4 ms·

I scoffed a bit at this part: >Try it in Adobe Acrobat (via the “Save as Other” command under “File” on a Mac) and you’ll quickly be redirected to Adobe’s webs

by simias 9y ago

I scoffed a bit at this part: >Try it in Adobe Acrobat (via the “Save as Other” command under “File” on a Mac) and you’ll quickly be redirected to Adobe’s website and presented with a handful of subscription packages that will allow you to transform your documents. [...] Indeed, it’s probably a little safer, all things considered. If I was doing shady stuff the last thing I'd want to do is send my incriminating documents to some 3rd party service. That being said I would also probably not send them over the clear in emails either. It's pretty insane how cavalier people are with email security (or lack thereof). I can't imagine that they would be so lenient if they were sending each other the files over regular mail. I think most people simply don't realize how thoroughly unsecure stock email is, you're basically lending an open postcard over the internet and you can be sure that a bunch of copies are made along the way. It's pretty much the worst way to share sensitive documents online short of posting them on facebook.

jmull 9y ago
It's actually much worse than sending incriminating documents through the mail, even printed brazenly on a postcard. To capture incriminating physical mail, the authorities have to already be monitoring you at the time you send the documents. With email they are typically able to go back and capture emails from days, weeks, and years prior.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > It's actually much worse than sending incriminating documents through the mail, even printed brazenly on a postcard. I know I'm nitpickig, but the USPS photographs of all pieces of mail and digitizes it. This information is considered metadata and is not protected against unwarranted searches, so postcards are much worse (for privacy), because even the small-town PD can get access to them without having to look for an "IT guy" to help. Email requires assistance from a TLA agency (or a search warrant served to the mail provider).
  - macintux 9y ago
    > the USPS photographs of all pieces of mail and digitizes it Thanks, I had no idea. While doing some genealogy recently I found that a distant ancestor had unclaimed mail in the post office shortly before he died. I found it vaguely amusing to envision walking in and asking for it now, 125 years later; I guess some distant descendant of mine might be able to ask for a photo of mail I'd sent or received.

by simias 9y ago

jmull 9y ago

It's actually much worse than sending incriminating documents through the mail, even printed brazenly on a postcard. To capture incriminating physical mail, the authorities have to already be monitoring you at the time you send the documents. With email they are typically able to go back and capture emails from days, weeks, and years prior.

sangnoir 9y ago
> It's actually much worse than sending incriminating documents through the mail, even printed brazenly on a postcard. I know I'm nitpickig, but the USPS photographs of all pieces of mail and digitizes it. This information is considered metadata and is not protected against unwarranted searches, so postcards are much worse (for privacy), because even the small-town PD can get access to them without having to look for an "IT guy" to help. Email requires assistance from a TLA agency (or a search warrant served to the mail provider).
- macintux 9y ago
  > the USPS photographs of all pieces of mail and digitizes it Thanks, I had no idea. While doing some genealogy recently I found that a distant ancestor had unclaimed mail in the post office shortly before he died. I found it vaguely amusing to envision walking in and asking for it now, 125 years later; I guess some distant descendant of mine might be able to ask for a photo of mail I'd sent or received.