3 ms·

In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?" For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blank

by sgentle 12y ago

In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?" For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blanket surveillance" and equivalent statements are even worth the pixels they take up on your screen. It may as well say "our security is endorsed by His Holiness The Dalai Lama" The Australian government has the power under the recently passed National Security Legislation Amendment [0] to issue a secret warrant compelling access to any number of computers or networks for anything that will "assist" in "obtaining intelligence related to security". The warrant allows surveillance, as well as "addition, deletion or alteration of data". Disclosing that warrant's existence is punishable by up to 10 years in jail. This is without even considering the reciprocal spying possibilities of the Five Eyes network. There is no equivalent in Australia to the US fourth amendment. Even illegally gathered evidence can be used in a trial depending on the discretion of the judge. [1] If you think "we don't participate in blanket surveillance" is an acceptable response to that legal reality, I ask you to consider what you would think of a company that, when asked if they store passwords in cleartext, respond "yes, but we don't look at them." [0] http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s969_first-senate/toc_pdf/1417820.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bil... [1] http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1245&context=facpubs http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12...

npizzolato 12y ago
In security it also doesn't make sense to ask "am I secure?" but instead to ask "how secure am I?". The money in my bank account isn't more secure from a government that wants to freeze my assets, but it is certainly more secure than the money under my mattress from a potential break in. You have to identify the targets you're concerned about before you can tell if you're "secure enough." And, for the most part, individuals don't need to be "secure enough" against spy networks of nations. Furthermore, and I think we're going to disagree here, I believe there is a balance to be played between trust, security, and following laws. For instance, a safe deposit box at a bank is generally secure. A bank won't usually open it, but they can if the need arises, and law enforcement can obtain the contents if they go through the proper channels and provide a warrant. In theory, I believe this to be an inherently good thing. The police must be able to pursue criminals, and, by providing evidence, be granted access to things they would otherwise be unable to access. I believe there to be a direct analogy between an email provider that does not routinely give access to its users emails but would respond to warrants as necessary. Now, I would be naive if I didn't realize that the spy agencies of the world weren't holding up to their government's part of the bargain here. But I believe the answer to be in government accountability, not completely locked down security. Aside from philosophical views, I also believe that this is a much more pragmatic approach. Do you know why people give up all their personal information, email, etc. to the Googles and Facebooks of the world? Because it's so goddamned convenient. Google provides so many great services for free. And full security is hard and inconvenient. You're going to have a tough pitch to sell fully encrypted email just on the basis of services not being able to provide a good search experience, because I gotta tell ya, Gmail search is really amazing, and it provides many people with tangible benefits. Fully encrypted email provides value that is much more intangible.
- bad_user 12y ago
  While I agree with your arguments, our digital footprint is the closest thing we have to mind reading and governments will simply not back down on warrantless surveillance, therefore I believe a line is being crossed that shouldn't be. On the other hand, if you're not doing client side encryption, preferably offline, then you're not protected against a global threat, period. This is because, even if FastMail refuses to cooperate, well funded security agencies can do MITM attacks in spite of SSL/TLS.
kaffee 12y ago
This is exactly the right perspective. If the US has secret warrants in the form of NSL (National Security Letters) or similar, it's easy to imagine Australia having precisely the same thing. I've enjoyed being a user of fastmail for some time but I'll be switching to one of the new projects (e.g., LEAP) or self-hosting in the future.
- vog 12y ago
  >I'll be switching to [...] or self-hosting in the future I can really recommend self-hosted email. This is not as hard as it sounds. Of course, you should have the following abilities: 1) find some good documentation (or friend) that explains a clean setup with spam filter, correct DNS/SPF and HELO entries, such that you don't get on the blacklists. Note that this is almost a one-time effort, you'll have to adjust things every 5-10 years, I guess. [1] 2) be able to administrate a Linux/BSD machine, i.e. to keep it simple and up-to-date in the long term. I really hope that Tuxevara will finish his series about a modern email setup. This is his first part: http://www.tuxevara.de/2014/11/mailserver-reloaded-step-1/ http://www.tuxevara.de/2014/11/mailserver-reloaded-step-1/ [1] For example, I had to add SPF entries since my mailserver also had an IPv6 address, otherwise Google and others blocked me - for understandable reasons.
  - thyrsus 12y ago
    Where does one host such a service such that one's neighbors haven't put your subnet on e-mail block lists? I wasn't able to host e-mail from my home IP address; do spammers not pollute the waters at hosting companies? Can you buy an IP address that isn't blacklisted, and won't be part of a subnet block?
    - vog 12y ago
      Since there is so much malware out there delivering spam from private computers, dynamic IP ranges (which is what you usually get at home) are part of every modern blacklist. Yes, this is very unfortunate. It means that you'll either have to rent some server or virtual server (which makes sense if you want to run tons of other services there). Or, you'll need some VPN (possibly in addition to an IPv6 tunnel), which is cheaper. A third option is to rent an own server/vserver, but to keep the costs low by sharing it with friends.
chappi42 12y ago
>>In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?" For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blanket surveillance" and equivalent statements are even worth the pixels they take up on your screen. Given enough money/power likely everything can be compromised. But it seems that Fastmail take enough precaution against the 'can it be compromised' threats. Regarding the blanket statements: I wouldn't trust an US based company with such a statement because of the Patriot Act and what we learned from the 'Snowden documents' about Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple etc. and the lying and selective truth by NSA. But I would trust companies which are based in countries where one (in general) is allowed to reveal when information has been requested. The Fastmail privacy statements [1] seem fine to me. Additionaly with Fastmail I also appreciate that they have only part of information about me and not a much broader aggregated set of browsing/search history, location, credit card numbers, youtube... as would be the case with e.g. Google. >>There is no equivalent in Australia to the US fourth amendment. Even illegally gathered evidence can be used in a trial depending on the discretion of the judge. Until Patriot act has been relaxed/abolished and NSA splitted in smaller units (and relieved of part of their immense budget) the fourth amendment can imho only be a last-rescue instrument. Also afaik it doesn't 'protect' me as a foreign customer (of e.g. Google and Apple). [1]: https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html

by sgentle 12y ago

npizzolato 12y ago

In security it also doesn't make sense to ask "am I secure?" but instead to ask "how secure am I?". The money in my bank account isn't more secure from a government that wants to freeze my assets, but it is certainly more secure than the money under my mattress from a potential break in. You have to identify the targets you're concerned about before you can tell if you're "secure enough." And, for the most part, individuals don't need to be "secure enough" against spy networks of nations. Furthermore, and I think we're going to disagree here, I believe there is a balance to be played between trust, security, and following laws. For instance, a safe deposit box at a bank is generally secure. A bank won't usually open it, but they can if the need arises, and law enforcement can obtain the contents if they go through the proper channels and provide a warrant. In theory, I believe this to be an inherently good thing. The police must be able to pursue criminals, and, by providing evidence, be granted access to things they would otherwise be unable to access. I believe there to be a direct analogy between an email provider that does not routinely give access to its users emails but would respond to warrants as necessary. Now, I would be naive if I didn't realize that the spy agencies of the world weren't holding up to their government's part of the bargain here. But I believe the answer to be in government accountability, not completely locked down security. Aside from philosophical views, I also believe that this is a much more pragmatic approach. Do you know why people give up all their personal information, email, etc. to the Googles and Facebooks of the world? Because it's so goddamned convenient. Google provides so many great services for free. And full security is hard and inconvenient. You're going to have a tough pitch to sell fully encrypted email just on the basis of services not being able to provide a good search experience, because I gotta tell ya, Gmail search is really amazing, and it provides many people with tangible benefits. Fully encrypted email provides value that is much more intangible.

bad_user 12y ago
While I agree with your arguments, our digital footprint is the closest thing we have to mind reading and governments will simply not back down on warrantless surveillance, therefore I believe a line is being crossed that shouldn't be. On the other hand, if you're not doing client side encryption, preferably offline, then you're not protected against a global threat, period. This is because, even if FastMail refuses to cooperate, well funded security agencies can do MITM attacks in spite of SSL/TLS.

kaffee 12y ago

This is exactly the right perspective. If the US has secret warrants in the form of NSL (National Security Letters) or similar, it's easy to imagine Australia having precisely the same thing. I've enjoyed being a user of fastmail for some time but I'll be switching to one of the new projects (e.g., LEAP) or self-hosting in the future.

vog 12y ago
>I'll be switching to [...] or self-hosting in the future I can really recommend self-hosted email. This is not as hard as it sounds. Of course, you should have the following abilities: 1) find some good documentation (or friend) that explains a clean setup with spam filter, correct DNS/SPF and HELO entries, such that you don't get on the blacklists. Note that this is almost a one-time effort, you'll have to adjust things every 5-10 years, I guess. [1] 2) be able to administrate a Linux/BSD machine, i.e. to keep it simple and up-to-date in the long term. I really hope that Tuxevara will finish his series about a modern email setup. This is his first part: http://www.tuxevara.de/2014/11/mailserver-reloaded-step-1/ http://www.tuxevara.de/2014/11/mailserver-reloaded-step-1/ [1] For example, I had to add SPF entries since my mailserver also had an IPv6 address, otherwise Google and others blocked me - for understandable reasons.
- thyrsus 12y ago
  Where does one host such a service such that one's neighbors haven't put your subnet on e-mail block lists? I wasn't able to host e-mail from my home IP address; do spammers not pollute the waters at hosting companies? Can you buy an IP address that isn't blacklisted, and won't be part of a subnet block?
  - vog 12y ago
    Since there is so much malware out there delivering spam from private computers, dynamic IP ranges (which is what you usually get at home) are part of every modern blacklist. Yes, this is very unfortunate. It means that you'll either have to rent some server or virtual server (which makes sense if you want to run tons of other services there). Or, you'll need some VPN (possibly in addition to an IPv6 tunnel), which is cheaper. A third option is to rent an own server/vserver, but to keep the costs low by sharing it with friends.

chappi42 12y ago

>>In security it doesn't make sense to ask "is it compromised?" but rather "can it be compromised?" For that reason, I don't think "we don’t participate in blanket surveillance" and equivalent statements are even worth the pixels they take up on your screen. Given enough money/power likely everything can be compromised. But it seems that Fastmail take enough precaution against the 'can it be compromised' threats. Regarding the blanket statements: I wouldn't trust an US based company with such a statement because of the Patriot Act and what we learned from the 'Snowden documents' about Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple etc. and the lying and selective truth by NSA. But I would trust companies which are based in countries where one (in general) is allowed to reveal when information has been requested. The Fastmail privacy statements [1] seem fine to me. Additionaly with Fastmail I also appreciate that they have only part of information about me and not a much broader aggregated set of browsing/search history, location, credit card numbers, youtube... as would be the case with e.g. Google. >>There is no equivalent in Australia to the US fourth amendment. Even illegally gathered evidence can be used in a trial depending on the discretion of the judge. Until Patriot act has been relaxed/abolished and NSA splitted in smaller units (and relieved of part of their immense budget) the fourth amendment can imho only be a last-rescue instrument. Also afaik it doesn't 'protect' me as a foreign customer (of e.g. Google and Apple). [1]: https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html https://www.fastmail.com/help/legal/privacy.html