5 ms·

what's the use case you are worried about? Tell me a story. Who is accessing your date, for which purpose, when, how much, etc... and explain how Gmail is a bad

by fserb 9y ago

what's the use case you are worried about? Tell me a story. Who is accessing your date, for which purpose, when, how much, etc... and explain how Gmail is a bad solution because Google "can read it". Yes, Google does not offer you protection against the Government. That is a true statement. But that doesn't mean that it's all or none. There are so many privacy rights before "a warrant request". And news flash, unless you are extremely good at securing your own mail server, even then you are not protected against a warrant. Those checks are not bullshit. Every single security system "can be bypassed".

CaptSpify 9y ago
The use case is pretty obvious by now: people trying to manipulate me (ads), overreaching government intrusion, and invasions of privacy. I never said that Google just sends everything over to them, but they can come and access my data without me ever knowing, and that's a problem. Just because there are (imo broken) checks in place does nothing to negate that fact. Those checks are provably bullshit by the previous breaches. If they weren't bullshit, there would never have been breaches.
- fserb 9y ago
  as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is. Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof. Fuck that. Name on technology that is so. Air gapping isn't. Granted, air gapping allows you to at least know about it. But that's that. "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. Give me details. By whom? Your partner? Your coworker? 4chan? Your mayor? Russia? What information are they getting from you? Why? It's very likely that whatever use case you come up with, you are better defended with 2auth gmail than with whatever other solution. That's a problem with the web. In 15 years, and not counting legal government requests, there were what? 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught? 5? That's your "provably bullshit"? What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is. yes it can. zero-knowledge encryption is already a thing. > Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof. Apparently the iPhone is. pgp encryption is another one. I'd suggest brushing up on basic security before saying things like that. > "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. Why not? > By whom? By anyone that I don't authorize. Sure, that could be my partner, coworker, any government authority, etc. > What information are they getting from you? Are you serious? If you don't even understand that threat model, then again, I'd suggest looking in basic security models. > you are better defended with 2auth gmail 2auth gmail is orthogonal to the issue. That's an security method. Currently Google does that but still can grant access to anyone they want. That's a problem that 2auth doesn't address. > not counting legal government requests Why not? Why remove a legitimate security issue from the discussion? > 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught I have no idea how many have been caught, once again, that's orthogonal to the issue. How many examples doesn't matter. It's that they do have access and can do it whenever they want. > What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this? That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense.
    - fserb 9y ago
      > Apparently the iPhone is If you are referring to the San Bernardino phone thingy, the FBI withdrew the request exactly because they did access the phone by themselves. It just cost more money. > pgp encryption is another one lol. Isn't there tons of reports claiming that PGP leaks too much metadata? And that the NSA is collecting those? And that there's no reasonable way to use PGP without leaking those (like hidden-sender whatever). > > "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. > Why not? Because I want specifics. Just saying someone "invaded your privacy" doesn't tell me anything. Tell me a full story: entity X did Y to know Z from W. And show me how using gmail made W more unsafe on that case. And what I'm trying to tell you, is that there are two cases: - legal government related. In which case Google can't (and won't) protect you. It's a fair claim. If you are doing something that the US government wants to know about, don't use gmail. But most things won't protect you from that anyway. Ask Dread Pirate Roberts about it. :) - non-government related. In which case you are better protected with gmail than most things you can reasonably do. Ask Hillary Clinton. :) > That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense. Where did I say we shouldn't ensure privacy/security? What I'm refuting is your claim that "it's bullshit because it failed once". Gmail does a better job than most other things. Most things in your life fail more often than that. And most things don't evolve security/privacy wise as well as gmail does.

by fserb 9y ago

CaptSpify 9y ago

The use case is pretty obvious by now: people trying to manipulate me (ads), overreaching government intrusion, and invasions of privacy. I never said that Google just sends everything over to them, but they can come and access my data without me ever knowing, and that's a problem. Just because there are (imo broken) checks in place does nothing to negate that fact. Those checks are provably bullshit by the previous breaches. If they weren't bullshit, there would never have been breaches.

fserb 9y ago
as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is. Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof. Fuck that. Name on technology that is so. Air gapping isn't. Granted, air gapping allows you to at least know about it. But that's that. "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. Give me details. By whom? Your partner? Your coworker? 4chan? Your mayor? Russia? What information are they getting from you? Why? It's very likely that whatever use case you come up with, you are better defended with 2auth gmail than with whatever other solution. That's a problem with the web. In 15 years, and not counting legal government requests, there were what? 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught? 5? That's your "provably bullshit"? What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this?
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is. yes it can. zero-knowledge encryption is already a thing. > Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof. Apparently the iPhone is. pgp encryption is another one. I'd suggest brushing up on basic security before saying things like that. > "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. Why not? > By whom? By anyone that I don't authorize. Sure, that could be my partner, coworker, any government authority, etc. > What information are they getting from you? Are you serious? If you don't even understand that threat model, then again, I'd suggest looking in basic security models. > you are better defended with 2auth gmail 2auth gmail is orthogonal to the issue. That's an security method. Currently Google does that but still can grant access to anyone they want. That's a problem that 2auth doesn't address. > not counting legal government requests Why not? Why remove a legitimate security issue from the discussion? > 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught I have no idea how many have been caught, once again, that's orthogonal to the issue. How many examples doesn't matter. It's that they do have access and can do it whenever they want. > What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this? That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense.
  - fserb 9y ago
    > Apparently the iPhone is If you are referring to the San Bernardino phone thingy, the FBI withdrew the request exactly because they did access the phone by themselves. It just cost more money. > pgp encryption is another one lol. Isn't there tons of reports claiming that PGP leaks too much metadata? And that the NSA is collecting those? And that there's no reasonable way to use PGP without leaking those (like hidden-sender whatever). > > "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. > Why not? Because I want specifics. Just saying someone "invaded your privacy" doesn't tell me anything. Tell me a full story: entity X did Y to know Z from W. And show me how using gmail made W more unsafe on that case. And what I'm trying to tell you, is that there are two cases: - legal government related. In which case Google can't (and won't) protect you. It's a fair claim. If you are doing something that the US government wants to know about, don't use gmail. But most things won't protect you from that anyway. Ask Dread Pirate Roberts about it. :) - non-government related. In which case you are better protected with gmail than most things you can reasonably do. Ask Hillary Clinton. :) > That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense. Where did I say we shouldn't ensure privacy/security? What I'm refuting is your claim that "it's bullshit because it failed once". Gmail does a better job than most other things. Most things in your life fail more often than that. And most things don't evolve security/privacy wise as well as gmail does.