3 ms·

gmail does this too. (which just means you've chose to leak your privacy to Google instead of Superhuman...)

danShumway 7y ago
I'm not a fan of Google, but to me leaking your privacy to a mail provider you chose to sign up for belongs to a different privacy category. It's very good that Gmail proxies images, it's one of the few features that I wish everyone else would copy. Now, on the other side of that, unless their policy has changed since the last time I checked, Gmail still loads images by default and it doesn't cache them, it only proxies them. So it's good that Gmail obscures your IP address, it's bad that Gmail still loads images from remote servers by default when you open a message, and it's bad that it will reload them every time you open it in a new client/environment instead of serving them from a Google cache. Read receipts do work in Gmail, and Google should be shamed for that. I didn't call out Gmail in particular because I don't think Google cares about privacy enough to change anything. I'm hopeful smaller companies like Fastmail might.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > Read receipts do work in Gmail, and Google should be shamed for that. Work how? There's a responsible way to handle read receipts (where the client notifies you the remote side would like a read receipt, and offers the choice to send it), and if it's done in that manner, I'm not sure why they should need to be shamed. I'm not sure what Gmail does, but I see stuff when searching about how to configure it for G Suite accounts to always/never/selectively respond, and about how to disable Gmail's nagging about it, so I'm not sure the current status.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > unless their policy has changed since the last time I checked, Gmail still loads images by default and it doesn't cache them, it only proxies them. That's a read receipt, in practice if not in name. I put a unique tracking pixel in the email, and when you open the email by default Google proxies it from my server. It's uncached, so unless the browser itself decides not to re-fetch it, I'll also know whenever you reopen the email. Google also allows you to request a read receipt the responsible, official way that you're thinking of, but why would I ever use that feature when I can just give you a tracking pixel instead? The responsible read receipts require consent, and tracking pixels don't. Again, I haven't checked Gmail's default settings in... probably years. So maybe this has changed, and it doesn't load images by default anymore. But any client that loads images by default has non-consensual read receipts, and they should be shamed for that.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      > Google also allows you to request a read receipt the responsible, official way that you're thinking of, but why would I ever use that feature when I can just give you a tracking pixel instead? The responsible read receipts require consent, and tracking pixels don't. Read receipts (as opposed to email tracking through images, let's not overload terms here) have the benefit that they might be returned by clients that don't load images by default. That's probably a relatively small portion of clients, but it is only one setting change away on Gmail. > Again, I haven't checked Gmail's default settings in... probably years. So maybe this has changed, and it doesn't load images by default anymore. But any client that loads images by default has non-consensual read receipts, and they should be shamed for that. A client that loads images by default does what 99% of people desire. That Gmail does so in a safer way than many others is a good thing, and maybe shame is a strong word for transparently making people's default behavior slightly safer while doing what they want (showing emails as they were visually intended and looking nice).
- golem14 7y ago
  Are you certain Google fetches all images on opening a message? I have not verified this recently, but when they launched the feature to not show images by default they made the privacy argument that it would defeat these trackers…
  - danShumway 7y ago
    I'm not certain. I know that at launch it only obscured your IP address.[0] I don't know if they've changed the default behavior since then. Of course there is a setting to disable images -- maybe in recent years they've switched it to being on by default. Someone other than me would need to confirm, since I've had my images turned off for years now. [0]: https://blog.filippo.io/how-the-new-gmail-image-proxy-works-and-what-this-means-for-you/ https://blog.filippo.io/how-the-new-gmail-image-proxy-works-...
    - golem14 7y ago
      This article seems to confirm my memory: “Note: you can turn automatic loading off and gain the privacy benefits of the proxy anyway.” Not a panacea because sometimes you just need to see the images, but most of the time I never actually need any included images.
watwut 7y ago
The primary worry was about showing info to other users, not to service itself. As in, google or superhuman or ad agency knowing where you are and when you read is not dangerous. Individual people who want to harm you are.

I'm not a fan of Google, but to me leaking your privacy to a mail provider you chose to sign up for belongs to a different privacy category. It's very good that Gmail proxies images, it's one of the few features that I wish everyone else would copy. Now, on the other side of that, unless their policy has changed since the last time I checked, Gmail still loads images by default and it doesn't cache them, it only proxies them. So it's good that Gmail obscures your IP address, it's bad that Gmail still loads images from remote servers by default when you open a message, and it's bad that it will reload them every time you open it in a new client/environment instead of serving them from a Google cache. Read receipts do work in Gmail, and Google should be shamed for that. I didn't call out Gmail in particular because I don't think Google cares about privacy enough to change anything. I'm hopeful smaller companies like Fastmail might.

kbenson 7y ago
> Read receipts do work in Gmail, and Google should be shamed for that. Work how? There's a responsible way to handle read receipts (where the client notifies you the remote side would like a read receipt, and offers the choice to send it), and if it's done in that manner, I'm not sure why they should need to be shamed. I'm not sure what Gmail does, but I see stuff when searching about how to configure it for G Suite accounts to always/never/selectively respond, and about how to disable Gmail's nagging about it, so I'm not sure the current status.
- danShumway 7y ago
  > unless their policy has changed since the last time I checked, Gmail still loads images by default and it doesn't cache them, it only proxies them. That's a read receipt, in practice if not in name. I put a unique tracking pixel in the email, and when you open the email by default Google proxies it from my server. It's uncached, so unless the browser itself decides not to re-fetch it, I'll also know whenever you reopen the email. Google also allows you to request a read receipt the responsible, official way that you're thinking of, but why would I ever use that feature when I can just give you a tracking pixel instead? The responsible read receipts require consent, and tracking pixels don't. Again, I haven't checked Gmail's default settings in... probably years. So maybe this has changed, and it doesn't load images by default anymore. But any client that loads images by default has non-consensual read receipts, and they should be shamed for that.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    > Google also allows you to request a read receipt the responsible, official way that you're thinking of, but why would I ever use that feature when I can just give you a tracking pixel instead? The responsible read receipts require consent, and tracking pixels don't. Read receipts (as opposed to email tracking through images, let's not overload terms here) have the benefit that they might be returned by clients that don't load images by default. That's probably a relatively small portion of clients, but it is only one setting change away on Gmail. > Again, I haven't checked Gmail's default settings in... probably years. So maybe this has changed, and it doesn't load images by default anymore. But any client that loads images by default has non-consensual read receipts, and they should be shamed for that. A client that loads images by default does what 99% of people desire. That Gmail does so in a safer way than many others is a good thing, and maybe shame is a strong word for transparently making people's default behavior slightly safer while doing what they want (showing emails as they were visually intended and looking nice).
golem14 7y ago
Are you certain Google fetches all images on opening a message? I have not verified this recently, but when they launched the feature to not show images by default they made the privacy argument that it would defeat these trackers…
- danShumway 7y ago
  I'm not certain. I know that at launch it only obscured your IP address.[0] I don't know if they've changed the default behavior since then. Of course there is a setting to disable images -- maybe in recent years they've switched it to being on by default. Someone other than me would need to confirm, since I've had my images turned off for years now. [0]: https://blog.filippo.io/how-the-new-gmail-image-proxy-works-and-what-this-means-for-you/ https://blog.filippo.io/how-the-new-gmail-image-proxy-works-...
  - golem14 7y ago
    This article seems to confirm my memory: “Note: you can turn automatic loading off and gain the privacy benefits of the proxy anyway.” Not a panacea because sometimes you just need to see the images, but most of the time I never actually need any included images.

watwut 7y ago

The primary worry was about showing info to other users, not to service itself. As in, google or superhuman or ad agency knowing where you are and when you read is not dangerous. Individual people who want to harm you are.