4 ms·
> What email service is best for privacy? There's no simple answer, because it comes down to your threat model. What do you want to keep private? Just content
by mirimir 8y ago
> What email service is best for privacy?
There's no simple answer, because it comes down to your threat model.
What do you want to keep private? Just content? Or also metadata, including your identity and the identities of your correspondents?
And who are your adversaries? Random cybercriminals? Competitors? The email provider? Criminal investigators? Foreign intelligence agencies? Your government's intelligence agencies?
> With the recent thread on privacy in Chrome, I'm thinking of switching off Gmail.
OK, so the email provider is considered an adversary.
If that's the case, the only prudent option is end-to-end encryption, done locally, and not using the provider's services. But that's barely workable. Most correspondents won't cooperate. Configuring clients correctly is nontrivial, to avoid attacks like Efail. Also, there's no forward secrecy, and metadata is not encrypted.
For privacy at that level, you ought to be using something with forward secrecy, like Signal. And if anonymity really matters, you ought to be using something that does P2P via Tor .onion services, such as Briar or Ricochet.
But anyway, you could use email with end-to-end encryption, use pseudonyms, and minimize metadata with some mix of VPN services and Tor. And then use providers with better reputations about privacy and security. Such as Autistici, CounterMail, Posteo, ProtonMail, Riseup, ScryptMail, Tutanota or VFEmail.
However, there's no guarantee that any of them will refuse "lawful" access. For example, Autistici acknowledges that they might "lose control" over their servers, perhaps through seizure by police, or that their servers could "run into accidents that could undermine [their] security".[0] And Riseup redefined their warrant canary policy to exclude investigations of individual users, or groups of users, that don't put Riseup users generally at risk.[1]
Even so, you're arguably OK as long as they can't decrypt messages, don't know who you or your correspondents are, or where y'all are located.
0) https://www.autistici.org/faq https://www.autistici.org/faq
1) https://riseup.net/about-us/press/canary-statement https://riseup.net/about-us/press/canary-statement
edit: alphabetized provider list
- hannasanarion 8y ago> > With the recent thread on privacy in Chrome, I'm thinking of switching off Gmail. > OK, so the email provider is considered an adversary. I don't think Gmail is considered an adversary, it's just that you can now no longer log in to Gmail without also logging in to the same account in Chrome, which is a stupid non-user-friendly feature.
- mirimir 8y agoWhy is that an issue if you trust Google? Indeed, in that case, they're doing something that is user-friendly. Because stuff arguably works more reliably if you're logged in to both Google and Chrome. And if you don't trust Google, they're at least effectively an adversary. In the most favorable light, that they're doing something that might compromise your privacy.
- Pigo 8y agoI'm not as usually concerned about this as some are, but I appreciate that others are. As much as I enjoy Google products, I want there to be 50 other options out there that work great and have their own advantages. I wish there was more competition, in general, for most things on ye ole information super-highway.
- mirimir 8y agoI've found no search service that does a better job than Google. Plus Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. I'm just an anonymous coward when using them ;)