3 ms·

I agree. I want to talk about PGP. But I'm talking to end users who have real trouble setting up a VPN. PGP's big problem back then was that it should be invisi

by buro9 15y ago

I agree. I want to talk about PGP. But I'm talking to end users who have real trouble setting up a VPN. PGP's big problem back then was that it should be invisible and just work, it was neither. That's what I mean by needing to revisit secure email.

gravitronic 15y ago
I agree with everything you posted above and have no solution better than "hushmail and live with it".
- DanBC 15y ago
  Hushmail only protects the contents. The new law is aimed at routing data (who sent the email; who it was sent to). Hushmail comply with correctly formed legal requests (they have to) but they go as far as creating back-doored java apps and serving them to specified customers. I guess it's harder for English LEOs to get correct legal documents to an American company for English customers. But I don't know.
kamjam 15y ago
GMail and other webmail providers just need to add this and make it a configurable option in the settings. Heck, even Outlook should give the users this option via some wizard (they seem to have one for everything else!). Totally agree that this needs to be as invisible as possible. When I first set up PGP in Thunderbird a few years back it was quite a bit of flaffing about, add to that the fact that your key reside on any one of a million servers... The cynic in me says it's been done in this way on purpose, i mean, don't want to make the feds actually do any work to be able to snoop around my emails.
- gravitronic 15y ago
  GMail is open about the fact that it mines your emails for your advertising profile. Encrypting the data for you would result in reduced value proposition for them. Not going to happen.
  - kamjam 15y ago
    Ahhh, yes, that is very true! Time to crank up Thunderbird Portable again :)
  - tjoff 15y ago
    No. Google would of course be able to decrypt the content (I don't see how they would adopt it otherwise in this universe, google must comply if they get a warrant and they are not willing to fight that), thing is only google would be able to and noone else. And that alone is a huge win.

by buro9 15y ago

gravitronic 15y ago

I agree with everything you posted above and have no solution better than "hushmail and live with it".

DanBC 15y ago
Hushmail only protects the contents. The new law is aimed at routing data (who sent the email; who it was sent to). Hushmail comply with correctly formed legal requests (they have to) but they go as far as creating back-doored java apps and serving them to specified customers. I guess it's harder for English LEOs to get correct legal documents to an American company for English customers. But I don't know.

kamjam 15y ago

GMail and other webmail providers just need to add this and make it a configurable option in the settings. Heck, even Outlook should give the users this option via some wizard (they seem to have one for everything else!). Totally agree that this needs to be as invisible as possible. When I first set up PGP in Thunderbird a few years back it was quite a bit of flaffing about, add to that the fact that your key reside on any one of a million servers... The cynic in me says it's been done in this way on purpose, i mean, don't want to make the feds actually do any work to be able to snoop around my emails.

gravitronic 15y ago
GMail is open about the fact that it mines your emails for your advertising profile. Encrypting the data for you would result in reduced value proposition for them. Not going to happen.
- kamjam 15y ago
  Ahhh, yes, that is very true! Time to crank up Thunderbird Portable again :)
- tjoff 15y ago
  No. Google would of course be able to decrypt the content (I don't see how they would adopt it otherwise in this universe, google must comply if they get a warrant and they are not willing to fight that), thing is only google would be able to and noone else. And that alone is a huge win.