5 ms·

The big issue is usability/convenience. Gmail and Facebook are just so much more comfortable to use than open source alternatives. In my opinion the whole open

by 1337biz 14y ago

The big issue is usability/convenience. Gmail and Facebook are just so much more comfortable to use than open source alternatives. In my opinion the whole open source movement is way too much focused on features and not on easy functionality. Otherwise PGP emails would have become a universally adopted standard. Unfortunately my only hope is on services such as Mega and their ambition to venture out in something such as becoming a paid email provider. Maybe they are able to combine privacy and convenience in an appropriate way.

pyre 14y ago
| In my opinion the whole open source movement is | way too much focused on features and not on | easy functionality. Even if there was an open-source version of Gmail, it would still mostly be a centralized solution. Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. All it would do is remove the idea of "one stop shopping," but the government would still get access. It would just be slightly more work. | Otherwise PGP emails would have become | a universally adopted standard. That's a poor example, because security software is the one place where you do want attention to technical detail over user interface. If the UI to PGP was good, but any script kiddie could break the encryption, then what would be the point?
- krichman 14y ago
  I think it's more like, look at openssl, the crypto Swiss army knife. How is a regular person going to use that? But if someone did just asymmetrical key encryption with one algorithm and then spent time engineering it so that a normal person could use it without taking Dan Boneh's Coursera class, there might be more people using PGP.
- maigret 14y ago
  | Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. Having some servers abroad would make that much more complicated.
superuser2 14y ago
Open source does not do anything about surveillance of specific individuals the government is interested in. If they can't ask Google for your data, they'll come into your house (or datacenter) and read it off your hard drive.
- pyre 14y ago
  I think part of the point is that if it was in your house it would be more difficult, and require more steps for the government. You've got: 1. Government can just go to one of 3 top email providers (Yahoo / Google / Hotmail) to get access to surveil most people. 2. Government can do surveillance, but must deal with hundreds or thousands of email providers. 3. Government must get a warrant (or at least have someone physically infiltrate your house) to start surveillance on you. The point here is ramping up the cost / difficulty, so that the government adopts a more conservative approach to using these tools.
  - superuser2 14y ago
    1,000 physical searches is not exactly unreasonable for the federal government, given that it's responsible for more than 300 million citizens. The New York Police Department in one year alone served almost 3,000 warrants to actually invade people's homes and search for narcotics. And that was 1997[1]. I would also point out that GMail has more than 400 million users. Investigation of 2,000 of them does not constitute mass surveillance or evidence that it's too easy to get people's data. Is it really outrageous for 0.0006% of the population to be persons of legitimate interest in investigations? [1]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complai...
- tadfisher 14y ago
  There are technical solutions to this [1]. They just run counter to Google's business model. Why do you think they have not rolled out integrated PGP support, even in Labs? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption

by 1337biz 14y ago

pyre 14y ago

| In my opinion the whole open source movement is | way too much focused on features and not on | easy functionality. Even if there was an open-source version of Gmail, it would still mostly be a centralized solution. Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. All it would do is remove the idea of "one stop shopping," but the government would still get access. It would just be slightly more work. | Otherwise PGP emails would have become | a universally adopted standard. That's a poor example, because security software is the one place where you do want attention to technical detail over user interface. If the UI to PGP was good, but any script kiddie could break the encryption, then what would be the point?

krichman 14y ago
I think it's more like, look at openssl, the crypto Swiss army knife. How is a regular person going to use that? But if someone did just asymmetrical key encryption with one algorithm and then spent time engineering it so that a normal person could use it without taking Dan Boneh's Coursera class, there might be more people using PGP.
maigret 14y ago
| Even if there were millions of email providers running this OSS Gmail, the government would just knock on their door, point to (e.g.) the PATRIOT Act, and surveillance would begin. Having some servers abroad would make that much more complicated.

superuser2 14y ago

Open source does not do anything about surveillance of specific individuals the government is interested in. If they can't ask Google for your data, they'll come into your house (or datacenter) and read it off your hard drive.

pyre 14y ago
I think part of the point is that if it was in your house it would be more difficult, and require more steps for the government. You've got: 1. Government can just go to one of 3 top email providers (Yahoo / Google / Hotmail) to get access to surveil most people. 2. Government can do surveillance, but must deal with hundreds or thousands of email providers. 3. Government must get a warrant (or at least have someone physically infiltrate your house) to start surveillance on you. The point here is ramping up the cost / difficulty, so that the government adopts a more conservative approach to using these tools.
- superuser2 14y ago
  1,000 physical searches is not exactly unreasonable for the federal government, given that it's responsible for more than 300 million citizens. The New York Police Department in one year alone served almost 3,000 warrants to actually invade people's homes and search for narcotics. And that was 1997[1]. I would also point out that GMail has more than 400 million users. Investigation of 2,000 of them does not constitute mass surveillance or evidence that it's too easy to get people's data. Is it really outrageous for 0.0006% of the population to be persons of legitimate interest in investigations? [1]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complai...
tadfisher 14y ago
There are technical solutions to this [1]. They just run counter to Google's business model. Why do you think they have not rolled out integrated PGP support, even in Labs? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption