5 ms·

Is there a reason that this would ever make sense for the end-user? If I click on a link, my browser opens it. Done, right?

• lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Presumably to hide Gmail as the referer on browsers that don't support it. It doesn't make sense in the IMAP case. https://caniuse.com/referrer-policy https://caniuse.com/referrer-policy
  • asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    They can also use this for phishing prevention. There are probably other ways to do it -- e.g. you could rewrite the url dynamically at read time if it's been detected as a phishing attack -- but using a redirector is likely simpler. Tbh I'm struggling a little to understand what the threat model is here. You trust gmail to receive and handle your email. In the vast majority of cases, you're accessing the email through their web frontend, where they could easily detect hovers and clicks and log those with fair reliability, if they had nefarious ends in mind. But them using a redirector is a bridge too far? If you trust them to do the first two items, it seems a little far fetched to distrust the last.
    • genocidicbunny 6y ago
      If they're rewriting emails that you send out, that allows them to also track what the recipients of the emails do, even non-gmail ones. And not every gmail user uses the webmail interface either -- many use standalone clients that wouldn't normally have this tracking. Also, there is something very wrong when we're okay with Google rewriting parts of our emails. How long until they decide to start modifying other bits of our emails? Reading the contents of the email is one thing, modifying it from its original is a whole 'nother ball game.
      • asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        > If they're rewriting emails that you send out That's not the claim. The claim is that they're rewriting urls you receive. I suppose if the imap claim is true, and you reply, and you quote the redirector url in your reply, and someone clicks that link, they could detect it. That seems a little annoying and presents a slight risk, but it doesn't seem like the type of thing that would be intentionally designed in, even if I model google as completely amoral and short-termist. There just doesn't seem to be much advantage in it. > And not every gmail user uses the webmail interface either That's why i said the vast majority of cases, not "all." :)
        • genocidicbunny 6y ago
          And why I started with 'If' -- my previous comment is preconditioned on Google actually doing what the OP originally claimed (which didn't seem to be specifically limited to downloaded emails,) a claim I do find dubious.
    • srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Many people assume, rightly or wrongly, that Google isn't processing their mail content for business purposes.
      • asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        Not seeing how this observation addresses my question about the threat model. I mean you're absolutely right (and I think that assumption is also accurate), but I don't see how it's relevant.
• genocidicbunny 6y ago
  It makes sense if you remember that ads, not gmail, are Google's main business.