13 ms·

I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirror

• Spivak 8y ago
  This feature isn't about security. Email is already pretty secure with TLS and DKIM. This is basically the equivalent of the "DO NO FORWARD" header people use for internal-only information but with a little more UX polish.
  • kzzzznot 8y ago
    I think what the parent is saying is that they feel this DO NOT FORWARD header feature is being presented as a security feature. I probably agree
    • anticensor 8y ago
      This is an algorithmically enforced one, though.
      • Stuckinsofa 8y ago
        But anyone can screenshot the message or take a photo of it. The point is that it's not actually enforced.
        • beatgammit 8y ago
          Anyone can screenshot or take a photo of any decrypted message. The question is when the email leaves Google's servers and whether you can trust Google with that same document. Personally, if I had a message where I would consider a tool like this, I would just encrypt it on the client with PGP or something.
          • lodi 8y ago
            > Anyone can screenshot or take a photo of any decrypted message. Yes, but ordinary decrypted messages don't claim to have superpowers like self-destructing.
          • Stuckinsofa 8y ago
            The person I replied to wrote that this was "algorithmically enforced". I'm just pointing out that this is incorrect.
      • TrueDuality 8y ago
        As long as it doesn't leave Gmail.
  • hammock 8y ago
    I believe Gmail already has that feature for corporate gsuite- greying out the forward button or something like that. Could be wrong. I know for sure Outlook has it.
• milankragujevic 8y ago
  If it makes you feel better, I had an "security online" course in middle school and high school, but had no drivers ed or sex ed at all, from primary to high school to college :) Serbia is the country.
• numbsafari 8y ago
  How long before someone makes a chrome browser plugin that will automatically screenshot and download any message flagged in this manner? Completely agree with your last sentiment. We all assume that "kids these days" grow up well aware of these things, but my experience to date has been that new hires are disturbingly unaware of these things.
  • 908087 8y ago
    The "kids are tech savvy these days" narrative seems pretty ridiculous once you consider the fact that most of them have never so much as manually installed a piece of software that didn't involve an "app store" on a touchscreen device.
    • UI_at_80x24 8y ago
      This 1000x They don't know computers any more then they know toasters. They push a button and get a result. If not reboot it and push button again.
  • beatgammit 8y ago
    On that note, I wonder if Firefox's new screenshot utility has an API for extensions...
• shereadsthenews 8y ago
  IT admins just want what they want and you can't change their minds. Eventually gsuite will sprout every dumb feature all of its competitors and predecessors ever offered.
• jimbojones2 8y ago
  this is nothing more than a "me-too" feature to stack up one more checkbox in the gmail vs exchange sales pitch https://support.office.com/en-us/article/mark-your-email-as-normal-personal-private-or-confidential-4a76d05b-6c29-4a0d-9096-71784a6b12c1 https://support.office.com/en-us/article/mark-your-email-as-...
  • sam_goody 8y ago
    I imagine they will show confidential emails to other gmail users inline, but make a link for non gmail users. It is in Google's interest to make GMail less and less the same as "plain mail", until you are forced (for practical reasons) to create a Gmail account to interact with other Gmail users. Together with Amp and Chrome, eventually we will be at a point where the decentralized internet is replaced by Google's servers and software.
    • 48309248302 8y ago
      Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
• gibba999 8y ago
  There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime, or a scandal where you killed a few people, this won't help, of course. But if you'd like to keep an upcoming merger confidential, or maintain a trade secret, or anything vaguely normal, this is more than good enough. This also helps with email retention policies. Sometimes you want ephemeral communications you don't want a record of. This isn't necessarily malicious either; in more litigious industries, emails can be obtained through discovery and quoted out-of-context. Things like typos can get you (goodness knows I've made enough of those). Sending an email which communicates something and disappears in a week is helpful.
  • beatgammit 8y ago
    That only works for internal communications. Once it leaves Google's servers, you lose all control. I don't know the specifics here, but the only ways to guarantee that an email server somewhere isn't caching your emails (and I don't trust Google to not cache them either) is to either encrypt them (GPG) or require hitting your server to read the email (potentially what Google is doing), and that doesn't prevent the user from copying it (but at least you can know _who _ copied it or let it be copied). I don't know how external access works, so maybe they're doing more than they say they are, but I don't trust my coworkers, I shouldn't trust Google either. Client-side encryption is the only acceptable solution IMO.
    • ghaff 8y ago
      Pretty much anything that can be consumed (read, viewed, listened to) by a person can be recorded and retransmitted in some form. This has always been true to a certain degree of course. With everyone carrying around a recording device almost everywhere, it's even truer today. Sneaking a photo of a screen used to at least require a certain premeditation that was spy movie stuff. Today, it's casually pulling a smartphone out of a pocket. If anyone can see or hear somewhere, barring the seeing or hearing being confined to a secure environment it can be easily and casually recorded.
• jnty 8y ago
  It's disappointing that the article doesn't lead with this limitation. We (and everybody who's used Snapchat) know that self-deleting messages aren't truly possible, but there's no reason everybody should. This is definitely a useful feature to manage sensitive documents within organisations where good faith (but not necessarily diligent policy adherence) can be assumed, but it's pitched dangerously wrong as you say.
• Jemm 8y ago
  Sex ed is not the best example as it is a political hot potato in many places where the right want to limit sex ed and the left want to expand it.
• option_greek 8y ago
  > In my utopia world, i'd love to see basics of information privacy and personal security be taught in schools akin to Driver's Ed or Sex Ed classes. Except that the last two don't change much while keeping pace with first is like riding a tiger. You can never get off.
• hammock 8y ago
  "A lock only keeps honest people out" is ancient wisdom and this is not a new debate.
• mmis1000 8y ago
  I though 'secure' here is misleading. The feature here actually sounds more like an accident prevent tool to prevent your coworkers from accidentally forward / share the contents to someone it should not to. And does not provide any sense of 'security' at all. Thinking it is 'secure' actually open up a big security loophole instead provide any extra security to you.
• jancsika 8y ago
  If the upshot of the class is anything other than we don't yet know how to make software secure or private, it's a drama class.
• jwr 8y ago
  > In my utopia world, i'd love to see basics of information privacy and personal security be taught in schools Yes! This should be required, beginning in primary school and extended into high school. Concepts like authentication, encryption, man-in-the-middle attack, why authentication without encryption isn't very useful for communication, etc — this is not "technical" (I hate this word; it is used as an excuse not to think). It should be taught as part of basic education.
  • sokoloff 8y ago
    In a world where basic civics, economics, and other life skills are not pervasively and effectively taught (at least in the US), I doubt our ability to teach this more complex and somewhat less obviously relevant content.
• freshm087 8y ago
  It's not "pseudo", it is a tool to reduce risks of accidental leaks, and to enforce discipline. Used in a right context it increases security. However, I agree that it's proprietary, and it would be better to have such things in RFC.
• teekert 8y ago
  Huh? Can't print this email? Let me forward to my non-secure other address. Huh, message is going to expire? Better make a screenshot that syncs who knows where. If they were serious, they'd create a mode that mirrors Protonmail, where they can't even read your stuff. And make it easy to use PGP. As suggested below/above, the fact that our company Office365 Android env stops me from copy pasting text to other apps does one thing: It makes me forward certain mails to my home address.
  • freshm087 8y ago
    In real life, most of the corporate leaks are accidental. Disappearing messages, and sharing/printing restrictions can perfectly augment employee training, reminding them that some things require more careful touch, and reduce the chance of making thoughtless mistake. Sure, making email e2e-encrypted is a good thing, but completely different one.
  • tracker1 8y ago
    I'm curious how they prevent printing.. is it a custom chrome configuration, and they only allow viewing in chrome? Even then... Copy/Paste, F12, copy/paste, etc. Agreed on the forward thing. Though, fortunately I'm not currently as locked down as your android config, it would seem. It's a relatively nifty feature for users emailing from/to gmail only and then likely just to match a couple of feature people have come to expect when using Outlook/Exchange(or office 365). But definitely oversold on security.
    • scintill76 8y ago
      I think it would be easy with standard CSS: @media print * { display: none } Yes, it's circumventable, but they're going for accidental leaks, not intentional.
• dontbenebby 8y ago
  >I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. OTOH, circumventing a security measure means deliberately violating someone's boundaries. For example, I communicate with my friends and partnets with Signal often. We usually keep the disappearing messages setting on so that over time, our ephermeral conversations drift away. (Especially useful since even if someone is not malicious, a stolen or compromised device could leak sensitive conversations). I suppose someone could capture and save an embarasing conversation. But if they did that, I would turn around and shame them - for violating my boundaries, for breaking my trust, and using that trust to bully me. I suspect that given how the conversation on privacy has shifted, it would be viewed worse to steal someone's nudees, gripes about friends/coworkers, or jokes made in poor taste than it was to do the original communication. Total security is impossible, but I can ensure that it will be abundantly evident you are an untrustworthy, phony, and malicious person if you circumvent access controls to leak my communications.