8 ms·

One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the population who

by mojuba 10y ago

One tiny caveat being that, Google (and others as well, to be fair) will be able to indirectly collect data even on the privacy-aware part of the population who don't use Google much. The simplest example being, even if you don't use GMail, still some part of your emails inevitably end up in GMail inboxes. Now also consider this: just being a guest in a Google-stuffed house means you are under surveillance. So no, it is not just my problem or your problem, it's everyone's.

ubercore 10y ago
Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times. I think this example serves both our points. To your point, it's totally leaked this other person's info into my "google world" because I'm on gmail. On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just because of typos when he fills out online forms. Perfect privacy requires a lot of vigilance in a digital world, with or without google/gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  I have a fairly uncommon name and predominately use Gmail. Still, I receive a surprising amount of other people's mail in error. Apparently lots of people guess at email addys. I do often wonder at both the lack of privacy this engenders and what the Goog machine must make of it all.
  - blawson 10y ago
    I definitely worry about my life being affected by situations like this. I receive a ridiculous amount of other people's email - for serious things like email account reset, to banking info. When the Ashley Madison hack happened, my email address was there multiple times! Imagine if my then-partner had bothered to look, what a mess that would be.
    - solipsism 10y ago
      Lay down a trail of public comments for plausible deniability. Smart!
    - jasonkostempski 10y ago
      Your current or next partner might not like that you've signed up either :)
    - jsymolon 10y ago
      > for serious things like email account reset, to banking info. I've called American Express a couple of times to report errant emails with account info ending up in my email. THEY didn't care that one of their customers had an issue, they thought it was a great time to have me fork over MY info "to check".
  - gvurrdon 10y ago
    My partner received a few emails which a government representative had tried to forward from their work account to their private Gmail account whilst getting the address wrong. These contained personal information relating to correspondence with constituents. From time to time I have had messages relating to a government planning committee as one of the members got the domain of someone's departmental email account wrong and the messages come instead to the domain I administer.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    I know someone who has his (common) first name @gmail.com as he was an early employee on Gmail, and he regularly gets grandparents guessing their grandson's name as the correct e-mail address. He told me this happens several times a day.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    I just got a funny email last week... welcoming me to the NRA. I was like... but I didn't join the NRA. I sent them an email about it, but I'm probably going to have to CALL the NRA to tell them to remove my address from their database.
    - funkymike 10y ago
      Getting these things corrected can actually be quite difficult. I regularly get emails from an optician in another state. I have replied multiple times that they are sending information to the wrong person, but they continue to do so. Fortunately this has never included detailed health information, but merely revealing a patient relationship with a specific medical provider can be a breach. In another instance I was getting emails about an account someone created with American Express using my email address. I sent multiple emails to their customer support to get them to stop sending financial information to the wrong person with no results. In this I also found it difficult to even figure out what agency to report them to for failing to take action when notified. Eventually I took the time to call them. It took around 20 minutes (not counting time on hold) of talking to multiple people to get them to remove the email address from the account. This included them asking me several times for my social security number - which I flatly refused to provide since I had zero business relationship with them. This refusal actually seemed to confuse them.
  - meej 10y ago
    The thing that gets me is when people seem to be guessing at their own emails when filling out forms and such. How do you not know your own email address? Many of the people I know who have very common gmail addresses have set up canned replies to let senders know they've reached the wrong person.
- shaftway 10y ago
  This is often useful even if you're not the flier. When I'm picking someone up it lets me know when their flight was delayed, and when I'm traveling it lets my wife know when I'm available.
  - theandrewbailey 10y ago
    This situation is not like that. Presumably, ubercore is getting email for someone he does not know.
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  That's one of the interesting things about AI. There's no way to clairfy/correct when something is wrong, and most of the time you don't even know something is wrong. It's not clear whether these AI models have much incentive to correct anything. If 99% of people with attributes x,y and z are bad candidates for a job, will you even get an interview? Is there any attempt to account for the fact that attribute x is something you were born with? Or that you are actually in the 1% and really are a good candidate? Or that you don't actually have attribute y, and it was just inferred from something else or some kind of mixup like an email address typo?
  - mason55 10y ago
    There are all kinds of interesting thought experiments. What happens when a classifier innocently discovers that the best classification is by race? Do we care? How about if we remove race but it happens to discover that four features which are very strongly correlated to race are the best way to classify?
    - mziel 10y ago
      There are ways to account for that. A model can be fit to race, and then you only predict "on top" of race (meaning residuals). You use that model, which is independent of race.
      - eridius 10y ago
        This only works if you're aware that race is even a factor. If you're not aware of the problematic factors, then you can't correct for them.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        How do you know you have the correct model, and isn't making the system more racist instead of less? Machine learning is also very opaque.
      - smallnamespace 10y ago
        But if the racial factors aren't all the same, then that creates an incentive for people to lie about their race. If you verify the race field, then now you're in the business of enforcing racial definitions.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Wonder if one should press for having these services accept a public key alongside the email address that they then are obliged to encrypt all outgoing emails with. Thus even if the address is wrong, the recipient can't easily read the content.
  - dpark 10y ago
    How does that solve anything? Either these services will have to publish the key on your behalf (so you can lookup the public key for bob@gmail.com with some public API), or you will have to provide the public key every time you hand out your email address. The former doesn't fix the issue at all, and the latter is unworkable because the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his public key.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      > the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his public key Have the browser suggest the key IDs from `gpg --list-secret-keys`.
      - dpark 10y ago
        /s
- FoeNyx 10y ago
  > On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just because of typos when he fills out online forms. I often get some misdirected emails because of a very banal name in my country. When the email contains a thread history, I sometime noticed that the address was simply corrupted by a recipient, such as numbers getting dropped from the genuine address in their reply. I guess some systems can't handle correctly numbers or other characters in email addresses.
- nevir 10y ago
  > Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times. Fun story there. Because Google's internal privacy safeguards are so strict, the people working on features like that can't look for example emails to train their ML models with. They can only look at emails that were explicitly sent to them in order to improve the feature (and almost no one forwards along positive nor negative examples). What they can do across the email corpus is run jobs that return aggregate stats, where each stat must be coarse enough that it is infeasible to trace back to original users (often 100k+ users per data point). So, AFAIK, training & testing models under these safeguards is more or less done blind. Build a model with the few examples you do have, and then run it against the corpus. If you see numbers change, you have no idea if that's good or bad, since you can't actually inspect the run. (at least, this is the way it was a few years ago)
  - CyberShadow 10y ago
    > and almost no one forwards along positive nor negative examples One time, when I marked a bunch of incorrectly-classified emails as "not spam", the Gmail web UI asked me if I wanted to send these emails to the Gmail spam team. Was this what you meant, or something else?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - nevir 10y ago
      Yeah, that sort of thing - by giving permission on a per email basis, they are then allowed to look at that particular email to see how/why the model is miss classifying it, AFAIK (That's different than just marking an email as spam, though)
- wastedhours 10y ago
  Had the same thing, Google swore I was supposed to be booking into a hotel in Copenhagen, but most definitely wasn't me - interesting to see what happens are these predictive features become more prevalent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wj 10y ago
If you visit a place of business you are potentially under surveillance. I'm sure there is a distinction but I'm failing to come up with it right now. I was somewhat radical about privacy in the late 90s (only person I knew that read every EULA) and am still a supporter of the EFF but I don't really understand the issue here.
- programmer_man 10y ago
  The distinction is that when you visit a place of business, the data is under the control of the business owner. When you visit you friend's house, the data is not under their control, it is under Google's control. Therefore, Google has a WAY bigger responsibility than most people realize, once they decided to collect this data.
  - shaftway 10y ago
    You are assuming that the business doesn't use a third party monitoring firm. Ultimately, whenever you visit any place, business or home, the data is under the control of the owner and anyone they abdicate those rights to.
    - s3r3nity 10y ago
      I tend to agree, though I tried to do some searches for a law citation here, but struggled to find anything concrete. I imagine this will be a big area of research and exploration for law in the coming years. Some interesting scenarios to consider: If I visit a friend's house, and I start getting targeted ads for a service I didn't subscribe to without prior consent or my knowledge, can I sue her/him? What about a scenario where some service collects my data, said service is hacked, and someone commits identity theft on me, who is liable for damages? Do I need my buddy to sign a waiver when he visits to play some Xbox for a bit?
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Do you normally use your friends' wifi? I do that when it's family, but generally not with my friends (don't do LAN parties anymore). With LTE, I don't need wifi.
t4nkd 10y ago
I'm not sure you are any less responsible for your own privacy despite the fact that companies like Google as well as others are making it more challenging. The example you mentioned seems easily fixed by using GPG. Granted there may be a place for regulations to help us restrict what companies are able to do(perhaps making it easier for you to identify a region that is being recorded, right?), but, at some point society can't help the fact that you'd prefer if machines were unaware of your existence. That's just something you have to solve for yourself.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > The example you mentioned seems easily fixed by using GPG. GPG doesn't hide that one is emailing, or when, or with whom; it only hides content.
throwaway98237 10y ago
Perhaps we need to start normalizing encrypted email. Just like https everywhere is no longer considered necessarily "tin-foil hat" SOP, moving this direction for email needs to be socially normalized. Going further, given that an encrypted email to Gmail will simply be unencrypted and then available to GMail, include in the protocol authorized (via both white and black list means) agents of the recipient. So, if you are hosting your own email but the intended recipient is expected to be not hosting their own email, the sender can blacklist "agents" such as Gmail and Yahoo! Mail, or blacklist all except for those chosen to be white-listed such as Proton Mail.
- mojuba 10y ago
  Sure, except the recipient will read your email in Google Chrome, while sitting on a Google Sofa sipping Google Coffee? :)
  - throwaway98237 10y ago
    ha, so true. one prob at a time :)
- funkymike 10y ago
  I was thinking about this just yesterday. It would be great if email providers made tools to painlessly create encryption keys and get them synced up to all your devices securely. From there each email you send can include an automatic signature of where to find your public key. On the other side when you receive emails from others with such a signature you can then choose to have the email reader fetch the key and let you start trusting it with a single confirmation click. From then on your emails to that person will be encrypted without you having to think about it. For almost all users getting a message from someone you personally know containing a message that they would legitimately send would be sufficient to trust the referenced key. If you are a little paranoid you could ask them over the phone or in person to send a specific message that you would then trust, or just ask for the URL itself. I believe that in-person key exchanges utilizing large trust networks are overkill for the vast majority of people sending everyday communications. Make it so simple as 1) one time key creation and copying to each device 2) one time trust per other person that is completely streamlined by the software. If the gmail team implemented this for example other email providers would soon do the same and it would spread like wildfire. Very quickly a huge amount of email would be encrypted. Of course this would require an open design that anyone can implement. Maybe there's a fundamental flaw with this idea that I'm not seeing. If so, please say so because otherwise I'm going to just be disappointed in five years when email is still 99% unencrypted.
thesimpsons1022 10y ago
a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  There just isn't any point to accusing people of shilling without evidence. The idea that one must be paid to hold a different opinion that you is offensive, and expressing it here isn't something the community wants.
  - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
    i actually had 3 upvotes until the google people started to change that. so some do. i'm not accusing anyone of shilling. i've personally seen these threads and some proportion of people admit openly they work there. others, you click their profile and see they work at goog. don't need you to condescingly assume you speak for the community. Also forgot to mention all the people who defend google because they're desperate to work there
    - jeeva 10y ago
      Sorry, but you don't think that it's somewhat unfounded paranoia? Personally, I would have downvoted you because your original point seemed to condescendingly assume something about a large proportion of the community and their intentions - then you assume again that it's "The Google People" (and only them)? Unless you can show that your downvotes came because of a specific reason, and from specific people...
      - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
        my original comment was " a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord. ". it isn't paranoia. Like i said i've seen threads where 4/10 comments are defending Google and the commenters openly say they work at Google or one can click on their proifle and see that they openly list they work there. didn't imply shilling.
bovermyer 10y ago
If you don't care for the products or services, you could always opt not to buy/use them. That includes avoiding areas where Google appliances are present. I'm fine with trading privacy for AI-driven convenience, though I already have a phone I like and an Echo, so I have no compelling reason to buy these particular products right now.
- krupan 10y ago
  And how are we going to know where google appliances are present or not?
  - bovermyer 10y ago
    By looking around and/or asking? Life isn't that hard.
    - krupan 10y ago
      "Excuse me, is that an android phone in your pocket?" Also, what about google self-driving cars with full arrays of cameras, radar, etc. recording everything as they drive past you?
mooman219 10y ago
Google has top notch practices in my opinion regarding privacy. If anything I would be more worried about smaller companies with shadier practices and lower security standards holding my personal information. There have been seemingly illegal practices from companies like Sears with how personal data is collected and used. It's easy to throw shade at a big companies, write a sarcastic title, then get clicks. Example: "Intuit’s TurboTax stores highly detailed financial data for millions of users who import their W2s, their banking data, info about their mortgages and more. Right now, all of this data is locked into TurboTax, but the company is now thinking about how it can do more with it by giving its users the option to share this data with reputable third parties." ... https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/intuit-wants-to-turn-turbotax-into-a-platform/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/intuit-wants-to-turn-turbo...
- josho 10y ago
  > I would be more worried about smaller companies with shadier practices and lower security standards holding my personal information. True, I don't mind Google today, but what about tomorrow? What about N years from now when they have failed to hit their financial targets 2 years running. Will that company have the same set of standards as the one today? The reality is that once you've given up your privacy there is no getting it back.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "Google has top notch practices in my opinion regarding privacy." Google might handle the data it collects better than other companies, but it would do much better still if it didn't collect any personal data at all. Hands off my data, Google!
  - Aeolun 10y ago
    Google wouldn't be Google without all that personal data though.
- ben_jones 10y ago
  For me the real problem is that large and trusted companies like Google are softening the public perception of what privacy should be and making it easier for smaller and more malicious companies to abuse the trust that Google and others generate.

by mojuba 10y ago

ubercore 10y ago

Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times. I think this example serves both our points. To your point, it's totally leaked this other person's info into my "google world" because I'm on gmail. On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just because of typos when he fills out online forms. Perfect privacy requires a lot of vigilance in a digital world, with or without google/gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
I have a fairly uncommon name and predominately use Gmail. Still, I receive a surprising amount of other people's mail in error. Apparently lots of people guess at email addys. I do often wonder at both the lack of privacy this engenders and what the Goog machine must make of it all.
- blawson 10y ago
  I definitely worry about my life being affected by situations like this. I receive a ridiculous amount of other people's email - for serious things like email account reset, to banking info. When the Ashley Madison hack happened, my email address was there multiple times! Imagine if my then-partner had bothered to look, what a mess that would be.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    Lay down a trail of public comments for plausible deniability. Smart!
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    Your current or next partner might not like that you've signed up either :)
  - jsymolon 10y ago
    > for serious things like email account reset, to banking info. I've called American Express a couple of times to report errant emails with account info ending up in my email. THEY didn't care that one of their customers had an issue, they thought it was a great time to have me fork over MY info "to check".
- gvurrdon 10y ago
  My partner received a few emails which a government representative had tried to forward from their work account to their private Gmail account whilst getting the address wrong. These contained personal information relating to correspondence with constituents. From time to time I have had messages relating to a government planning committee as one of the members got the domain of someone's departmental email account wrong and the messages come instead to the domain I administer.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  I know someone who has his (common) first name @gmail.com as he was an early employee on Gmail, and he regularly gets grandparents guessing their grandson's name as the correct e-mail address. He told me this happens several times a day.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  I just got a funny email last week... welcoming me to the NRA. I was like... but I didn't join the NRA. I sent them an email about it, but I'm probably going to have to CALL the NRA to tell them to remove my address from their database.
  - funkymike 10y ago
    Getting these things corrected can actually be quite difficult. I regularly get emails from an optician in another state. I have replied multiple times that they are sending information to the wrong person, but they continue to do so. Fortunately this has never included detailed health information, but merely revealing a patient relationship with a specific medical provider can be a breach. In another instance I was getting emails about an account someone created with American Express using my email address. I sent multiple emails to their customer support to get them to stop sending financial information to the wrong person with no results. In this I also found it difficult to even figure out what agency to report them to for failing to take action when notified. Eventually I took the time to call them. It took around 20 minutes (not counting time on hold) of talking to multiple people to get them to remove the email address from the account. This included them asking me several times for my social security number - which I flatly refused to provide since I had zero business relationship with them. This refusal actually seemed to confuse them.
- meej 10y ago
  The thing that gets me is when people seem to be guessing at their own emails when filling out forms and such. How do you not know your own email address? Many of the people I know who have very common gmail addresses have set up canned replies to let senders know they've reached the wrong person.
shaftway 10y ago
This is often useful even if you're not the flier. When I'm picking someone up it lets me know when their flight was delayed, and when I'm traveling it lets my wife know when I'm available.
- theandrewbailey 10y ago
  This situation is not like that. Presumably, ubercore is getting email for someone he does not know.
jeffdavis 10y ago
That's one of the interesting things about AI. There's no way to clairfy/correct when something is wrong, and most of the time you don't even know something is wrong. It's not clear whether these AI models have much incentive to correct anything. If 99% of people with attributes x,y and z are bad candidates for a job, will you even get an interview? Is there any attempt to account for the fact that attribute x is something you were born with? Or that you are actually in the 1% and really are a good candidate? Or that you don't actually have attribute y, and it was just inferred from something else or some kind of mixup like an email address typo?
- mason55 10y ago
  There are all kinds of interesting thought experiments. What happens when a classifier innocently discovers that the best classification is by race? Do we care? How about if we remove race but it happens to discover that four features which are very strongly correlated to race are the best way to classify?
  - mziel 10y ago
    There are ways to account for that. A model can be fit to race, and then you only predict "on top" of race (meaning residuals). You use that model, which is independent of race.
    - eridius 10y ago
      This only works if you're aware that race is even a factor. If you're not aware of the problematic factors, then you can't correct for them.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      How do you know you have the correct model, and isn't making the system more racist instead of less? Machine learning is also very opaque.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      But if the racial factors aren't all the same, then that creates an incentive for people to lie about their race. If you verify the race field, then now you're in the business of enforcing racial definitions.
digi_owl 10y ago
Wonder if one should press for having these services accept a public key alongside the email address that they then are obliged to encrypt all outgoing emails with. Thus even if the address is wrong, the recipient can't easily read the content.
- dpark 10y ago
  How does that solve anything? Either these services will have to publish the key on your behalf (so you can lookup the public key for bob@gmail.com with some public API), or you will have to provide the public key every time you hand out your email address. The former doesn't fix the issue at all, and the latter is unworkable because the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his public key.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    > the guy reliably giving out the wrong email address will absolutely not remember his public key Have the browser suggest the key IDs from `gpg --list-secret-keys`.
    - dpark 10y ago
      /s
FoeNyx 10y ago
> On the other hand, that person is leaking his information directly to me just because of typos when he fills out online forms. I often get some misdirected emails because of a very banal name in my country. When the email contains a thread history, I sometime noticed that the address was simply corrupted by a recipient, such as numbers getting dropped from the genuine address in their reply. I guess some systems can't handle correctly numbers or other characters in email addresses.
nevir 10y ago
> Sure, and to illustrate your point, I have an email very similar to someone else's. I very frequently get their emails (invoices, church events, travel itineraries, purchase receipts). Google thinks they're _my_ trips, and updates me about flight times. Fun story there. Because Google's internal privacy safeguards are so strict, the people working on features like that can't look for example emails to train their ML models with. They can only look at emails that were explicitly sent to them in order to improve the feature (and almost no one forwards along positive nor negative examples). What they can do across the email corpus is run jobs that return aggregate stats, where each stat must be coarse enough that it is infeasible to trace back to original users (often 100k+ users per data point). So, AFAIK, training & testing models under these safeguards is more or less done blind. Build a model with the few examples you do have, and then run it against the corpus. If you see numbers change, you have no idea if that's good or bad, since you can't actually inspect the run. (at least, this is the way it was a few years ago)
- CyberShadow 10y ago
  > and almost no one forwards along positive nor negative examples One time, when I marked a bunch of incorrectly-classified emails as "not spam", the Gmail web UI asked me if I wanted to send these emails to the Gmail spam team. Was this what you meant, or something else?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nevir 10y ago
    Yeah, that sort of thing - by giving permission on a per email basis, they are then allowed to look at that particular email to see how/why the model is miss classifying it, AFAIK (That's different than just marking an email as spam, though)
wastedhours 10y ago
Had the same thing, Google swore I was supposed to be booking into a hotel in Copenhagen, but most definitely wasn't me - interesting to see what happens are these predictive features become more prevalent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wj 10y ago

If you visit a place of business you are potentially under surveillance. I'm sure there is a distinction but I'm failing to come up with it right now. I was somewhat radical about privacy in the late 90s (only person I knew that read every EULA) and am still a supporter of the EFF but I don't really understand the issue here.

programmer_man 10y ago
The distinction is that when you visit a place of business, the data is under the control of the business owner. When you visit you friend's house, the data is not under their control, it is under Google's control. Therefore, Google has a WAY bigger responsibility than most people realize, once they decided to collect this data.
- shaftway 10y ago
  You are assuming that the business doesn't use a third party monitoring firm. Ultimately, whenever you visit any place, business or home, the data is under the control of the owner and anyone they abdicate those rights to.
  - s3r3nity 10y ago
    I tend to agree, though I tried to do some searches for a law citation here, but struggled to find anything concrete. I imagine this will be a big area of research and exploration for law in the coming years. Some interesting scenarios to consider: If I visit a friend's house, and I start getting targeted ads for a service I didn't subscribe to without prior consent or my knowledge, can I sue her/him? What about a scenario where some service collects my data, said service is hacked, and someone commits identity theft on me, who is liable for damages? Do I need my buddy to sign a waiver when he visits to play some Xbox for a bit?
- r00fus 10y ago
  Do you normally use your friends' wifi? I do that when it's family, but generally not with my friends (don't do LAN parties anymore). With LTE, I don't need wifi.

t4nkd 10y ago

I'm not sure you are any less responsible for your own privacy despite the fact that companies like Google as well as others are making it more challenging. The example you mentioned seems easily fixed by using GPG. Granted there may be a place for regulations to help us restrict what companies are able to do(perhaps making it easier for you to identify a region that is being recorded, right?), but, at some point society can't help the fact that you'd prefer if machines were unaware of your existence. That's just something you have to solve for yourself.

zeveb 10y ago
> The example you mentioned seems easily fixed by using GPG. GPG doesn't hide that one is emailing, or when, or with whom; it only hides content.

throwaway98237 10y ago

Perhaps we need to start normalizing encrypted email. Just like https everywhere is no longer considered necessarily "tin-foil hat" SOP, moving this direction for email needs to be socially normalized. Going further, given that an encrypted email to Gmail will simply be unencrypted and then available to GMail, include in the protocol authorized (via both white and black list means) agents of the recipient. So, if you are hosting your own email but the intended recipient is expected to be not hosting their own email, the sender can blacklist "agents" such as Gmail and Yahoo! Mail, or blacklist all except for those chosen to be white-listed such as Proton Mail.

mojuba 10y ago
Sure, except the recipient will read your email in Google Chrome, while sitting on a Google Sofa sipping Google Coffee? :)
- throwaway98237 10y ago
  ha, so true. one prob at a time :)
funkymike 10y ago
I was thinking about this just yesterday. It would be great if email providers made tools to painlessly create encryption keys and get them synced up to all your devices securely. From there each email you send can include an automatic signature of where to find your public key. On the other side when you receive emails from others with such a signature you can then choose to have the email reader fetch the key and let you start trusting it with a single confirmation click. From then on your emails to that person will be encrypted without you having to think about it. For almost all users getting a message from someone you personally know containing a message that they would legitimately send would be sufficient to trust the referenced key. If you are a little paranoid you could ask them over the phone or in person to send a specific message that you would then trust, or just ask for the URL itself. I believe that in-person key exchanges utilizing large trust networks are overkill for the vast majority of people sending everyday communications. Make it so simple as 1) one time key creation and copying to each device 2) one time trust per other person that is completely streamlined by the software. If the gmail team implemented this for example other email providers would soon do the same and it would spread like wildfire. Very quickly a huge amount of email would be encrypted. Of course this would require an open design that anyone can implement. Maybe there's a fundamental flaw with this idea that I'm not seeing. If so, please say so because otherwise I'm going to just be disappointed in five years when email is still 99% unencrypted.

thesimpsons1022 10y ago

a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord.

oldmanjay 10y ago
There just isn't any point to accusing people of shilling without evidence. The idea that one must be paid to hold a different opinion that you is offensive, and expressing it here isn't something the community wants.
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  i actually had 3 upvotes until the google people started to change that. so some do. i'm not accusing anyone of shilling. i've personally seen these threads and some proportion of people admit openly they work there. others, you click their profile and see they work at goog. don't need you to condescingly assume you speak for the community. Also forgot to mention all the people who defend google because they're desperate to work there
  - jeeva 10y ago
    Sorry, but you don't think that it's somewhat unfounded paranoia? Personally, I would have downvoted you because your original point seemed to condescendingly assume something about a large proportion of the community and their intentions - then you assume again that it's "The Google People" (and only them)? Unless you can show that your downvotes came because of a specific reason, and from specific people...
    - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
      my original comment was " a non-insignificant proportion of hacker news seems to actually work at google and run to their defense at anything somewhat critical of their overlord. ". it isn't paranoia. Like i said i've seen threads where 4/10 comments are defending Google and the commenters openly say they work at Google or one can click on their proifle and see that they openly list they work there. didn't imply shilling.

bovermyer 10y ago

If you don't care for the products or services, you could always opt not to buy/use them. That includes avoiding areas where Google appliances are present. I'm fine with trading privacy for AI-driven convenience, though I already have a phone I like and an Echo, so I have no compelling reason to buy these particular products right now.

krupan 10y ago
And how are we going to know where google appliances are present or not?
- bovermyer 10y ago
  By looking around and/or asking? Life isn't that hard.
  - krupan 10y ago
    "Excuse me, is that an android phone in your pocket?" Also, what about google self-driving cars with full arrays of cameras, radar, etc. recording everything as they drive past you?

mooman219 10y ago

Google has top notch practices in my opinion regarding privacy. If anything I would be more worried about smaller companies with shadier practices and lower security standards holding my personal information. There have been seemingly illegal practices from companies like Sears with how personal data is collected and used. It's easy to throw shade at a big companies, write a sarcastic title, then get clicks. Example: "Intuit’s TurboTax stores highly detailed financial data for millions of users who import their W2s, their banking data, info about their mortgages and more. Right now, all of this data is locked into TurboTax, but the company is now thinking about how it can do more with it by giving its users the option to share this data with reputable third parties." ... https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/intuit-wants-to-turn-turbotax-into-a-platform/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/22/intuit-wants-to-turn-turbo...

josho 10y ago
> I would be more worried about smaller companies with shadier practices and lower security standards holding my personal information. True, I don't mind Google today, but what about tomorrow? What about N years from now when they have failed to hit their financial targets 2 years running. Will that company have the same set of standards as the one today? The reality is that once you've given up your privacy there is no getting it back.
pmoriarty 10y ago
"Google has top notch practices in my opinion regarding privacy." Google might handle the data it collects better than other companies, but it would do much better still if it didn't collect any personal data at all. Hands off my data, Google!
- Aeolun 10y ago
  Google wouldn't be Google without all that personal data though.
ben_jones 10y ago
For me the real problem is that large and trusted companies like Google are softening the public perception of what privacy should be and making it easier for smaller and more malicious companies to abuse the trust that Google and others generate.