19 ms·
Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail
- anonu 8y agoWouldn't self destructing emails only work if both sides use Gmail?
- Someone1234 8y agoNo, the article covers this. The recipient receives a link instead to the content.
- saltcured 8y agoToo bad they have to distort the truth then. They're sending an email with a link to some other non-email content. Much like when someone sends any other sort of hosted-content URL like a Google Doc or Dropbox sharing link. As a matter of principle, I should retrieve the email via IMAP and later, while reading it offline, compose a short reply, "you forgot to attach a real message, please try again."
- eikenberry 8y agoBut the link requires you to have a google account, and every google account is also a gmail account...
- danans 8y agoActually, you can sign up for an account without GMail: https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail Disclosure: Googler, but not on GMail.
- eikenberry 8y agoLearn something new every day... Thanks.
- lovetrump 8y ago> It says that the recipient won’t be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email. DRM for email? that worked so great for the media industry... No thanks.
- ceejayoz 8y agoSeems like people will figure out the screenshot approach pretty quickly here.
- garaetjjte 8y agoBut what if it uses Widevine and HDCP? /s
- lovetrump 8y agoSorry, they hi-jack your whole system... and they alter the screen frequency/display so that even a camera can't take a picture.
- gfo 8y agoThis is a feature available to enterprises in Exchange server and it works quite well, especially for messages with sensitive content. The key difference is that emails are typically intended for those the message has been sent to and not for broad distribution - they can contain sensitive content that would cause harm if broadly distributed (e.g. server names, passwords, financial data, etc.) Media on the other hand, is intended for broad distribution but only after you've purchased a 'license' to use it.
- optimalsolver 8y agoBy "self-destruct" do you mean stored on a Google server somewhere?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- akrasuski1 8y agoUhmm... screenshot the mail; self-destruction circumvented.
- BenoitP 8y agoIt wouldn't prevent humans from remembering the mails, too. But screenshots are easily faked, and IMHO might (and should) not hold up in court. This is the equivalent of hearsay.
- kafquaesque 8y agoIf it was a high-profile case and the screenshot was evidence of a crime, I’m assuming they have people that could weigh in as an expert on doctoring images?
- jamiethompson 8y agoHow would you differentiate between a screenshot of an email in gmail and a screenshot of an email in gmail where someone had inspected the source and changed the text before screenshotting?
- kafquaesque 8y agoGood point. If it was the only evidence and didn’t connect with anything else it would not be substantial proof. I would think it could add to a story but not be definitive proof? You are describing the defense against the screenshot which could be backed up by “expert” testimony. Here is something I found on e-mails being edited in outlook even: https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1135234-can-i-protect-an-email-i-am-sending-from-being-edited-by-the-recipient https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1135234-can-i-protect... (questionable source)
- mattkrause 8y agoIt’s interesting you call it hearsay, because this would neatly fit into some of the exceptions to the rules AGAINST hearsay: Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
- throwaway2048 8y agocan't wait till this is used as an excuse to break SMTP compatability.
- mikro2nd 8y agoFirst they came for my XMPP, and I did nothing because I didn't use Jabber, Then they came for my RSS, and I did nothing because I didn't read newsfeeds, ... > the company is now evolving beyond the simple POP3/IMAP/SMTP protocols Seems almost as though Google has learned the "Adopt, adapt, decomoditise" mantra so beloved by Microsoft in days of yore.
- matthewaveryusa 8y agoWhat a bunch of hype garbage this is. If you send something in plaintext to a server it's already game over. If Google was serious about privacy it would pgp-encrypt everything so only the client, client-side can decrypt it, just like what protonmail does. pfff, 'self destructing emails', what a heaping pile of razzle dazzle no-ops that is -- this is more likely subliminal advertisement for the new mission impossible movie.
- peatmoss 8y agoI feel like client-side email encryption is a missed opportunity for Apple. Easy encrypted email would fit nicely into their narrative of “we can offer privacy features that Google can’t, because we sell you stuff”
- y4mi 8y agoEncryption doesn't work unless both sides use it. Apple supporting it won't help apple users one bit, because nobody else uses an actual application to check mails anymore. It's mostly web mail clients everywhere, and they obviously can't use encryption.
- kahnpro 8y agoiMessage?
- jayd16 8y agoApple controls all sides of iMessage.
- peatmoss 8y agoiOS? Plus, I know folks who use mail.app. I also bet they could figure out how to instrument Safari with browser-side encryption for their cloud users. A few more privacy scandals break, and if Apple had an end-to-end encryption story that sounds roughly like: “If you’re using Apple products and services, you probably don’t need to think too much about the techy parts.” I could easily see Apple cementing their position for anyone even remotely concerned about privacy. Apple the computer company. Apple the media company. Apple the smartphone conpany. Apple the consumer privacy and protection company? I could see it.
- godelski 8y agoSo it isn't encrypted? That doesn't seem substantially more secure.
- kome 8y agoPlease, let's not "disrupt" the email: it's so beautiful because it's so standard. For example, google's dot rules already (ko.me@gmail.com = kome@gmail.com) make no sense and break many applications: they need to stop. I like innovation, but to innovate email wouldn't be better to innovate in a slow and consensual way using RFC after RFC, at least in the case of email?
- TremendousJudge 8y agoemail was killed by spam, current email is sadly a walking zombie that's getting eaten by maggots
- caiw 8y agoI have very little problem with spam; server-side filtering and client-side filtering make it nearly a non-issue for me. Email was no more killed by spam than online discussion threads were.
- jraph 8y agoSpam is still an issue. When you set up a new mail server, you are likely to be filtered by big providers because they will consider you as spam. I've personally had issues with Microsoft and a local provider. This makes self hosting or running a small email provider hazardous, which is problematic. I never had issues with Google and Yahoo though. I guess spam and spam filters also have an ecological impact even if spams don't end up in our inbox. And there are false positives too. Because of spam, we are likely to miss a legitimate message one day or another. And I regularly see phishing on my professional inbox. So spam is still an issue even if it is hidden, for several reasons.
- krylon 8y agoTell that to my coworkers! ;-) When our mail server goes down, people start calling within a minute.
- w0m 8y ago> it's so beautiful because it's so standard I think it's really the opposite, every provider tends to introduce new/unique/nonstandards but they (mostly) interact at a minimum with eachother. Re: gmail DOT and + notation, those have been in common use on that platform for over a decade. >I like innovation, but to innovate email wouldn't be better to innovate in a slow and consensual way using RFC after RFC, at least in the case of email? RFC to what body? To the best of my knowledge the entire thing is just a happenstance of what happens to work in every client/server combination.
- zitterbewegung 8y agoHonest headline: Google is allowing you to hide emails from its public interface after a specific amount of time.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoDid you read the article? That's not what they're doing. They're replacing the contents with a link that eventually stops working. Nothing is being changed in the recipient's e-mail interface.
- warkdarrior 8y agoDid you read the OP's post? They're replacing the contents with a link that eventually stops working for you. Nothing is being changed in Google's backend, so the original message can be preserved for as long as they desire.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoThe e-mail does not get hidden. The recipient can still see the e-mail after the expiration time. The backend has been changed, as this link feature would require a new backend. The headline "Google is allowing you to hide emails from its public interface after a specific amount of time" implies that this is just a change to an existing interface and would only work for recipients who use gmail.
- supermdguy 8y agoI wonder how "destroyed" an email is is when the NSA/FBI wants to read it a year later. Google has no incentive to actually protect the content of "self-destructing" or any other type of emails, so it's dishonest for them to pretend to provide a private email service.
- ChrisAntaki 8y agoPretty sure Gmail isn't being used for ad targeting anymore https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/technology/gmail-ads.h...
- supermdguy 8y agoOh, I didn't know that. I edited my original comment.
- lovetrump 8y agoIs it because the NSA pays enough to rentabilize gmail?
- supermdguy 8y agoI took out the part about ads
- lovetrump 8y agosometimes I just forget that ads actually exist... (except for junk mail and billboards)
- peatmoss 8y agoThis is only possible if one believes in the capacity to control client security on the other side. There’s also the problem that something viewable by the recipient’s eyeballs is also photographable by the recipient’s camera. Moreover, I worry about the new Gmail feature that undermine the open platform of email. Email is just about the last unwalled comms platform we have, and I really worry for its safety if gmail thinks it can start differentiating network effects on gmail vs network effects on email. I switched my vanity domain over to Fastmail a while back. I haven’t had any regrets. New features like this make me even more glad.
- Someone1234 8y agoEmail is doomed either way. The standard is indefinitely stuck in "IE6" mode, where there's few if any improvements, updates, or fixes. Everyone time anyone suggests significant improvements one of the big players (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc) says no and it stalls. If email gets a "HTML5"-like major refresh at some point then I'd be proven wrong but that hasn't happened yet in my lifetime. Microsoft in particular between Outlook.com, 365, and Exchange/Outlook Desktop are a major hindrance to any advancement. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol#Related_requests_for_comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol#...
- bad_user 8y agoNot having improvements is a feature. Yes, please leave email the way it is, because it works fine. It’s one of the few things that does. The only feature I want is end to end encryption. Google will never make encryption easy on their own because they’ve got perverse incentives not to.
- simplicio 8y agoSeems annoying. No one would rely on this to keep actual sensitive info private, since you can just screen shot it. On the other hand, part of the point of Gmail is that it makes your emails easily searchable, so you can quickly dig up info from old mail rather than have to make a note of said info in some sepearate program/notebook/whatever. But if emails are going to randomly be disappearing, it could really cripple that utility.
- matte_black 8y agoWhy do people keep bringing up screenshots as some kind of evidence of something that was said? I can easily go into an email, bring up the source code, edit the email body to have some racist tirade, then screenshot the edited email and use that as “evidence” against a person.
- ksk 8y agoNobody is actually doing that. You are confusing evidence against someone versus "I better make a copy of this for myself before it stops working".
- matte_black 8y agoThen why not just copy and paste the text....
- HillaryBriss 8y agoYou'd have to go to some special measure to copy and paste the text because they disable the standard, easy copy/paste functionality. But taking a photo is always doable. This is a standard argument. If you can't trust the recipient to preserve privacy then there isn't a technological way to defeat this kind of information leak.
- Froyoh 8y agoYou should be able to copy by disabling JavaScript
- yssrn 8y agoThis would be great... if taking (and faking) screenshots wasn't possible.
- lultimouomo 8y agoIn my eyes this is clearly not meant as a way to prevent malicious intentional data exfiltration; what it does is force users who want to retain and forward the data to do so in a way that leaves no doubt about their intentions, so that they can be more easily sued.
- harshulpandav 8y ago"On the recipient’s side, the person was using the existing version of Gmail and received a link to view the confidential email. The recipient had to log into their Google account once again to view the content." IMO this is an open invitation to phishers.
- kbsletten 8y agoI think the genie's out of the bottle on that one, I can already do the same with a million other services.
- croshan 8y agoWell, this gives a plausible reason for having to log back into an account you're already logged into. And normalizes the behavior. So the next time you get an email from "google", you won't think twice about why you have to log back in.
- kbsletten 8y agoYeah, but I think the battle is lost. All users should always double-check why they need to enter credentials on any page from any website. I think that the simple act of logging into a site to use it has already "normalized" the need to re-enter credentials to a point beyond saving.
- Twirrim 8y agoIt just encourages and exposes a wider range of people to an attack vector. No one should be actively _training_ people to open random links in an email.
- e12e 8y agoOh, so Gmail is finally moving away from email. Guess it was a question of time.
- inopinatus 8y ago
- harshulpandav 8y agoA better solution could be to convert the email into an image with "VOID" watermark all over the image after its expiration.
- greenail 8y agoAssuming gmail and g-suite share technology, I doubt any enterprise customers would be comfortable with the content of the email actually being purged. I'd guess there is some backdoor for corporate compliance and auditing reasons. I also don't see any reason you couldn't build a bot that grabs these for you to keep via the gmail add on api.
- HillaryBriss 8y agowait. why wouldn't at least some corporate customers be interested in this sort of thing? they'd have a standard, non-selective, purely time-based expiration policy which would be defensible in the face of a government investigation. "Your honor, we made no attempt to hide specific details about this matter. Our policy has always been to destroy all messages that are greater than 90 days old."
- greenail 8y agoSome companies may want this feature. Others would not because the regulators (like the SEC) have said that companies can't delete communication data (email/chat) prior to regulated windows. most companies want to delete as soon as possible after that window has expired which is it's own challenge. I suppose I wanted to point out that not being able to read a message and fully purging it are not the same thing and gsuite likely alienates the enterprise if they cannot comply with regulation.
- walshemj 8y agoThen a Judge says that policy is designed to hamper the police and security services based on "reasons" contempt of court and sends a CEO to jail for a month. A retention period in line with SEC requirements (7 years I believe) might fly but 90 days is to short -also how would you discipline some one for abuse of the email system if the evidence disappears
- HillaryBriss 8y agoyes, right. that's fine. they could make the expiration time 7 years and a day. also, when a company finds itself under investigation in court, the judge can order a temporary halt to the ongoing process of timely email deletion so that a fair discovery process can occur. i believe there are existing penalties for abusing the email system if evidence disappears. that wouldn't change.
- cs702 8y agoNo. No. No. Google, please don't mess with email standards.
- alexkavon 8y agoWaaaay too late on that. Just try setting up your own server and sending to a Gmail address.
- cs702 8y agoThey're going further: this would likely be incompatible with email services from other providers such as fastmail.
- CaptSpify 8y agoI do that all the time without any problems. What issues have you seen with it?
- nunodonato 8y agomarked as SPAM. I get that a lot
- squarefoot 8y agoNot good at all. This should happen only if one of your servers has been compromised and spits out spam that gets logged by Google. Does unmarking your email as spam by the recipient work? If not that would be an indication it's intentional.
- written 8y agoMost of the big providers are shit, I wish I could shame them, but alas, I can not. If I'm responding to e-mail from their users, I expect at least my initial response will get through. You really don't need any fancy crap like DKIM/SPF/nice IP addresses database/AI/bayes/etc. in this case to make the decision if e-mail is legitimate. All my responses contain randomly generated ID of the message I'm responding to that nobody else than the sender and the intended recipient (me) can know. If it matches one of the e-mails their user sent me, say within a reasonable timeframe, and it's a first response or so, it is almost certainly genuine. It just shows how little they give a crap about their own users, if they don't make such a simple check to make sure that their users can get responses to all sent emails. Instead of making e-mail work, they're inventing bullshit like this new "expiring email" thing and making redesigns nobody asks for.
- akhatri_aus 8y agoIf you can take a picture with your phone or a screenshot of the email, what's the point?
- joering2 8y agoAbout 2 years ago I received a quote in my yahoo email that on the bottom said "this email will vanish from your mailbox within 48 hours". And sure it did! I wonder how the author did that. He wasn't working for yahoo or anything like that; it was a quote not related to technology in any way. I'm still puzzled by this one. Anyone?
- dingo_bat 8y agoI don't think there is any way to do that unless yahoo was in on it.
- rdlecler1 8y agoSlack has a feature to delete posts after a certain period of time. We use this internally so that we can have unfiltered frank discussions.
- mlrtime 8y agoit's still on the server
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoRelevant blog post on another upcoming Gmail feature: "Email is your electronic memory": https://blog.fastmail.com/2018/02/14/email-is-your-electronic-memory/ https://blog.fastmail.com/2018/02/14/email-is-your-electroni...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Digihash 8y agoThe idea sounds nice, but I would actually like it if any of the big ones like Microsoft or Google could make an implementation for end-to-end encryption using a standard like PGP or S/MIME. If they can add features like the temporary "confidential" mail as what Google is implementaing in Gmail, that would be a nice extra. But if we can't even do the basics right, why implement such features that can only be used between your own users? Because when you try to use PGP these days using different implementation like Thunderbird/Enigmail to Outlook/GPGOL or vice versa, half of the times the e-mail are unreadable, not able to be decrypted or some other mysterious problem.
- hartator 8y agoThat’s a bad move. It’s already hard to teach users not to sign in via suspicious link, so adding a legitimate case will be just confusing.
- gsich 8y agoNot possible with POP3 I guess.
- Spivak 8y agoYes possible with anything. Instead of sending the content of the message they send an expiring link which is transparent when viewed in GMail. You can save the message contents with effort, that's not really the threat model this is feature is addressing. But neither POP nor OfflineIMAP will help you by default.
- gsich 8y agoSounds like a shitty way to do it. I know that principle, otherd have tried it.
- m3kw9 8y agoLooks like privacy is making a big come back and fuk all these companies that gives free service in exchange to use your personal info
- stingrae 8y agoI feel like people are missing what I think the core reason for this feature, to limit what is available to opposing attorneys during discovery.
- carussell 8y agoFor anyone in the Northern District of California at least, that's a pretty awful use case, for the reasons I mention above. You open yourself up to being culpable for the strongest hypothetical against you (versus just dealing with the magnitude of the worst thing that you actually did).
- augustz 8y agoWhat I'm struck by is how many people don't see value in this. If you work with sensitive data, this is valuable. A business may already trust google, but they want to send emails (even internally) that expire. I'd like it if it just expired the attachments - that's normally where sensitive data lives. I don't even need to prevent printing etc. I'd also love a setting, email over 1 year old, you have to jump through some extra hoops to access it.
- spookylukey 8y agoThere is no value in it because it is a false promise. If you give someone access to data, you have lost control over it, especially if it is by email - because not everyone uses Gmail. Many of those who do do not use the web client, and email clients are ultimately controlled by end users, even web based ones. Only if you have complete end-to-end control over all the devices that everyone uses, including their brain, can you stop people from copying data. If I have a file that I want to limit access to, I would never dream of sending it via e-mail. Some hosted document service which only shows parts of the file would be far preferable.
- vatueil 8y agoThere's no way to stop someone from copying the message if they really want to. That doesn't mean a system that prevents the recipient from accidentally leaking the message has no use. There are plenty of scenarios where the sender may be confident that the recipient will not intentionally betray their trust but may not want to leave long-term traces behind (say, forwarding confidential documents to a family member). Rather than reminding them not to forward the email and to delete it ASAP, you could just use this feature instead. Just because something doesn't can't cover all scenarios doesn't mean it's useless. Firefox's Private Browsing can't hide your activity from a determined eavesdropper, for example, but there are still plenty of ways in which it's useful.
- bittercynic 8y agoThough there is undoubtedly value in such a feature, it is upsetting because it further concentrates power. Presumably Google, and likely powerful people in organizations that use gmail, will still have access to the expired documents, but low level employees will not. The information asymmetry leads to real power asymmetry. </tinfoil>
- siculars 8y agoThat’s not how email works. That’s not how any of this works.
- urda 8y agoUnless you locally encrypt your content before shipping it to Google or any other mail server, you can never be sure that your e-mail is "self destructing". This is a dog and pony show.
- dingo_bat 8y agoEven then it is not "self-destructing", you need to ship an exe that works only after it asks your server over the internet.
- pasbesoin 8y agoWell, this is finally the nudge that broke the camel's back, to leave Gmail. And it will play havoc in GSuite, where there are needs and requirements for various entities to maintain business records. (Maybe these deleted emails remain visible to administrators? Still leaves employees without control over the messages sent to them, including and especially abusive ones.) Anyway, feels like more asymmetry in what was designed as a symmetric model -- like much of the Net.
- twotwotwo 8y agoThe really bad-news thing for me here is Google decided it's good for business to try DRM for email, doing their best to take away (recipient) user control and talking about it as a feature. (They've _gone along_ with crummy ideas, of course, but _promoting_ DRM for email's a whole 'nother thing.) And they do it even though, as you note, there are tons of ways to really do confidentiality much better. The Signal protocol has worked great for chat, to name another example. The problem with that for Google, I guess, is that end-to-end security is more in line with the Apple model of smarts living on the user's device, not the Google model that requires the server to read and understand all of every user's content. (I say that as someone on Android, Linux, and so on. I'm not super invested in Apple or their ecosystem.) Also, this idea is salvageable. You could have "request expiration," etc. and maybe you honor by default but don't suggest you enforce it. And managed work environments can try any DRMish stuff they like (though it will still be unreliable!), because the boss is the customer and if they want to make it a pain for the user to do certain things they can. But as it stands now, false sense of security for the average user, and an entirely valid feeling for those parsing the details that companies like Google are more than happy to erode user control. I would love to see this idea ridiculed for how broken it is. Maybe it will even inspire less broken privacy features from competitors.
- mtgx 8y agoNot many people are paying attention, but this is just another move from Google to make email = Gmail. It's trying to turn email into a proprietary thing that only works between Gmail addresses. All the Inbox "AI-enhanced" nonsense was also part of this plan, and I'm glad it hasn't caught on because of that. The only thing that would make me accept Gmail turning email into a less open format is if they enabled end-to-end encryption similar to ProtonMail that wasn't a pain to use like PGP is. At least then there would be a good reason for killing the old format and breaking compatibility with other providers. Ideally, it would still be a format that other email providers could at least adopt later on, and then the email services could remain compatible with each other. But providing end-to-end encryption at all would be a big deal on its own. But this or the AI stuff are a joke in comparison. And we know Google doesn't care anymore about end-to-end encryption (now that it has become Pentagon's bestie), as it has already killed its own End-to-End project.
- uhuru 8y agoDoes google destructive automation for them self ? Haha..what a utter garbage
- blklivesmatter 8y agoWho believes these liars about anything anymore.
- tyingq 8y agoGreat. So now I have forward every email I get to some non-google email as a backup.
- CamperBob2 8y agoI wish Dropbox would do something like this as well -- let me specify that files in a certain directory will auto-delete themselves after a set period of time, or immediately after being retrieved.
- gesman 8y agoSomeone possibly already building a service to undelete "expired" email. Automatic local snapshots that you control! Sort of like deleted tweets that suddenly everyone have elevated interest in and can read forever. In fact the more "deleted" the tweet (or email) is - the more attention it will get.
- twhb 8y agoGmail intentionally deviates from the IMAP spec, forcing email clients to either become Gmail clients or work poorly with Gmail. They refuse to support IMAP push, instead saving push for the Gmail API. Recently they introduced AMP for Email, which happens to work via emails that only Gmail can read. Now they introduce another feature which happens to work via emails that only Gmail can read. I think it's pretty clear what's going on here. By the way, FastMail's work at the protocol level - http://jmap.io/ http://jmap.io/ - is open source, and being standardized by the IETF.
- tspike 8y agoI'd long ago deleted my Facebook account, but the #deletefacebook push did strengthen my resolve enough to finally move my Gmail over to Fastmail. No regrets.
- app4soft 8y ago> to Fastmail While Fastmail at this moment look much better than other mail services, nobody know what Fastmail (or any other service) could do with your correspondence tomorrow. There is cool sample flowchart[0] created using Dia[1]: "Should I encrypt my email?"[2] [0] http://dia-installer.de/shapes/Flowchart/index.html.en http://dia-installer.de/shapes/Flowchart/index.html.en [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dia_(software) [2] http://dia-installer.de/shapes/Flowchart/images/Flowchart.png http://dia-installer.de/shapes/Flowchart/images/Flowchart.pn...
- paxys 8y agoThat's because Push-IMAP was abandoned a long time ago and isn't even part of the standard. Every provider out there (Microsoft with Exchange ActiveSync, Apple's MobileMe and iCloud push, Yahoo, and others) has their own push mechanism. FastMail itself is using something non-standard, and saying it is open source and "being standardized" means nothing. See https://xkcd.com/927 https://xkcd.com/927.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
- snvzz 8y agoAs to how bad I find this is: It's more than enough to close the account. If in the receiver end I can't disable this, this is it.
- mega_behemoth 8y agoSo from now and on, it's called g-mail, and not e-mail, and they are not compatible. Also this seems to be a stupid idea, as who'd believe self-destructing or expiring emails would actually be ever deleted from g-servers...
- matlk 8y ago"In the compose screen, there’s a tiny lock icon called “confidential mode”. It says that the recipient won’t be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email." I can see how they could prevent this happening for the average user, but do they really have some way actually stop this?
- on_and_off 8y agoI mean .. nothing stops you from taking a picture of your screen The way I see it, it could be useful for internal emails you don't want inadvertently shared with the outside.
- hliyan 8y agoHopefully no service will go so far as to blank the screen when a lens is detected by the webcam...
- gray_-_wolf 8y ago1) not everything has a webcam 2) most people I know cover them on laptos with ducktape anyway
- outsidetheparty 8y agosmells like “embrace, extend, and extinguish”
- megaman22 8y agoWell, realistically, unless Microsoft goes along with it and builds the same implementation into Outlook, this ain't going anywhere. Business runs on Outlook, and Office 365 is the other huge part of Microsoft's revenue, outside Azure.
- azinman2 8y agoThis is terrible for forensic evidence. Many an illegal activity is captured and busted because of email records — just think of the Enron dataset for example.
- intrasight 8y agoSo what? We'll all just have to install a newer version of one of the many existing browser extensions that saves all our email.
- korginator 8y agoEverything I read in the article made me cringe. It's pretty obvious Google is moving the facebook way. This will evolve into a proprietary messaging system, basic mail gets demoted to a third-class service, and people get locked into yet another non-standard ecosystem controlled by one company. The only difference is that facebook was blatant about it, and google's taking the boiling frog approach.
- Boulth 8y agoThe same happened with GTalk, first completely standard XMPP service then some extensions to it, then abandoning. Embrace, extend...
- josteink 8y agoSo Google is finally admitting they are not at an actual email provider, but creating their own closed wall service. Glad I’ve moved to fastmail.
- ricksnyke 8y agoJust use protonmail, no ads, no spyware.
- yoavm 8y agoThis is how the end of e-mail as we know it looks like. Self destructing messages, expired attachments, disabled forwarding. Heck, they took the mail out of the e-mail.
- murraylola0 8y agoContact spylink80@keemail.me for all your cyber problems name it whats app, Facebook snap chat anything you can think off,he is the perfect person you need when it comes to that .He will surely help you.