5 ms·

> It can still be accessed by Google and potentially exposed to governments or hackers. The article makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone has the full

by dewey 7y ago

> It can still be accessed by Google and potentially exposed to governments or hackers. The article makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone has the full security apparatus of a country after them. This feature is obviously not built as an alternative to Signal or for the Snowdens of this world. These probably know better than using unencrypted email already. For the average user it's an improvement of the current status.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
It's an article posted by protonmail, an email service that would be used by the Snowdens of this world. I think it's just a nice way for them to further get their company name out.
mulmen 7y ago
So you reference Snowden then pretend dragnet surveillance doesn't exist? If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. This is not an improvement because it makes guarantees that simply aren't true. These compromises are made to further Google's bottom line, not protect users. Don't pretend this is some kind of incremental improvement. It's a marketing gimmick.
- dewey 7y ago
  > If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. There's a difference between passively collecting and actively targeting.
  - crazypyro 7y ago
    Right, but the switch is flipped from passive collection to active targeting in secret court hearings* and if they already have been passively collecting, you could go from no concern to being actively targeted without ever knowing. They couldn't do this if they weren't drag-netting. *FISA courts have 11 denied requests and over 34,000 approved.
    - bongobongo 7y ago
      11 denied requests? Those prosecutors must have been sloppy. Usually you don’t see denials because prosecutors know well enough not to waste the court’s time.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. Citation needed. > This is not an improvement because it makes guarantees that simply aren't true. No, ProtonMail pretended it made guarantees that it doesn't make. Just like the exact same Exchange/Outlook feature that people have used for years, this is to prevent accidental copying of emails and their contents.
  - bitexploder 7y ago
    Is a citation really needed about the NSA collecting basically all the data on the Internet? This is "common knowledge" in information security circles. Go look up the battles the EFF has fought with the NSA about their data collection practices. The NSA is continually building giant data warehouses everywhere... they probably have more data centers than any other organization in existence. They collect all the data.
    - slips 7y ago
      It's pretty common for people to throw out "citation needed" when they don't want to believe or admit something, but can't plausibly deny it. Sort of the same way people use the term "fallacy" these days.
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        IMO "Citation needed" is a quick way to say "do you have a source for me?", and "fallacy" (hardly used without also mentioning the specific fallacy) is a quicker way to say "I recognized logic flaw X in your argument". You are free to see harm in these statements but telling me they are always meant as harmful as you mentioned is your own negative reflection. Not mine or ours, we are free to have our own interpretation as well.
        bitexploder 7y ago
        I think citation needed carries a connotation of “I don’t believe this is true.” It is just a lazy way to converse if you are engaged in a genial conversation in good faith. “This is new to me, can you share some references?” I appreciate we can be technical and to the point, but given the context, I felt my response was appropriate.
- inlined 7y ago
  Though since the Snowden leak Google really upped their game. Everything internally is encrypted in transit and at rest. Even when you use Google Cloud you automatically get encryption at rest.
  - mulmen 7y ago
    Should we be proud of them for that? What does it have to do with Snowden? They can still read my emails.
    - inlined 7y ago
      It would take a very concerted effort. There are multiple levels of encryption and the best practice is that only verified builds can run in production and only non-humans are ACLd to access security keys. Any attempt to do so would be limited to a very small group of people, trivially logged, caught by AI for inappropriate behavior, and cause a firing.
      - mulmen 7y ago
        Right but Google owns the encryption, which means I have to assume they are reading the messages. They changed their policy once, they can change it again.
- hrwo3123 7y ago
  +1 The comment underplays the surveillance by using the benign mask to protect its sinister causes. Surveillance has been used to gain economic advantages (as was widely reported), and more importantly geopolitical leverage. For instance, India, a nation run by English-speaking elites has conducted all the affairs of the nation on Google''s servers - such bumbling idiots, normal as they are, are the targets of such a PR campaign. "Oh, you're don't have to worry about it. You're not a terrorist.."
OrgNet 7y ago
> The article makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone has the full security apparatus of a country after them. Why build something half ass when you can do it right? I'll tell you why... it's because of those secret letters from the NSA... (the NSA = the real leader in our Government)
pergadad 7y ago
Part of the Snowden revelations was that the German intelligence agency was using one of the US-developed tools in return for feeding back keyword-based searches of that very same German traffic they were processing. Keywords like djihad, Siemens, Krupp, Deutsche Bank, Airbus, Santander, Dassault, ... The BND was in essence helping the NSA do industrial espionage on both their own and fellow EU companies, as they were too idiotic to actually check the keyword lists or for whatever reason felt they couldn't refuse. So if the NSA is actively and purposefully doing industrial espionage there is little doubt that Gmail traffic is vulnerable to US spying and should simply not be used in sensitive settings.

by dewey 7y ago

ilikehurdles 7y ago

It's an article posted by protonmail, an email service that would be used by the Snowdens of this world. I think it's just a nice way for them to further get their company name out.

mulmen 7y ago

So you reference Snowden then pretend dragnet surveillance doesn't exist? If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. This is not an improvement because it makes guarantees that simply aren't true. These compromises are made to further Google's bottom line, not protect users. Don't pretend this is some kind of incremental improvement. It's a marketing gimmick.

dewey 7y ago
> If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. There's a difference between passively collecting and actively targeting.
- crazypyro 7y ago
  Right, but the switch is flipped from passive collection to active targeting in secret court hearings* and if they already have been passively collecting, you could go from no concern to being actively targeted without ever knowing. They couldn't do this if they weren't drag-netting. *FISA courts have 11 denied requests and over 34,000 approved.
  - bongobongo 7y ago
    11 denied requests? Those prosecutors must have been sloppy. Usually you don’t see denials because prosecutors know well enough not to waste the court’s time.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
> If you are on the internet the NSA is spying on you and everyone else. Citation needed. > This is not an improvement because it makes guarantees that simply aren't true. No, ProtonMail pretended it made guarantees that it doesn't make. Just like the exact same Exchange/Outlook feature that people have used for years, this is to prevent accidental copying of emails and their contents.
- bitexploder 7y ago
  Is a citation really needed about the NSA collecting basically all the data on the Internet? This is "common knowledge" in information security circles. Go look up the battles the EFF has fought with the NSA about their data collection practices. The NSA is continually building giant data warehouses everywhere... they probably have more data centers than any other organization in existence. They collect all the data.
  - slips 7y ago
    It's pretty common for people to throw out "citation needed" when they don't want to believe or admit something, but can't plausibly deny it. Sort of the same way people use the term "fallacy" these days.
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      IMO "Citation needed" is a quick way to say "do you have a source for me?", and "fallacy" (hardly used without also mentioning the specific fallacy) is a quicker way to say "I recognized logic flaw X in your argument". You are free to see harm in these statements but telling me they are always meant as harmful as you mentioned is your own negative reflection. Not mine or ours, we are free to have our own interpretation as well.
      - bitexploder 7y ago
        I think citation needed carries a connotation of “I don’t believe this is true.” It is just a lazy way to converse if you are engaged in a genial conversation in good faith. “This is new to me, can you share some references?” I appreciate we can be technical and to the point, but given the context, I felt my response was appropriate.
inlined 7y ago
Though since the Snowden leak Google really upped their game. Everything internally is encrypted in transit and at rest. Even when you use Google Cloud you automatically get encryption at rest.
- mulmen 7y ago
  Should we be proud of them for that? What does it have to do with Snowden? They can still read my emails.
  - inlined 7y ago
    It would take a very concerted effort. There are multiple levels of encryption and the best practice is that only verified builds can run in production and only non-humans are ACLd to access security keys. Any attempt to do so would be limited to a very small group of people, trivially logged, caught by AI for inappropriate behavior, and cause a firing.
    - mulmen 7y ago
      Right but Google owns the encryption, which means I have to assume they are reading the messages. They changed their policy once, they can change it again.
hrwo3123 7y ago
+1 The comment underplays the surveillance by using the benign mask to protect its sinister causes. Surveillance has been used to gain economic advantages (as was widely reported), and more importantly geopolitical leverage. For instance, India, a nation run by English-speaking elites has conducted all the affairs of the nation on Google''s servers - such bumbling idiots, normal as they are, are the targets of such a PR campaign. "Oh, you're don't have to worry about it. You're not a terrorist.."

OrgNet 7y ago

> The article makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone has the full security apparatus of a country after them. Why build something half ass when you can do it right? I'll tell you why... it's because of those secret letters from the NSA... (the NSA = the real leader in our Government)

pergadad 7y ago

Part of the Snowden revelations was that the German intelligence agency was using one of the US-developed tools in return for feeding back keyword-based searches of that very same German traffic they were processing. Keywords like djihad, Siemens, Krupp, Deutsche Bank, Airbus, Santander, Dassault, ... The BND was in essence helping the NSA do industrial espionage on both their own and fellow EU companies, as they were too idiotic to actually check the keyword lists or for whatever reason felt they couldn't refuse. So if the NSA is actively and purposefully doing industrial espionage there is little doubt that Gmail traffic is vulnerable to US spying and should simply not be used in sensitive settings.