4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoOccam isn't strong enough evidence to assert "near certainty" as Arrington did, with a title that definitive.