4 ms·

Ignoring the dubious baseline assumption that your data really is at risk of exposure, why do you think what you're proposing would make you safer rather than p

Ignoring the dubious baseline assumption that your data really is at risk of exposure, why do you think what you're proposing would make you safer rather than put you at more risk? You still need to actually home your servers somewhere, which means a colo or VPS that is subject to the exact same laws. Do you expect the providers of those services to have the capability to fight such requests better than Google, given that Google has a full time legal team dedicated to doing so? What about the basic security of the provider itself? Do you really expect that to be anywhere near the level of what Google provides on its own systems? To top it all off, there's the maintenance and securing of whatever you're actually running, which requires significant expertise and takes quite a bit of time if you don't want your box popped and turned into a zombie host (which is what is most likely to happen). I've actually done what you're proposing for several years, and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. And I'm a well respected security professional with the right background who knows all the tricks I'm supposed to do. It was still a huge pain and time sink, which meant I often let patches and updates slide more than I should. The real cherry on top is that all the three different colo/VPS providers I've used were hacked at one point or another, causing disclosure of my personal data and significant outages of my ability to communicate. My point here is that you're not being honest with yourself if you really think you can manage this as a side project better than the full-time teams at Google do. If you want to pick another provider of email, etc, then investigate carefully and find one you're happy with. But I'd strongly discouraging running your own services.

ef4 13y ago
> You still need to actually home your servers somewhere, which means a colo or VPS that is subject to the exact same laws. Nobody is going to dispute that a colo box is still vulnerable to targeted surveillance. But targeted surveillance is not really the issue of the day. From the NSA's perspective, the expected value of obtaining your data is very small, but they'll bother doing it anyway when the cost is even smaller. Big centralized providers are very cost-effective targets. A sea of tiny servers operated by hundreds of different data centers, hosting heterogeneous applications, monitored by hundreds of different individuals and organizations are really not cost effective to surveil in bulk. (I agree with the rest of your post -- doing it yourself is a major pain, and no side-project is going to do a great job.)
- justinschuh 13y ago
  I don't know why you think this. Requests for the contents of communications are warrants (or effectively such). They're narrow enough that they target individuals, and it doesn't matter where the data is homed. There's certainly an argument to pick a provider outside the US if you're specifically concerned about US policy (although I'm dubious of that argument), but then you still have to investigate the provider's policies and the applicable laws in whatever jurisdiction you choose.
anon1385 13y ago
>The real cherry on top is that all the three different colo/VPS providers I've used were hacked at one point or another, causing disclosure of my personal data and significant outages of my ability to communicate. Google have been hacked too, which I'm sure you aware of since you work for Google on security.
- justinschuh 13y ago
  I definitely know, because I was drafted onto the team that handled the incident. I also know that the incident didn't result in the compromise of user data or the degradation of services. Moreover, it was a catalyst for a massive focus on security at Google that has made our services some of the most secure I've seen in 15 years working in the security and intelligence fields.
  - xiphias 13y ago
    Is there a plan in Google to create a more secure email protocol that's compatible with the current one but is used at least between the top email providers? Or just by using encryption at least.
Zigurd 13y ago
Google could provide the best of both worlds with open endpoint software that encrypts data before it moves to or through the cloud. I would pay enough to make up for the NAS inefficiency and loss of ad revenue.
camperman 13y ago
Ignoring the dubious baseline assumption that your data really is at risk of exposure, why do you think what you're proposing would make you safer rather than put you at more risk? The thing is Justin, right now we don't know for sure just what Google hands over to the Feds and why, and we're all grappling with whether the alternatives are worth the convenience trade-off. I know I am. You still need to actually home your servers somewhere, which means a colo or VPS that is subject to the exact same laws. I don't live in the US so no, I'm not subject to the exact same laws. Similar yes, but I don't have to worry about the DMCA for instance. Of course if I do want to use AWS or App Engine then yes, it applies. But I've always assumed that foreign hosted servers can and will be compromised or spied on. Do you expect the providers of those services to have the capability to fight such requests better than Google, given that Google has a full time legal team dedicated to doing so? And that legal team has been forbidden to communicate with customers about certain information requests made by Federal agencies. Not much of an advantage is it? Do you guys really get on the phone with your customers and tell them when their data has been handed over? Come to think of it, do you ever speak to customers at all? I can get all of these things with a local provider outside US jurisdiction. What about the basic security of the provider itself? Do you really expect that to be anywhere near the level of what Google provides on its own systems? To top it all off, there's the maintenance and securing of whatever you're actually running, which requires significant expertise and takes quite a bit of time if you don't want your box popped and turned into a zombie host (which is what is most likely to happen). If you can't do something like this yourself, or don't have time, then you pay a professional to do it, either by hiring or by outsourcing. It's just business: create a relationship with expected levels of service with people you trust 100% and then pay them what it's worth. You seem to think that not using Google only means having to roll your own when in fact there are many alternatives. My point here is that you're not being honest with yourself if you really think you can manage this as a side project better than the full-time teams at Google do. If you want to pick another provider of email, etc, then investigate carefully and find one you're happy with. But I'd strongly discouraging running your own services. If you don't want to spied on, then you absolutely must run your own services. When the feudal lords start fighting or not taking their responsibilities seriously, it's us peasants that get trampled. Perhaps more of us need to move outside the feudal system and help others that also want to.

ef4 13y ago

> You still need to actually home your servers somewhere, which means a colo or VPS that is subject to the exact same laws. Nobody is going to dispute that a colo box is still vulnerable to targeted surveillance. But targeted surveillance is not really the issue of the day. From the NSA's perspective, the expected value of obtaining your data is very small, but they'll bother doing it anyway when the cost is even smaller. Big centralized providers are very cost-effective targets. A sea of tiny servers operated by hundreds of different data centers, hosting heterogeneous applications, monitored by hundreds of different individuals and organizations are really not cost effective to surveil in bulk. (I agree with the rest of your post -- doing it yourself is a major pain, and no side-project is going to do a great job.)

justinschuh 13y ago
I don't know why you think this. Requests for the contents of communications are warrants (or effectively such). They're narrow enough that they target individuals, and it doesn't matter where the data is homed. There's certainly an argument to pick a provider outside the US if you're specifically concerned about US policy (although I'm dubious of that argument), but then you still have to investigate the provider's policies and the applicable laws in whatever jurisdiction you choose.

anon1385 13y ago

>The real cherry on top is that all the three different colo/VPS providers I've used were hacked at one point or another, causing disclosure of my personal data and significant outages of my ability to communicate. Google have been hacked too, which I'm sure you aware of since you work for Google on security.

justinschuh 13y ago
I definitely know, because I was drafted onto the team that handled the incident. I also know that the incident didn't result in the compromise of user data or the degradation of services. Moreover, it was a catalyst for a massive focus on security at Google that has made our services some of the most secure I've seen in 15 years working in the security and intelligence fields.
- xiphias 13y ago
  Is there a plan in Google to create a more secure email protocol that's compatible with the current one but is used at least between the top email providers? Or just by using encryption at least.

Zigurd 13y ago

Google could provide the best of both worlds with open endpoint software that encrypts data before it moves to or through the cloud. I would pay enough to make up for the NAS inefficiency and loss of ad revenue.

camperman 13y ago

Ignoring the dubious baseline assumption that your data really is at risk of exposure, why do you think what you're proposing would make you safer rather than put you at more risk? The thing is Justin, right now we don't know for sure just what Google hands over to the Feds and why, and we're all grappling with whether the alternatives are worth the convenience trade-off. I know I am. You still need to actually home your servers somewhere, which means a colo or VPS that is subject to the exact same laws. I don't live in the US so no, I'm not subject to the exact same laws. Similar yes, but I don't have to worry about the DMCA for instance. Of course if I do want to use AWS or App Engine then yes, it applies. But I've always assumed that foreign hosted servers can and will be compromised or spied on. Do you expect the providers of those services to have the capability to fight such requests better than Google, given that Google has a full time legal team dedicated to doing so? And that legal team has been forbidden to communicate with customers about certain information requests made by Federal agencies. Not much of an advantage is it? Do you guys really get on the phone with your customers and tell them when their data has been handed over? Come to think of it, do you ever speak to customers at all? I can get all of these things with a local provider outside US jurisdiction. What about the basic security of the provider itself? Do you really expect that to be anywhere near the level of what Google provides on its own systems? To top it all off, there's the maintenance and securing of whatever you're actually running, which requires significant expertise and takes quite a bit of time if you don't want your box popped and turned into a zombie host (which is what is most likely to happen). If you can't do something like this yourself, or don't have time, then you pay a professional to do it, either by hiring or by outsourcing. It's just business: create a relationship with expected levels of service with people you trust 100% and then pay them what it's worth. You seem to think that not using Google only means having to roll your own when in fact there are many alternatives. My point here is that you're not being honest with yourself if you really think you can manage this as a side project better than the full-time teams at Google do. If you want to pick another provider of email, etc, then investigate carefully and find one you're happy with. But I'd strongly discouraging running your own services. If you don't want to spied on, then you absolutely must run your own services. When the feudal lords start fighting or not taking their responsibilities seriously, it's us peasants that get trampled. Perhaps more of us need to move outside the feudal system and help others that also want to.