5 ms·
This is well said. The thing is, though, that it was the non-Java version of Hushmail that was exploited by the Feds. The fact that it could be exploited should
by declan 13y ago
This is well said. The thing is, though, that it was the non-Java version of Hushmail that was exploited by the Feds. The fact that it could be exploited shouldn't cast the end-to-end secure version in a negative light.
So who at Google is going to code an encrypted Gmail in their 20% time? Paid, of course, because the server won't know what ads to show. (You could put that intelligence in the client, but it seems a privacy-sensitive clientele wouldn't like even that info to leak.)
- kamjam 13y agoI'm sure Google already has an encrypted version of their Gmail service, but why would they shoot themselves in the foot and loose all that Ad revenue? You could put that intelligence in the client, but there is only so much analysis you do do using JavaScript, I'm sure the computing power they have available on their servers is phenomenal, and add to that a huge databank of information they have available to be able to better match those ads to you. And you've already mentioned the privacy issue...
- declan 13y agoGoogle would choose to lose "all that ad revenue" if they could replace it with sufficient, and probably more lucrative, non-ad revenue through paying customers.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]