8 ms·

What 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-e

What 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 9y ago
I 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 9y ago
  Encryption 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 9y ago
    iMessage?
    - jayd16 9y ago
      Apple controls all sides of iMessage.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    iOS? 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.
    - virusduck 9y ago
      Where do you keep the keys? * On the device? Oops--device broke, guess my emails are gone forever * In the "cloud"? -- Oops, can't guarantee encryption Who generated the keys and how do you build trust? For both of these, you can trust Apple do do the right thing, but that's putting all your eggs into that basket, similar to iMessage.
      - Spivak 9y ago
        On device with the key exportable and optionally escrowed to iCloud. Key management isn't exactly an unsolved problem.
        y4mi 9y ago
        > Key management isn't exactly an unsolved problem you're right its not an unsolved problem, its an unsolvable problem. There is little point in encrypting mails between apple users, if the keys are kept on the apple servers. What would it achieve after all? Apple, and by extension every nation of importance would still have access. the only reward you'd get from that is getting locked into the apple ecosphere even stronger, because now you won't be able to read your mail archive anymore unless you use an apple device. And you obviously can kiss search goodbye. There is no way to search encrypted data after all, unless you decrypt it.
  - aylmao 9y ago
    Would be interesting if they built something like SMS/iMessage, where within the ecosystem emails were encrypted but when sent outside they weren't. Of course, hopefully PGP, and not some custom, private API like iMessage.
    - JonathonW 9y ago
      If you're looking for an "open ecosystem" option, Mail on both iOS and Mac (as well as a bunch of clients elsewhere, including Outlook and Thunderbird) supports S/MIME encryption and signing out of the box. Of course, no one uses it or even realizes it's there because S/MIME is terrible.
      - hedora 9y ago
        Actually, with let’s encrypt and friends, maybe it is finally time for s/mime (with cert pinning, web of trust for the paranoid)
  - blowski 9y ago
    > nobody else uses an actual application to check mails anymore Got any data to back that up? I do, and so do a lot of my friends and colleagues.
    - dingaling 9y ago
      Indeed the vast majority of people I know use a MUA program to access their e-mail. They're just called 'apps' nowadays.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Useful client side encryption is hard. If the user doesn't understand what they are doing feel like they have security when in reality any script kiddie can break their encryption.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    iMessage ain’t Signal, but it’s also better than the default posture of email.
- Mister_Snuggles 9y ago
  Apple already does this[0]. However, this relies on users creating and managing certificates and keys, which is not an easy thing for most users. I was playing around with using my own CA to issue certificates for internal stuff. I created a personal certificate for myself and imported it to my keychain - without doing anything, Apple Mail was digitally signing my messages. On the other side, however, people saw digital signatures that couldn't be verified and got confused by that. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/mail/sign-encrypt-messages-increased-security-mlhlp1180/mac https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/mail/sign-encrypt-mess...
- woolvalley 9y ago
  They already have, it's called iMessage ;)
sp332 9y ago
This isn't for cases when you don't trust the recipient. This is for plausible deniability for both of you. If someone is monitoring your email, they will get the link to the content but they won't be able to read it.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
garmaine 9y ago
Or double encryption with one key held by Google on an HSM enforced time-out so the email does self destruct.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Someone1234 9y ago
Except in info-sec there's different degrees of information disclosure. You seem to be focused on mitigating disclosure to government, Google, or a rogue employee of either one but the scope is significantly larger and more diverse than that. The biggest benefit of this is removing the email from archives, so weeks, months, or years later if the account gets compromised the gains are lower. For example an email with the subject "HIV Test Results" has a far different value with and without a body included. A more down-to-earth example is I just sent my wife a W-2 via email for our taxes. I asked her to delete the email after downloading the document. But instead I could have just set an expiration on the contents and poof it is gone.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  As long as I can always override the feature on the receiving end then fine. I have an incredibly bad memory and I want my email account to listen to me, not someone else.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Outside of Gmail, they just won't be emailing you the content to begin with. It's another way to keep the data on Google's servers, you'll just get a link in the email to them. Mind you, this is a better case than for Gmail users who will probably see the content inline with their mail, only for it to disappear later.
    - 3pt14159 9y ago
      I got bit by working with a design shop that used Basecamp then closed up shop. Since then I download all attachments and email them to myself for easy finding later.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- e12e 9y ago
  There's a big difference between "self-destructing gmail" and "self-destructing email". Even with the first, Google supports forwarding all mail to an arbitrary email address, which means the "Gmail" becomes a text-file stored on a dovecot server (or other regular mail server) somewhere. So unless they break delivery (you can forward only some subset of emails) - there's no way for the sender to have any better guarantee than "please delete after reading". At least the pgp spec has (had?) an "eyes only" flag that, while it didn't guarantee anything, at least meant compliant software would try hard to not leave a plain text copy on the filesystem.
onetimemanytime 9y ago
Not everyone is worried that NSA is tracking them live: virtually all are more worried about wife or dirty laundry being made public. Or an email sent at 2am after 14 beers...6 years ago. This solves quite a few problems. Then, Google can start on other problems, like PGP.
- virusduck 9y ago
  I kind of agree. Although, it doesn't really solve anything. Look at Snapchat--your naughty photos can still be saved no matter what you do.
  - sirclueless 9y ago
    The point here is not to stop malicious recipients from saving the data. The point is to stop sensitive stuff from showing up in discovery in a lawsuit 3 years from now because a recipient didn't know to delete it.
jiveturkey 9y ago
It's not being hyped, you are just over-reacting because it doesn't meet the use case you'd prefer. It's not a security feature and it's not about privacy. Clearly, like PGP of yore which had view-only messages, one can simply copy (perhaps screencap in this case) the message and then do whatever. This is an augmentation to what postini had, and now in core G Suite, of defined retention periods for email. Now, users can make one-off decisions on a per-email basis. It's like the secret discussion/chat system that uber uses, I can't find the name, that guarantees protection against legal discovery by encrypting the chat and making sure it is ephemeral. There are valid (maybe not morally, but legally) reasons to have defined retention periods and this is a nice addition to that. It does bring Google into the Apple privacy-is-our-business sphere in that cooperating parties that solely use gmail have much better assurance that they don't leave traces behind.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >> It's like the secret discussion/chat system that uber uses, I can't find the name, that guarantees protection against legal discovery by encrypting the chat and making sure it is ephemeral. Wickr, but while it guarantees protection from discovery, it doesn't guarantee freedom from implication. It is not legal to use such services to hide illegal activity, which is what Judge Alsup clearly laid out in the case. How would you know if illegal information was being traded? Because Uber management implied that employees should use Wickr if they were going to talk about anything illegal, which, uh, isn't something you want to do.
  - carussell 9y ago
    In fact, it can lead to worse outcomes than if you simply did nothing. In Apple v Samsung, the judge instructed the jury to assume that relevant evidence was destroyed and that said evidence would have been "favorable to Apple"—as a direct consequence of Samsung's email system, which as a rule only kept messages for 14 days. https://www.nutter.com/pp/publication-Apple-v-Samsung-Electronics-The-Perils-of-Email-Auto-Deletion-07-27-2012.pdf https://www.nutter.com/pp/publication-Apple-v-Samsung-Electr... https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30282c16-31e3-488a-a9ee-7f0739367787 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30282c16-31e3... (HTML version)
ransom1538 9y ago
You should checkout https://privnote.com/# https://privnote.com/# Basically if I send you a message using it, I have deniability. Screen shot all you want, I can simply say I never sent it. If we do go to court over something sent -- you will end up showing a screen shot or a copy and pasted text file. Those will be tough to support in court. Have fun going after an Uruguay tech company for deleted data. This is different with standard email. A subpoena sent to gmail will reveal ip addresses (sender and receiver), what time it was sent, the fact that you logged in with account 9328439, the fact I logged in with account 298238, someone from google testifying it was sent and read, on and on. I don't know what google is trying to do -- but what privnote did is really useful and an obvious win.
- hangonhn 9y ago
  "If we do go to court over something sent -- you will end up showing a screen shot or a copy and pasted text file. Those will be tough to support in court." I'm not so sure about that. If you leave enough incriminating evidence in the note itself, it wouldn't take too much to convince the jury or judge. For example, if you write something that only you had knowledge of in the note, then it can be used as evidence to convince the jury that you wrote it. This site is a good idea but should be viewed as part of an overall strategy.
  - hedora 9y ago
    Los pollos.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  You're really overestimating what happens in actual jury trials. When I served on a jury, a lawyer presented photographs of evidence as evidence. Like, I'm talking paper printouts of photos that were taken on a cell phone. Juries aren't full of engineers, as a general rule. If the average person on Reddit will see a screen shot of a text message and assume the conversation happened, why wouldn't an average juror? The only burden of proof is if a lawyer can convince the jury a conversation happened.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
When your garbage goes out on the curb it's perfectly legal for anyone - including law enforcement - to sort thought it. I have to wonder if the same concept would / could be applied to such emails? The email might be gone from my account and yours, but it's still in a digital landfill somewhere. Free to be reviewed, sans warrants, etc. Perhaps?
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  > When your garbage goes out on the curb Hmm, there could be a business opportunity for the USPS. They could sell 'stamped' trash bags, good for transport to the town dump, which could only be collected by authorized carriers, namely the regular trash collectors. Pawing through those bags would be tampering with mail, a federal crime IIRC ( ah, here we go: https://about.usps.com/securing-the-mail/mailtampering.htm https://about.usps.com/securing-the-mail/mailtampering.htm ) Probably not a market hit, though, no one really cares. Not to mention the bags would highlight "the good stuff".
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Ah. But some random # could be incinerated and the bag substituted and filled with dog feces. Now the good stuff wouldn't be so good :)
- mdekkers 9y ago
  Bullshit. The "garbage on the curb" situation is due to the fact a court ruled that once you dispose of garbage "in a public place", there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Destroying email is exactly the opposite - there is an extremely strong expectation of privacy.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Easy big fella / fellette. Notice the use of the phrase "I have to wonder..." The point being: - Might it be possible? - Could it be argued? - Are the courts and laws up to speed on such things? For example, how would this play in a FISA court? Special case? Yes; not plain vanilla law.
iagooar 9y ago
Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you are saying just sounds like a parrot repeating something without a thought.
- dang 9y ago
  Personal attacks are a bannable offence, regardless of how ignorant another comment may be. Please don't post like that here. If you post a reply to a wrong comment, please explain how it's wrong while remaining civil. Then we all learn something, and you don't damage the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
partiallypro 9y ago
Not only that but Google scans your mail to serve ads, would it now say it doesn't scan your "burn after reading" emails? I wouldn't trust them to.
- twhb 9y ago
  They stopped doing that in 2017. https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...
  - hedora 9y ago
    They no longer do this for ads. They still scan your gmail for reasons that are probably more profitable to them (e.g. any of the comments in this thread about inbox’s AI stuff).

peatmoss 9y ago

I 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 9y ago
Encryption 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 9y ago
  iMessage?
  - jayd16 9y ago
    Apple controls all sides of iMessage.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  iOS? 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.
  - virusduck 9y ago
    Where do you keep the keys? * On the device? Oops--device broke, guess my emails are gone forever * In the "cloud"? -- Oops, can't guarantee encryption Who generated the keys and how do you build trust? For both of these, you can trust Apple do do the right thing, but that's putting all your eggs into that basket, similar to iMessage.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      On device with the key exportable and optionally escrowed to iCloud. Key management isn't exactly an unsolved problem.
      - y4mi 9y ago
        > Key management isn't exactly an unsolved problem you're right its not an unsolved problem, its an unsolvable problem. There is little point in encrypting mails between apple users, if the keys are kept on the apple servers. What would it achieve after all? Apple, and by extension every nation of importance would still have access. the only reward you'd get from that is getting locked into the apple ecosphere even stronger, because now you won't be able to read your mail archive anymore unless you use an apple device. And you obviously can kiss search goodbye. There is no way to search encrypted data after all, unless you decrypt it.
- aylmao 9y ago
  Would be interesting if they built something like SMS/iMessage, where within the ecosystem emails were encrypted but when sent outside they weren't. Of course, hopefully PGP, and not some custom, private API like iMessage.
  - JonathonW 9y ago
    If you're looking for an "open ecosystem" option, Mail on both iOS and Mac (as well as a bunch of clients elsewhere, including Outlook and Thunderbird) supports S/MIME encryption and signing out of the box. Of course, no one uses it or even realizes it's there because S/MIME is terrible.
    - hedora 9y ago
      Actually, with let’s encrypt and friends, maybe it is finally time for s/mime (with cert pinning, web of trust for the paranoid)
- blowski 9y ago
  > nobody else uses an actual application to check mails anymore Got any data to back that up? I do, and so do a lot of my friends and colleagues.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    Indeed the vast majority of people I know use a MUA program to access their e-mail. They're just called 'apps' nowadays.
bluGill 9y ago
Useful client side encryption is hard. If the user doesn't understand what they are doing feel like they have security when in reality any script kiddie can break their encryption.
- peatmoss 9y ago
  iMessage ain’t Signal, but it’s also better than the default posture of email.
Mister_Snuggles 9y ago
Apple already does this[0]. However, this relies on users creating and managing certificates and keys, which is not an easy thing for most users. I was playing around with using my own CA to issue certificates for internal stuff. I created a personal certificate for myself and imported it to my keychain - without doing anything, Apple Mail was digitally signing my messages. On the other side, however, people saw digital signatures that couldn't be verified and got confused by that. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/mail/sign-encrypt-messages-increased-security-mlhlp1180/mac https://support.apple.com/en-ca/guide/mail/sign-encrypt-mess...
woolvalley 9y ago
They already have, it's called iMessage ;)

sp332 9y ago

This isn't for cases when you don't trust the recipient. This is for plausible deniability for both of you. If someone is monitoring your email, they will get the link to the content but they won't be able to read it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

garmaine 9y ago

Or double encryption with one key held by Google on an HSM enforced time-out so the email does self destruct.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Someone1234 9y ago

Except in info-sec there's different degrees of information disclosure. You seem to be focused on mitigating disclosure to government, Google, or a rogue employee of either one but the scope is significantly larger and more diverse than that. The biggest benefit of this is removing the email from archives, so weeks, months, or years later if the account gets compromised the gains are lower. For example an email with the subject "HIV Test Results" has a far different value with and without a body included. A more down-to-earth example is I just sent my wife a W-2 via email for our taxes. I asked her to delete the email after downloading the document. But instead I could have just set an expiration on the contents and poof it is gone.

3pt14159 9y ago
As long as I can always override the feature on the receiving end then fine. I have an incredibly bad memory and I want my email account to listen to me, not someone else.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Outside of Gmail, they just won't be emailing you the content to begin with. It's another way to keep the data on Google's servers, you'll just get a link in the email to them. Mind you, this is a better case than for Gmail users who will probably see the content inline with their mail, only for it to disappear later.
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    I got bit by working with a design shop that used Basecamp then closed up shop. Since then I download all attachments and email them to myself for easy finding later.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
e12e 9y ago
There's a big difference between "self-destructing gmail" and "self-destructing email". Even with the first, Google supports forwarding all mail to an arbitrary email address, which means the "Gmail" becomes a text-file stored on a dovecot server (or other regular mail server) somewhere. So unless they break delivery (you can forward only some subset of emails) - there's no way for the sender to have any better guarantee than "please delete after reading". At least the pgp spec has (had?) an "eyes only" flag that, while it didn't guarantee anything, at least meant compliant software would try hard to not leave a plain text copy on the filesystem.

onetimemanytime 9y ago

Not everyone is worried that NSA is tracking them live: virtually all are more worried about wife or dirty laundry being made public. Or an email sent at 2am after 14 beers...6 years ago. This solves quite a few problems. Then, Google can start on other problems, like PGP.

virusduck 9y ago
I kind of agree. Although, it doesn't really solve anything. Look at Snapchat--your naughty photos can still be saved no matter what you do.
- sirclueless 9y ago
  The point here is not to stop malicious recipients from saving the data. The point is to stop sensitive stuff from showing up in discovery in a lawsuit 3 years from now because a recipient didn't know to delete it.

jiveturkey 9y ago

It's not being hyped, you are just over-reacting because it doesn't meet the use case you'd prefer. It's not a security feature and it's not about privacy. Clearly, like PGP of yore which had view-only messages, one can simply copy (perhaps screencap in this case) the message and then do whatever. This is an augmentation to what postini had, and now in core G Suite, of defined retention periods for email. Now, users can make one-off decisions on a per-email basis. It's like the secret discussion/chat system that uber uses, I can't find the name, that guarantees protection against legal discovery by encrypting the chat and making sure it is ephemeral. There are valid (maybe not morally, but legally) reasons to have defined retention periods and this is a nice addition to that. It does bring Google into the Apple privacy-is-our-business sphere in that cooperating parties that solely use gmail have much better assurance that they don't leave traces behind.

icelancer 9y ago
>> It's like the secret discussion/chat system that uber uses, I can't find the name, that guarantees protection against legal discovery by encrypting the chat and making sure it is ephemeral. Wickr, but while it guarantees protection from discovery, it doesn't guarantee freedom from implication. It is not legal to use such services to hide illegal activity, which is what Judge Alsup clearly laid out in the case. How would you know if illegal information was being traded? Because Uber management implied that employees should use Wickr if they were going to talk about anything illegal, which, uh, isn't something you want to do.
- carussell 9y ago
  In fact, it can lead to worse outcomes than if you simply did nothing. In Apple v Samsung, the judge instructed the jury to assume that relevant evidence was destroyed and that said evidence would have been "favorable to Apple"—as a direct consequence of Samsung's email system, which as a rule only kept messages for 14 days. https://www.nutter.com/pp/publication-Apple-v-Samsung-Electronics-The-Perils-of-Email-Auto-Deletion-07-27-2012.pdf https://www.nutter.com/pp/publication-Apple-v-Samsung-Electr... https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30282c16-31e3-488a-a9ee-7f0739367787 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=30282c16-31e3... (HTML version)

ransom1538 9y ago

You should checkout https://privnote.com/# https://privnote.com/# Basically if I send you a message using it, I have deniability. Screen shot all you want, I can simply say I never sent it. If we do go to court over something sent -- you will end up showing a screen shot or a copy and pasted text file. Those will be tough to support in court. Have fun going after an Uruguay tech company for deleted data. This is different with standard email. A subpoena sent to gmail will reveal ip addresses (sender and receiver), what time it was sent, the fact that you logged in with account 9328439, the fact I logged in with account 298238, someone from google testifying it was sent and read, on and on. I don't know what google is trying to do -- but what privnote did is really useful and an obvious win.

hangonhn 9y ago
"If we do go to court over something sent -- you will end up showing a screen shot or a copy and pasted text file. Those will be tough to support in court." I'm not so sure about that. If you leave enough incriminating evidence in the note itself, it wouldn't take too much to convince the jury or judge. For example, if you write something that only you had knowledge of in the note, then it can be used as evidence to convince the jury that you wrote it. This site is a good idea but should be viewed as part of an overall strategy.
- hedora 9y ago
  Los pollos.
landryraccoon 9y ago
You're really overestimating what happens in actual jury trials. When I served on a jury, a lawyer presented photographs of evidence as evidence. Like, I'm talking paper printouts of photos that were taken on a cell phone. Juries aren't full of engineers, as a general rule. If the average person on Reddit will see a screen shot of a text message and assume the conversation happened, why wouldn't an average juror? The only burden of proof is if a lawyer can convince the jury a conversation happened.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

When your garbage goes out on the curb it's perfectly legal for anyone - including law enforcement - to sort thought it. I have to wonder if the same concept would / could be applied to such emails? The email might be gone from my account and yours, but it's still in a digital landfill somewhere. Free to be reviewed, sans warrants, etc. Perhaps?

B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
> When your garbage goes out on the curb Hmm, there could be a business opportunity for the USPS. They could sell 'stamped' trash bags, good for transport to the town dump, which could only be collected by authorized carriers, namely the regular trash collectors. Pawing through those bags would be tampering with mail, a federal crime IIRC ( ah, here we go: https://about.usps.com/securing-the-mail/mailtampering.htm https://about.usps.com/securing-the-mail/mailtampering.htm ) Probably not a market hit, though, no one really cares. Not to mention the bags would highlight "the good stuff".
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Ah. But some random # could be incinerated and the bag substituted and filled with dog feces. Now the good stuff wouldn't be so good :)
mdekkers 9y ago
Bullshit. The "garbage on the curb" situation is due to the fact a court ruled that once you dispose of garbage "in a public place", there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Destroying email is exactly the opposite - there is an extremely strong expectation of privacy.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Easy big fella / fellette. Notice the use of the phrase "I have to wonder..." The point being: - Might it be possible? - Could it be argued? - Are the courts and laws up to speed on such things? For example, how would this play in a FISA court? Special case? Yes; not plain vanilla law.

iagooar 9y ago

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What you are saying just sounds like a parrot repeating something without a thought.

dang 9y ago
Personal attacks are a bannable offence, regardless of how ignorant another comment may be. Please don't post like that here. If you post a reply to a wrong comment, please explain how it's wrong while remaining civil. Then we all learn something, and you don't damage the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

partiallypro 9y ago

Not only that but Google scans your mail to serve ads, would it now say it doesn't scan your "burn after reading" emails? I wouldn't trust them to.

twhb 9y ago
They stopped doing that in 2017. https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consumer-gmail-to-more-closely-align/ https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...
- hedora 9y ago
  They no longer do this for ads. They still scan your gmail for reasons that are probably more profitable to them (e.g. any of the comments in this thread about inbox’s AI stuff).