4 ms·

Does this surprise anyone? Google has contradictory interests when it comes to encryption and privacy. It has been at the forefront of pushing SMTP to SMTP enc

Does this surprise anyone? Google has contradictory interests when it comes to encryption and privacy. It has been at the forefront of pushing SMTP to SMTP encryption and HTTPS everywhere. Google has to spread (and perhaps seriously believes in) the idea that they transfer data securely, unreadable by the Five Eyes. Because the perception that Google is in bed with the NSA et al. is seriously undermining their reputation (especially in Europe). On the other hand, scanning content for ads requires that they have unfettered access to user data. If by implementing good end-to-end encryption e-mail would not be visible to them anymore, their abilities to do user profiling of those on and not on GMail would be impeded seriously. If you want real privacy, you should move out of the Google ecosystem. Their terms of use are too far-reaching and their interest in your data too large to assume that they would go all-in with complete end to end encryption of everything.

petjuh 11y ago
Unfortunately their services are too convenient. I use them for almost everything I can, my reason being that they already know enough about me from my google searches, so I might as well use every other service they have. Plus they're encrypted so only they know it. Also, I'm not from the US so MY government doesn't have access to their data.
- danieldk 11y ago
  If you are fine with giving your life to Google, another thing to consider are others. Anyone who wants to communicate with you via e-mail also surrenders their private communication to you to Google.
- stephenr 11y ago
  > my reason being that they already know enough about me from my google searches You could.. you know... change that.. https://duckduckgo.com https://duckduckgo.com > Also, I'm not from the US so MY government doesn't have access to their data Because the US doesn't have any allies that participate in data sharing, and definitely doesn't intercept data in transit over the greater internet and on Google's internal network... Oh wait..
- Zigurd 11y ago
  Same here. But I also pay Google for various services, and the lack of privacy bothers me enough that I would readily pay Google the relatively small amount I'm worth to them as a data source in order to get privacy. THAT's where Google's position, or at least this Google spokesman's position is wrong: I'll give up both some convenience and some money to get more privacy.
  - edwhitesell 11y ago
    But that's exactly the conflict: Google doesn't want your money, they want your data. Paying for more privacy is not and probabably will never be an option.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Ehhhhh. "Google, would you trade ad revenue for the same or larger subscription revenue?" I think the answer would be yes.
      - edwhitesell 11y ago
        Most companies, yes. Google, no. It's completely against their current models. They're basically telling advertisers: You know that product we were selling you, that made us billions of dollars together? We're not selling it to you anymore, but it's still making us money.
Arnt 11y ago
Google's approach makes sense if you assume that it's trying to sell more seats for its g-things-for-business suite. End-to-end encryption hobbles the search function, which makes gmail-for-business less useful. Transport encryption bothers eavesdroppers while leaving search intact. FWIW, Wikipedia says Google has five million customers for the gmail-for-business product, each of which pays $50-60 per year per user. If you assume an average of two employees per customer that's a half-billion dollars per year. If you believe the numbers in e.g. http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-Google-earn-from-ads-per-Gmail-account-on-a-daily-basis http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-Google-earn-from-ads-per-... the ad-supported gmail revenue must be peanuts by comparison.
mark_l_watson 11y ago
I care about privacy but with some restrictions I still use Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I did switch off of gmail for general use, but I forward some emails to my old gmail account for experimenting with Google Now on my Android phone. For example, I will forward emails confirming airline reservations and car rentals so that information ends up in Google Calender and Google Now. For the same reason I sometimes will turn on location services on my phone. I use Firefox for my web browsing, but use Chrome when visiting Google, Facebook, and Twitter web properties. I check cookies set in Firefox to make sure I have not enabled tracking. I am making some real compromises in privacy and convenience, but for now this 'middle road' works for me.

petjuh 11y ago

Unfortunately their services are too convenient. I use them for almost everything I can, my reason being that they already know enough about me from my google searches, so I might as well use every other service they have. Plus they're encrypted so only they know it. Also, I'm not from the US so MY government doesn't have access to their data.

danieldk 11y ago
If you are fine with giving your life to Google, another thing to consider are others. Anyone who wants to communicate with you via e-mail also surrenders their private communication to you to Google.
stephenr 11y ago
> my reason being that they already know enough about me from my google searches You could.. you know... change that.. https://duckduckgo.com https://duckduckgo.com > Also, I'm not from the US so MY government doesn't have access to their data Because the US doesn't have any allies that participate in data sharing, and definitely doesn't intercept data in transit over the greater internet and on Google's internal network... Oh wait..
Zigurd 11y ago
Same here. But I also pay Google for various services, and the lack of privacy bothers me enough that I would readily pay Google the relatively small amount I'm worth to them as a data source in order to get privacy. THAT's where Google's position, or at least this Google spokesman's position is wrong: I'll give up both some convenience and some money to get more privacy.
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  But that's exactly the conflict: Google doesn't want your money, they want your data. Paying for more privacy is not and probabably will never be an option.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Ehhhhh. "Google, would you trade ad revenue for the same or larger subscription revenue?" I think the answer would be yes.
    - edwhitesell 11y ago
      Most companies, yes. Google, no. It's completely against their current models. They're basically telling advertisers: You know that product we were selling you, that made us billions of dollars together? We're not selling it to you anymore, but it's still making us money.

Arnt 11y ago

Google's approach makes sense if you assume that it's trying to sell more seats for its g-things-for-business suite. End-to-end encryption hobbles the search function, which makes gmail-for-business less useful. Transport encryption bothers eavesdroppers while leaving search intact. FWIW, Wikipedia says Google has five million customers for the gmail-for-business product, each of which pays $50-60 per year per user. If you assume an average of two employees per customer that's a half-billion dollars per year. If you believe the numbers in e.g. http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-Google-earn-from-ads-per-Gmail-account-on-a-daily-basis http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-Google-earn-from-ads-per-... the ad-supported gmail revenue must be peanuts by comparison.

mark_l_watson 11y ago

I care about privacy but with some restrictions I still use Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I did switch off of gmail for general use, but I forward some emails to my old gmail account for experimenting with Google Now on my Android phone. For example, I will forward emails confirming airline reservations and car rentals so that information ends up in Google Calender and Google Now. For the same reason I sometimes will turn on location services on my phone. I use Firefox for my web browsing, but use Chrome when visiting Google, Facebook, and Twitter web properties. I check cookies set in Firefox to make sure I have not enabled tracking. I am making some real compromises in privacy and convenience, but for now this 'middle road' works for me.