6 ms·
Well lets take these one-by-one: ------------- 1. Attorney-client privilege. I'm guessing most law firms use third party email servers, anti-virus, anti-spam
by ig1 13y ago
Well lets take these one-by-one:
-------------
1. Attorney-client privilege.
I'm guessing most law firms use third party email servers, anti-virus, anti-spam and archive/audit systems which this would also apply to. It would also apply if you're using Raportive, Xobni or the like (or integrated time-tracking, billing, crm, etc.).
-------------
2. By default, LinkedIn changes the content of your emails.
Irrelevant. Unless you read your emails in plain text every modern email client changes how email is displayed.
-------------
3. Intro breaks secure email.
Yes. Except iOS mail doesn't support crypto signatures anyway.
-------------
4. LinkedIn got owned.
Yes. LinkedIn adds an extra point of vulnerability.
-------------
5. LinkedIn is storing your email communications.
Well metatdata but yes.
-------------
7. It’s probably a gross violation of your company’s security policy.
Yes. As is using Linkedin itself. Or Dropbox. Or Github. Or Evernote. Or Chrome. Or any enterprise software that uses the bottom up approach.
-------------
8. If I were the NSA…
The NSA has access to your emails if they want them anyway. Email isn't a secure protocol against a well funded adversary.
-------------
9. It’s not what they say, but what they don’t say
This looks like a semantic dispute, but it doesn't look any more vague than say Google's privacy policy. Companies in certain circumstances are legally required to provide access to information.
-------------
10. Too many secrets
These all seem to be questions that can either be answered by testing or ones that LinkedIn would probably be happy to disclose, but unlikely to be major issues to mainstream users.
-------------
So fundamentally it comes down to two points, granting Linkedin access to your email creates a new point of attack and Linkedin themselves might use your email in ways you find undesirable.
So it's essentially a trade-off for the benefits you get from the app versus those risks. For a personal account which you use for private emails, personal banking, etc. the evaluation is obviously going to be very much different from say a salesperson's work account which they use for managing communication with leads.
In the later case they may already be trusting LinkedIn with similar confidential information and already use multiple services (analytics, crm, etc.) that hook into their email so the additional relative risk might be smaller.
As people with technical expertise we shouldn't use scare-mongering to push our personal viewpoints upon those with less expertise, but rather help people understand the security/benefit trade-offs that they're making so they can decide for themselves whether to take those risks.
It's important to treat the wider non-technical community with respect and as adults capable of making their own judgements and not as kids who need to be scared into safety.
- smkelly 13y agoRegarding your #3 point: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4979 http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4979 iOS supports S/MIME.
- ig1 13y agoFair enough, assuming that Intro breaks the S/MIME support (which I'm guessing that it does) then it adds the risk that users using S/MIME can't verify the integrity of mail in the app. So that's something else that S/MIME users should evaluate when judging the risks.
- alwillis 13y agoJust for completeness sake, there's also GPG for iOS as well: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opengp-lite/id405279153?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opengp-lite/id405279153?mt=8
- lessnonymous 13y agoShhhh! Don't bring rationality into this HN anti-LinkedIn Circle-jerk!
- brymaster 13y ago> Shhhh! Don't bring rationality into this HN anti-LinkedIn Circle-jerk! That's a reddit-level comment. People with technical, ethical or privacy concerns are just as relevant to the discussion. LinkedIn already has a shady history in terms of unauthorized data slurping, privacy and handling of users. No one has to swallow what they're offering now as altruistic if they don't want to. Plenty of concerns indeed... 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4073309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4073309 LinkedIn sued by users who say it hacked their e-mail accounts https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6425444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6425444 Your iPhone calendar isn’t private—at least if you use the LinkedIn app http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/06/your-iphone-calendar-isnt-privateat-least-if-you-use-the-linkedin-app/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/06/your-iphone-calendar-is... LinkedIn: The Creepiest Social Network https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5680680 LinkedIn opts 100 million users into sharing information with ads https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2872030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2872030 LinkedIn is Evil https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=220138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=220138 LinkedIn was also pulling down your contacts/address book through that iOS flaw just like Path and several other apps were at the time.