31 ms·

Fastmail is great, but as this list is supposed to be "privacy focused", Fastmail (company from Australia) is not a good alternative. https://www.wired.com/stor

Fastmail is great, but as this list is supposed to be "privacy focused", Fastmail (company from Australia) is not a good alternative. https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...

tyingq 7y ago
Yandex might be a niche choice, if your main worry is "5/9 Eyes". Free, even to bring your own domain.
- gerdesj 7y ago
  Yandex is Russian so will certainly keep you out of the way of the five eyes, provided you ensure decent encryption between you and their systems. Russia is also famous for its cadre of crack Salisbury cathedral appreciators.
- Kye 7y ago
  Some of what I want to send and receive by email might be considered illegal in Russia, so that's a hard no. I don't trust Russia's legal system to interpret the law in my favor. Does, for example, this email receipt for a book about a bi football player figuring out his sexuality count as propaganda? I wouldn't risk it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law
  - sjwright 7y ago
    Do you fear the Russian legal system though? Are you really doing anything so controversial that you’d motivate Russian Intelligence to care about a foreigner?
    - Kye 7y ago
      My concern is automated systems. YouTube videos get demonetized and cloud storage gets shut down because of automated copyright enforcement. They shut channels down and delete videos for the kinds of things I worry about, too. This was not always the case. It might not be the case now that Russian companies scan for this stuff, but why risk it?
    - im3w1l 7y ago
      I'd be more concerned about being blackmailed by Russian intelligence services.
      - sjwright 7y ago
        To what end? Seems like a lot of work for a tiny return relative to the size of their Government.
        im3w1l 7y ago
        Not blackmail in the sense of "give us money". Think more "do us a favor".
        blaser-waffle 7y ago
        "hey let us log into your digital ocean instance every once in a while. we'll even reimburse you for the VMs..."
- Avamander 7y ago
  Yandex is a nice escape from the western law enforcement if that's a threat to one.
qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
The "E" in email is for Evidence. It doesn't matter what service you use. No email is private, I don't care who they are. p.s. - I'm a paid fastmail user.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  You're right. Even if the email contents are encrypted, there is still the metadata. I wonder if the Monero Message System is still being developed. It would solve the metadata problem.
sjwright 7y ago
Privacy from whom though? I’d contend that more than 99% of people reading this would, in all honesty, consider their adversaries to be non-state actors—marketers, hackers and identity thieves. For the less than 1% of us for whom their adversary is a state actor, I would contend that any implementation of SMTP is non-viable, period. If you’re sufficiently paranoid, the only thing you can say for certain is that there isn’t much you can truly trust.
- Narkov 7y ago
  This is the key. Model your threat and act accordingly. There's (mostly) no reason for Joe Bloggs to want to protect themselves from a well funded state actor but they may want to prevent themselves being locked out of Google services because some bot triggered a threshold.
Youden 7y ago
Reporting on Australia's encryption laws is wildly inaccurate. For one, it does not allow authorities to compel companies or individuals to introduce an encryption backdoor or otherwise weaken encryption. The law very explicitly addresses this issue in section 317ZG, which forbids any kind of "systematic weakness" or "systematic vulnerability" and very explicitly states that weakening encryption is included in those definitions. What's permitted is to build something that targets a particular person in such a way that it cannot possibly affect another person's security. The example I use (though IANAL) is that a request to backdoor WhatsApp's encryption would not be permitted under the law. However I think that pushing an update that checks for a particular person's hard-coded phone number and forwards messages to law enforcement would be permitted. The law in question: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s317zg.html http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214...

tyingq 7y ago

Yandex might be a niche choice, if your main worry is "5/9 Eyes". Free, even to bring your own domain.

gerdesj 7y ago
Yandex is Russian so will certainly keep you out of the way of the five eyes, provided you ensure decent encryption between you and their systems. Russia is also famous for its cadre of crack Salisbury cathedral appreciators.
Kye 7y ago
Some of what I want to send and receive by email might be considered illegal in Russia, so that's a hard no. I don't trust Russia's legal system to interpret the law in my favor. Does, for example, this email receipt for a book about a bi football player figuring out his sexuality count as propaganda? I wouldn't risk it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law
- sjwright 7y ago
  Do you fear the Russian legal system though? Are you really doing anything so controversial that you’d motivate Russian Intelligence to care about a foreigner?
  - Kye 7y ago
    My concern is automated systems. YouTube videos get demonetized and cloud storage gets shut down because of automated copyright enforcement. They shut channels down and delete videos for the kinds of things I worry about, too. This was not always the case. It might not be the case now that Russian companies scan for this stuff, but why risk it?
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    I'd be more concerned about being blackmailed by Russian intelligence services.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      To what end? Seems like a lot of work for a tiny return relative to the size of their Government.
      - im3w1l 7y ago
        Not blackmail in the sense of "give us money". Think more "do us a favor".
        blaser-waffle 7y ago
        "hey let us log into your digital ocean instance every once in a while. we'll even reimburse you for the VMs..."
Avamander 7y ago
Yandex is a nice escape from the western law enforcement if that's a threat to one.

qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago

The "E" in email is for Evidence. It doesn't matter what service you use. No email is private, I don't care who they are. p.s. - I'm a paid fastmail user.

RandomBacon 7y ago
You're right. Even if the email contents are encrypted, there is still the metadata. I wonder if the Monero Message System is still being developed. It would solve the metadata problem.

sjwright 7y ago

Privacy from whom though? I’d contend that more than 99% of people reading this would, in all honesty, consider their adversaries to be non-state actors—marketers, hackers and identity thieves. For the less than 1% of us for whom their adversary is a state actor, I would contend that any implementation of SMTP is non-viable, period. If you’re sufficiently paranoid, the only thing you can say for certain is that there isn’t much you can truly trust.

Narkov 7y ago
This is the key. Model your threat and act accordingly. There's (mostly) no reason for Joe Bloggs to want to protect themselves from a well funded state actor but they may want to prevent themselves being locked out of Google services because some bot triggered a threshold.

Youden 7y ago

Reporting on Australia's encryption laws is wildly inaccurate. For one, it does not allow authorities to compel companies or individuals to introduce an encryption backdoor or otherwise weaken encryption. The law very explicitly addresses this issue in section 317ZG, which forbids any kind of "systematic weakness" or "systematic vulnerability" and very explicitly states that weakening encryption is included in those definitions. What's permitted is to build something that targets a particular person in such a way that it cannot possibly affect another person's security. The example I use (though IANAL) is that a request to backdoor WhatsApp's encryption would not be permitted under the law. However I think that pushing an update that checks for a particular person's hard-coded phone number and forwards messages to law enforcement would be permitted. The law in question: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214/s317zg.html http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ta1997214...