3 ms·

The 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

The 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 9y ago
Not 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.
- twotwotwo 9y ago
  > Not many people are paying attention, but this is just another move from Google to make email = Gmail. Agree with that. And sad and weird. There are plenty of ways to do well in business without eroding the open nature of email!
  - mywittyname 9y ago
    A counter argument is that email wasn't really designed with the security considerations that we have today. So while I agree with both of you, this is an eventual and necessary evolution of email. Self-destructive and encrypted messaging is something many, many email users have wanted for years. And people who absolutely require these features (such as hospitals) have long-ago come up with similar solutions.
    - twotwotwo 9y ago
      I mean, lots of security improvements that make promises that they can keep. I'm not saying they have to do my pet idea; I'd have zero complaints if they announced they were pushing 2FA to more people, or a dozen other things. But "your message will self-destruct in a week" is a flawed promise because a bad actor can snap a photo of your email, apply a zany photo filter, get it printed on 11x13" photo paper, buy a colorful frame for it, and hang it on the wall of their home for visitors to artistically enjoy for years. It's not meaningfully gone unless all copies of it are gone, and this feature won't ensure that. "Request expiration," like I alluded to in my earlier message, makes a promise that's closer to reality. A feature like that that's honored by default will help when both sides want messages gone, without overpromising. Importantly, it doesn't involve trying to take away the recipient's power over data they possess, or fiddling with the open email ecosystem too much. Trying to take away users' control over their data is a tendency that has more bad potential outcomes than good, and so is breaking the remaining openness of email. (There're also some potential practical issues. It's more of a pain to keep documentation you were harassed over this kind of email, for instance, though since the feature is badly broken it's still possible. It breaks recipients' very-long-standing expectations about how things work, too. Folks mentioned all that when Facebook talked about support for unsending messages recently.) The less-bad possibility is that Google just said, "well, folks enjoy Snapchat and such" and sort of didn't go that deep into the weeds. The bad-bad case is what mtgx said, that they're conscious of the bugs but consider them features.

mtgx 9y ago

Not 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.

twotwotwo 9y ago
> Not many people are paying attention, but this is just another move from Google to make email = Gmail. Agree with that. And sad and weird. There are plenty of ways to do well in business without eroding the open nature of email!
- mywittyname 9y ago
  A counter argument is that email wasn't really designed with the security considerations that we have today. So while I agree with both of you, this is an eventual and necessary evolution of email. Self-destructive and encrypted messaging is something many, many email users have wanted for years. And people who absolutely require these features (such as hospitals) have long-ago come up with similar solutions.
  - twotwotwo 9y ago
    I mean, lots of security improvements that make promises that they can keep. I'm not saying they have to do my pet idea; I'd have zero complaints if they announced they were pushing 2FA to more people, or a dozen other things. But "your message will self-destruct in a week" is a flawed promise because a bad actor can snap a photo of your email, apply a zany photo filter, get it printed on 11x13" photo paper, buy a colorful frame for it, and hang it on the wall of their home for visitors to artistically enjoy for years. It's not meaningfully gone unless all copies of it are gone, and this feature won't ensure that. "Request expiration," like I alluded to in my earlier message, makes a promise that's closer to reality. A feature like that that's honored by default will help when both sides want messages gone, without overpromising. Importantly, it doesn't involve trying to take away the recipient's power over data they possess, or fiddling with the open email ecosystem too much. Trying to take away users' control over their data is a tendency that has more bad potential outcomes than good, and so is breaking the remaining openness of email. (There're also some potential practical issues. It's more of a pain to keep documentation you were harassed over this kind of email, for instance, though since the feature is badly broken it's still possible. It breaks recipients' very-long-standing expectations about how things work, too. Folks mentioned all that when Facebook talked about support for unsending messages recently.) The less-bad possibility is that Google just said, "well, folks enjoy Snapchat and such" and sort of didn't go that deep into the weeds. The bad-bad case is what mtgx said, that they're conscious of the bugs but consider them features.