4 ms·

So you don't mind if I wiretap all your phones? Email being transmitted by 3rd parties is not different from voice calls being transmitted by 3rd parties. Yes,

So you don't mind if I wiretap all your phones? Email being transmitted by 3rd parties is not different from voice calls being transmitted by 3rd parties. Yes, you are trusting a provider, with the expectation that your provider will send the data where you've asked it to send the data, and nowhere else. This is still true whether you're talking postal service, landline voice calls, SMS, cellular voice calls, Skype, etc.

rayiner 14y ago
The protections for phone calls arose back when phone lines were dumb analog wires between telephones. E-mail has never been like that, and it's always involved storing communications on a third party's systems.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >E-mail has never been like that, and it's always involved storing communications on a third party's systems. Why should storing something on a third party's system obviate the need for a warrant? If I rent real property and use it to store my papers, does that mean the government should be entitled to seize them without a warrant because I'm storing them on the premises of a third party? If not, what's the difference?
superuser2 14y ago
So you're saying phone calls are only private because of a misguided adherence to tradition?
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  He's not arguing against privacy; he's merely pointing out that requiring authentication to send emails isn't the same thing.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Maybe I'm expressing myself in too cryptic of a fashion. I'm simply asserting that while privacy and authentication sometimes overlap, they are not the same thing. From the parent of my original comment: Almost every SMTP server out there today requires authentication ... That is the very definition of trying to keep things private. Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity?
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity? Why can't it be both?
  - delluminatus 14y ago
    Well, authentication simply doesn't provide any privacy. It just doesn't. However, SSL/TLS do, which are widely used -- but not authentication.
- maratd 14y ago
  Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy. If I am using them to communicate with a 3rd party, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy between myself and that 3rd party. You would most certainly need a warrant to turn around and try to get access to a message stored on their servers. On top of that, quite a bit of email today doesn't even touch SMTP. If I'm sending an email from one GMail user to another GMail user, I'm pretty sure it is just shuffled around on Google's internal servers. And, of course, I'm connecting to Google using SSL, an encrypted connection. How does that not scream private?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy. I cut out the SSL and TLS because I don't disagree; SSL and TLS certainly says "privacy". I wanted to specifically address the notion that "authentication =~ privacy"

rayiner 14y ago

The protections for phone calls arose back when phone lines were dumb analog wires between telephones. E-mail has never been like that, and it's always involved storing communications on a third party's systems.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>E-mail has never been like that, and it's always involved storing communications on a third party's systems. Why should storing something on a third party's system obviate the need for a warrant? If I rent real property and use it to store my papers, does that mean the government should be entitled to seize them without a warrant because I'm storing them on the premises of a third party? If not, what's the difference?

superuser2 14y ago

So you're saying phone calls are only private because of a misguided adherence to tradition?

qu4z-2 14y ago
He's not arguing against privacy; he's merely pointing out that requiring authentication to send emails isn't the same thing.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Maybe I'm expressing myself in too cryptic of a fashion. I'm simply asserting that while privacy and authentication sometimes overlap, they are not the same thing. From the parent of my original comment: Almost every SMTP server out there today requires authentication ... That is the very definition of trying to keep things private. Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity?

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity? Why can't it be both?
- delluminatus 14y ago
  Well, authentication simply doesn't provide any privacy. It just doesn't. However, SSL/TLS do, which are widely used -- but not authentication.
maratd 14y ago
Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy. If I am using them to communicate with a 3rd party, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy between myself and that 3rd party. You would most certainly need a warrant to turn around and try to get access to a message stored on their servers. On top of that, quite a bit of email today doesn't even touch SMTP. If I'm sending an email from one GMail user to another GMail user, I'm pretty sure it is just shuffled around on Google's internal servers. And, of course, I'm connecting to Google using SSL, an encrypted connection. How does that not scream private?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy. I cut out the SSL and TLS because I don't disagree; SSL and TLS certainly says "privacy". I wanted to specifically address the notion that "authentication =~ privacy"