3 ms·

1 - And this is the most important: Assume your e-mails are being read. I have taken this many, many, many years ago before there were even leaks about NSA or G

1 - And this is the most important: Assume your e-mails are being read. I have taken this many, many, many years ago before there were even leaks about NSA or Google/Microsoft collaborating or something from Fravia+. He wasn't wrong. If you don't know who that is, you're missing out. 2 - The fact the source communicated with you using a non Gmail account is of minor importance, because you were communicating with a Gmail account with a source working at Google breaking a story about Google. It is not very smart. Really. 2 - Did the source get fired ? If not, there is a good chance "they" were lying: It's not like a company will keep an employee leaking stuff (if the story was "that" major). 3 - Did you address the source by their name in your correspondance, or talked about any identifying details ? Meeting place ? Phone numbers.. Most people don't just realize how much info they're giving away because they're accustomed to talking in a certain way.

pyre 13y ago
> The fact the source communicated with you using a non Gmail account is of minor importance This is important to the story. If the source had communicated using their work (Google) email, then you could argue that Google hadn't accessed the reporter's Gmail account, but had instead invoked their (possible) employment agreement terms and read the Google employee's email. Without insider knowledge, no one could know for sure. On the other hand, since the source used a non-Google email account, the only two possible ways that Google could know are: 1) if they read the reporter's emails or 2) if they have access to non-Google email services to read emails of arbitrary accounts.
- abandonliberty 13y ago
  Hugely important. Even without any employment agreement terms, "employers probably [have] the legal right to read employee email messages sent using their equipment and network." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-employer-read-30088.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-... Read a wrongful termination case where an employee's abusive outgoing emails were accessed/grounds for dismissal. Employee lost.
- panarky 13y ago
  Those aren't the only two possible ways Google could see non-Google email. Was the source using a Google laptop? Was he or she using a Google network? Was the non-Google email service using SSL "several years ago" when this happened? If the source used Google equipment and unencrypted email service, then the message is in plaintext on Google's network. No need to open Arrington's Gmail to read it.
  - pyre 13y ago
    The real question would be if Google logs all unencrypted email traffic across their networks. Otherwise, it would be hard to go back in time to see what was sent.
  - toyg 13y ago
    The message passed in plaintext on the network. Were they sniffing and logging all traffic before the whistleblowing happened? Unlikely. It's much more likely that they either 1) read Arrington's mailbox or 2) keylogged the crap out of the Google laptop the guy likely used. The latter method is not foolproof, whereas it's known that Google does have the capability to use the former. Occam would see 1 as the most realistic explanation.
    - panarky 13y ago
      Occam isn't strong enough evidence to assert "near certainty" as Arrington did, with a title that definitive.
ntakasaki 13y ago
>Did the source get fired ? If not, there is a good chance "they" were lying: It's not like a company will keep an employee leaking stuff (if the story was "that" major). From the article: >A little while after that my source was no longer employed by Google.
- pyre 13y ago
  I think the parent is questioning the ambiguity here. Did the employee leave voluntarily? Were they fired or 'forced to resign?' If they left Google on good terms, then it does seem unlikely.
- Jugurtha 13y ago
  I was referring to the lying part and the "I'm not 100% certain comment". It is very curious though. What was in those e-mails that could possibly identify the source. He works at Google, a tech company. The reporter works at TechCrunch (that covers tech companies). If anyone should know they must take extra care not to leave traces, it's a guy working for Google and another working for TecCrunch. It was reckless.

pyre 13y ago

> The fact the source communicated with you using a non Gmail account is of minor importance This is important to the story. If the source had communicated using their work (Google) email, then you could argue that Google hadn't accessed the reporter's Gmail account, but had instead invoked their (possible) employment agreement terms and read the Google employee's email. Without insider knowledge, no one could know for sure. On the other hand, since the source used a non-Google email account, the only two possible ways that Google could know are: 1) if they read the reporter's emails or 2) if they have access to non-Google email services to read emails of arbitrary accounts.

abandonliberty 13y ago
Hugely important. Even without any employment agreement terms, "employers probably [have] the legal right to read employee email messages sent using their equipment and network." http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-employer-read-30088.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/email-monitoring-can-... Read a wrongful termination case where an employee's abusive outgoing emails were accessed/grounds for dismissal. Employee lost.
panarky 13y ago
Those aren't the only two possible ways Google could see non-Google email. Was the source using a Google laptop? Was he or she using a Google network? Was the non-Google email service using SSL "several years ago" when this happened? If the source used Google equipment and unencrypted email service, then the message is in plaintext on Google's network. No need to open Arrington's Gmail to read it.
- pyre 13y ago
  The real question would be if Google logs all unencrypted email traffic across their networks. Otherwise, it would be hard to go back in time to see what was sent.
- toyg 13y ago
  The message passed in plaintext on the network. Were they sniffing and logging all traffic before the whistleblowing happened? Unlikely. It's much more likely that they either 1) read Arrington's mailbox or 2) keylogged the crap out of the Google laptop the guy likely used. The latter method is not foolproof, whereas it's known that Google does have the capability to use the former. Occam would see 1 as the most realistic explanation.
  - panarky 13y ago
    Occam isn't strong enough evidence to assert "near certainty" as Arrington did, with a title that definitive.

ntakasaki 13y ago

>Did the source get fired ? If not, there is a good chance "they" were lying: It's not like a company will keep an employee leaking stuff (if the story was "that" major). From the article: >A little while after that my source was no longer employed by Google.

pyre 13y ago
I think the parent is questioning the ambiguity here. Did the employee leave voluntarily? Were they fired or 'forced to resign?' If they left Google on good terms, then it does seem unlikely.
Jugurtha 13y ago
I was referring to the lying part and the "I'm not 100% certain comment". It is very curious though. What was in those e-mails that could possibly identify the source. He works at Google, a tech company. The reporter works at TechCrunch (that covers tech companies). If anyone should know they must take extra care not to leave traces, it's a guy working for Google and another working for TecCrunch. It was reckless.