - It saves battery to run big computations on something that does not run on a battery (their servers); - They can use techniques that require more processing power; - They can patch whenever and whatever they want, since it's all on-premises for them; and - And as a bonus, you know what people are interested in and talking about. Most privacy minded people probably wouldn't install it anyway, it being closed source and by Google, so the few that you send away by this is a small number. And it adds network dependency and latency, but it's a messaging app - you need network connectivity anyway. So I can totally see why they do it. I can also tell I'm never going to install this Google-run assistant and why I'm going to tell everyone to stay away.

notatoad 10y ago

but assistant is supposed to be reading all the messages in the conversation, in order to provide relevant replies. why not just use one of the many other apps that does provide end-to-end encryption, if it's something you want? Some feature sets are simply not compatible. If people keep insisting on end-to-end, google will implement it and then scan all your replies on either end and send them to their servers after the end instead of intercepting them, so they can tick off the E2E box. It's better for everybody's privacy to simply accept that some apps aren't private than trying to shoehorn privacy into apps that are antithetical to it.

Guest98123 10y ago
Oh, I have no interest in using the app because I don't trust Google. I just wanted to make a point about how they could include end-to-end encryption while still having their assistant provide similar functionality to their examples; looking up sushi making videos, finding restaurants, and providing directions. It's obvious why they don't though, and it's the reason I'll be skipping this app.
MrQuincle 10y ago
The assistant can reside on your phone, either integrated in the app or communicating with the app. You will have end-to-end encryption. It is just a definition of what "end" means. The phone? The app? The screen? Your eyes? With real end-to-end encryption nobody should be able to read over your shoulder and it should be delivered directly to your retina. Note that such an assistant can itself be connected to the internet again. Personally I'm not against a setup like this. I have encrypted communication through corporate servers, but would like to open up my end to this or other parties. Edit: I didn't mean you didn't say this already, just wanted to explore the point you already made.
lucb1e 10y ago
> assistant is supposed to be reading all the messages in the conversation, in order to provide relevant replies. They could totally have made assistant run locally, but it's easier for them to run it on a server: - It saves battery to run big computations on something that does not run on a battery (their servers); - They can use techniques that require more processing power; - They can patch whenever and whatever they want, since it's all on-premises for them; and - And as a bonus, you know what people are interested in and talking about. Most privacy minded people probably wouldn't install it anyway, it being closed source and by Google, so the few that you send away by this is a small number. And it adds network dependency and latency, but it's a messaging app - you need network connectivity anyway. So I can totally see why they do it. I can also tell I'm never going to install this Google-run assistant and why I'm going to tell everyone to stay away.