3 ms·

The way I see it, Google set up a system that is easy to conduct surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over IMAP or POP3, a

The way I see it, Google set up a system that is easy to conduct surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over IMAP or POP3, and in various subtle ways GMail discourages the use of encryption. This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from this sort of surveillance is not a priority.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail settings, which offers these choices: When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP folder: * Archive the message (default) * Move the message to the Trash * Immediately delete the message forever Ok then.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  You don't know that actually deletes anything, and defaults matter. Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421
  - chaz 13y ago
    If you don't believe that they delete it when you tell them to delete it, then using Gmail is already a non-starter. Also, yes, defaults do matter: the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion." [citation needed] Seriously, I have trouble believing that anyone would complain about "delete" carrying any meaning other than "delete." I also find it hard to take such people seriously, given the existence of a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop (and what is the default for deleting from All Mail? Having the message come right back to All Mail! Brilliant...). Thanks for the tip on how to fix this behavior. It is an easy option to miss...
      - mayanksinghal 13y ago
        > a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop I was just trying this, I moved something to trash and then did a 'Delete Forever'. Nothing appeared in trash or all mail again.
        betterunix 13y ago
        The problem is that the default behavior for people who use an IMAP client is for "delete" to actually mean "keep a copy in All Mail." The server will also give a false OK status to the client following the EXPUNGE command (see the IMAP4 RFC for details), so the user is not alerted to the fact that messages are not being deleted.
      - chaz 13y ago
        Using the default Gmail settings of (a) Enable IMAP and (b) Auto Expunge on, I just deleted an email via Sparrow (IMAP). The email instantly went straight into the Trash folder and is not visible in All Mail. I expect the email to be auto-deleted in about 30 days. I agree that the behavior you're describing would be weird, but I'm not seeing it. Can you please double check? No, I don't have a citation, but is it so hard to believe that lots of people want an undelete? I accidentally delete emails all the time and I go into the trash and fish them out. Not giving users an undo seems ... unfriendly. EDIT: I see, it applies to Custom Folders and delete only removes the label; doesn't move it to the trash. Here's what Google has to say about it. Is this a default IMAP behavior or Gmail-IMAP specific? https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en
        betterunix 13y ago
        I just confirmed the behavior: I deleted a message from my Inbox, and my mail client put it in my Trash folder. I deleted the message from Trash, and it was still in All Mail. I deleted from All Mail, and when I refresh the folder it is still there. I checked the network log, and the correct EXPUNGE commands are being sent. As for "undelete," I believe the purpose of the Trash folder is to support that. I have yet to find the email client that does not, as a default, store deleted messages in the Trash folder. I am not disputing that people want that functionality, what I am saying is that I do not think people want the behavior that I am seeing. The fact that GMail treats "delete" as "remove labels" is very problematic. IMAP supports labels, including client-defined labels. Treating folders as "labels" only breaks the abstraction IMAP presents. I suppose this was part of Mark Crispin's gripes with GMail.
rasterizer 13y ago
That's stupid. Particularly how you list 'plentiful storage' as a drawback, if that's the case then it's plainly an issue of law as it pits privacy against usability. Also Gmail is the only webmail that offers server-to-server encryption: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-providers-leave-door-open-for-nsa-surveillance/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p... And as mentioned in another comment you can delete messages over IMAP. So in the future make sure you do some research as to avoid spreading false information.
mayanksinghal 13y ago
I don't follow this stream of logic. If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws, in order to be good then aren't the laws at fault here? I find the acceptance that governments will do whatever this wants, we will just use end to end encryption , TOR and Bitcoin defeats the purpose we have regulated currencies, governments and democracies. If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless. Because if you are not keeping a check on the government they will keep bringing in more laws that hinder your sense of justice and your technical system keep moving its architecture like a fugitive.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws" Nobody is talking about sidestepping laws. You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law, if your users cannot store many years of their personal communications on your server. Encouraging people to delete mail would have the effect of limiting the government's surveillance power, in an entirely legal fashion. "aren't the laws at fault here?" It is not that simple. The relevant laws were written at a time when mail quotas were commonly measured in megabytes, when people had to delete their mail in order to stay under the limit. Back then, if a few personal messages happened to be on the server when a court order was received, it was not such a big deal; those messages probably pertained to very recent things anyway. Now, when a court order for "all of Joe's email" is received, that will very likely include messages dating back years, long before whatever crime Joe is suspected of was even committed. The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications. "If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless." Why not do both? Why should we suffer while we wait for the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn? Neither action excludes the other, you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > "Nobody is talking about sidestepping laws" > "you can both circumvent unjust laws..." and > "aren't the laws at fault here?" > list of reasons why the laws are at fault... you have a point in there (work to fix laws while protecting yourself), but you're being weirdly (and ineffectually) contrarian in this thread.

thrownaway2424 13y ago

I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail settings, which offers these choices: When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP folder: * Archive the message (default) * Move the message to the Trash * Immediately delete the message forever Ok then.

steveklabnik 13y ago
You don't know that actually deletes anything, and defaults matter. Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421
- chaz 13y ago
  If you don't believe that they delete it when you tell them to delete it, then using Gmail is already a non-starter. Also, yes, defaults do matter: the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    "the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion." [citation needed] Seriously, I have trouble believing that anyone would complain about "delete" carrying any meaning other than "delete." I also find it hard to take such people seriously, given the existence of a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop (and what is the default for deleting from All Mail? Having the message come right back to All Mail! Brilliant...). Thanks for the tip on how to fix this behavior. It is an easy option to miss...
    - mayanksinghal 13y ago
      > a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop I was just trying this, I moved something to trash and then did a 'Delete Forever'. Nothing appeared in trash or all mail again.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        The problem is that the default behavior for people who use an IMAP client is for "delete" to actually mean "keep a copy in All Mail." The server will also give a false OK status to the client following the EXPUNGE command (see the IMAP4 RFC for details), so the user is not alerted to the fact that messages are not being deleted.
    - chaz 13y ago
      Using the default Gmail settings of (a) Enable IMAP and (b) Auto Expunge on, I just deleted an email via Sparrow (IMAP). The email instantly went straight into the Trash folder and is not visible in All Mail. I expect the email to be auto-deleted in about 30 days. I agree that the behavior you're describing would be weird, but I'm not seeing it. Can you please double check? No, I don't have a citation, but is it so hard to believe that lots of people want an undelete? I accidentally delete emails all the time and I go into the trash and fish them out. Not giving users an undo seems ... unfriendly. EDIT: I see, it applies to Custom Folders and delete only removes the label; doesn't move it to the trash. Here's what Google has to say about it. Is this a default IMAP behavior or Gmail-IMAP specific? https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en
      - betterunix 13y ago
        I just confirmed the behavior: I deleted a message from my Inbox, and my mail client put it in my Trash folder. I deleted the message from Trash, and it was still in All Mail. I deleted from All Mail, and when I refresh the folder it is still there. I checked the network log, and the correct EXPUNGE commands are being sent. As for "undelete," I believe the purpose of the Trash folder is to support that. I have yet to find the email client that does not, as a default, store deleted messages in the Trash folder. I am not disputing that people want that functionality, what I am saying is that I do not think people want the behavior that I am seeing. The fact that GMail treats "delete" as "remove labels" is very problematic. IMAP supports labels, including client-defined labels. Treating folders as "labels" only breaks the abstraction IMAP presents. I suppose this was part of Mark Crispin's gripes with GMail.

rasterizer 13y ago

That's stupid. Particularly how you list 'plentiful storage' as a drawback, if that's the case then it's plainly an issue of law as it pits privacy against usability. Also Gmail is the only webmail that offers server-to-server encryption: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-providers-leave-door-open-for-nsa-surveillance/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p... And as mentioned in another comment you can delete messages over IMAP. So in the future make sure you do some research as to avoid spreading false information.

mayanksinghal 13y ago

I don't follow this stream of logic. If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws, in order to be good then aren't the laws at fault here? I find the acceptance that governments will do whatever this wants, we will just use end to end encryption , TOR and Bitcoin defeats the purpose we have regulated currencies, governments and democracies. If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless. Because if you are not keeping a check on the government they will keep bringing in more laws that hinder your sense of justice and your technical system keep moving its architecture like a fugitive.

betterunix 13y ago
"If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws" Nobody is talking about sidestepping laws. You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law, if your users cannot store many years of their personal communications on your server. Encouraging people to delete mail would have the effect of limiting the government's surveillance power, in an entirely legal fashion. "aren't the laws at fault here?" It is not that simple. The relevant laws were written at a time when mail quotas were commonly measured in megabytes, when people had to delete their mail in order to stay under the limit. Back then, if a few personal messages happened to be on the server when a court order was received, it was not such a big deal; those messages probably pertained to very recent things anyway. Now, when a court order for "all of Joe's email" is received, that will very likely include messages dating back years, long before whatever crime Joe is suspected of was even committed. The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications. "If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless." Why not do both? Why should we suffer while we wait for the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn? Neither action excludes the other, you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books.
- magicalist 13y ago
  > "Nobody is talking about sidestepping laws" > "you can both circumvent unjust laws..." and > "aren't the laws at fault here?" > list of reasons why the laws are at fault... you have a point in there (work to fix laws while protecting yourself), but you're being weirdly (and ineffectually) contrarian in this thread.