4 ms·

Gmail?

by ikeboy 9y ago

Gmail?

ryandrake 9y ago
I think it's wise to treat anything in one's Gmail as "one [however unlikely] breach away from being public info" and use it accordingly.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  That was actually my biggest surprise about the DNC hack. People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" apparently decided archiving controversial internal party squabbles was a good idea, and acted surprised when stuff showed up on the front page of the New York Times.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" Almost nobody lives by that maxim; they might have a few decades ago, but the utility of low-latency, asynchronous, low-ambiguity communications channels now available, which inherently involved text or recorded content with the same vulnerability, is so high that people who might have lived by that maximizes when writing meant dead-tree memoranda and files no longer do. But, even when it was more current, I suspect that was, as the saying goes, always observed more in the breach than anything else.
    - prostoalex 9y ago
      Emmanuel Macron's campaign was hacked as well, but did not unleash any extraordinary findings beyond gigabytes of boring meeting arrangements and schedule confirmations. Either the attackers expended less effort on Macron HQ vs DNC and never got to the juicy stuff, or someone within Macron camp ran a tight ship on what can and cannot go through insecure channels.
edraferi 9y ago
Data can be replicated infinitely, for zero cost, with no notice to it's creator. The only effective way to protect data against universal distribution is to keep it on your machine (and keep that machine secure). With Gmail, big G has everything. More relevant to the grandparent, the recipients of your mail have everything you send them. They can forward it anywhere and there's nothing you can do about it.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Even Gmail should be assumed to be “eventually public”. That’s why we have this new saying: ”Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like It May One Day Be Read Aloud in a Deposition” You’re taking a serious gamble if you assume your email will be private forever, as certain politicians now know all too well.

Gmail?

by ikeboy 9y ago

Gmail?

I think it's wise to treat anything in one's Gmail as "one [however unlikely] breach away from being public info" and use it accordingly.

prostoalex 9y ago
That was actually my biggest surprise about the DNC hack. People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" apparently decided archiving controversial internal party squabbles was a good idea, and acted surprised when stuff showed up on the front page of the New York Times.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > People who live by the maxim "don't put anything in writing that you wouldn't want people to see on the front page of the New York Times" Almost nobody lives by that maxim; they might have a few decades ago, but the utility of low-latency, asynchronous, low-ambiguity communications channels now available, which inherently involved text or recorded content with the same vulnerability, is so high that people who might have lived by that maximizes when writing meant dead-tree memoranda and files no longer do. But, even when it was more current, I suspect that was, as the saying goes, always observed more in the breach than anything else.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    Emmanuel Macron's campaign was hacked as well, but did not unleash any extraordinary findings beyond gigabytes of boring meeting arrangements and schedule confirmations. Either the attackers expended less effort on Macron HQ vs DNC and never got to the juicy stuff, or someone within Macron camp ran a tight ship on what can and cannot go through insecure channels.

edraferi 9y ago

Data can be replicated infinitely, for zero cost, with no notice to it's creator. The only effective way to protect data against universal distribution is to keep it on your machine (and keep that machine secure). With Gmail, big G has everything. More relevant to the grandparent, the recipients of your mail have everything you send them. They can forward it anywhere and there's nothing you can do about it.

Analemma_ 9y ago

Even Gmail should be assumed to be “eventually public”. That’s why we have this new saying: ”Dance Like No One is Watching; Email Like It May One Day Be Read Aloud in a Deposition” You’re taking a serious gamble if you assume your email will be private forever, as certain politicians now know all too well.