5 ms·

I don't need the extra security provided by end-to-end encryption for the vast majority of emails I receive and send. I value that ability to search/filter thes

I don't need the extra security provided by end-to-end encryption for the vast majority of emails I receive and send. I value that ability to search/filter these emails far more than I value the security. For the few emails I send where the value of the security provided exceeds the lost value due to being unable to search I can, using their extension, enable end-to-end encryption. This system suits my needs perfectly, I appreciate that others may want all the emails they send to be encrypted but why should Google cater to this - they cannot make any money from encrypted emails.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Agreed. The question is. Can you perfectly, always and with regard for potential future changes to what may be sensitive information decide which ones to encrypt? One email sent the wrong way when tired. One change in legislation (to e.g. retrospectively criminalise an activity or legalise a certain type of snooping). Now your company's IP is compromised. Or now your in jail. Or now you can be blackmailed. Furthermore the idea that you will be encrypting the mail may cause tired future you to write something you wouldn't put on a post card. So unless you are perfect and never ever click in the wrong place good luck in this brave world of ours.
- malka 11y ago
  What insane law system makes an action retrospectively criminal ? Does the US law system allows this ?
  - pmontra 11y ago
    I think you can start investigating Joe for an email he sent 10 years ago and that your scanning algorithm picked up from the archive only now. Maybe you're searching for matches with different keywords (the X in "war on X" changed). That email and the actions could have been lawful at the time and now, but Joe could be marked as suspicious and all sort of unpleasant things can happen to him and his friends.
    - ascagnel_ 11y ago
      If it was legal when the actions occurred, you cannot be tried. Similarly, if you committed a crime before the law was changed to allow it, then you have still broken the law.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        The point here is that you can be placed on certain watchlists with no due process. No trial is required to be placed on the US no fly list or any countries terror watchlists.
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    At least in the US, 'ex post facto' laws are specifically forbidden by the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      The original poster is called "abritishguy". Assuming this translates to information about his location then his country according to that article (and according to it's lack of formal Constitution) has no such protection.
    - amreact 11y ago
      True, but the US government doesn't even pretend to follow the Constitution anymore. Also, the Constitution can be amended. We can't guarantee that ex post facto laws will remain unconstitutional for the duration of your lifetime. Also, states are technically not obliged to abide by the US constitution.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The first and last paragraphs are incorrect; you may disagree that the federal government actually follows the Constitution, but that's a different issue. And while many provisions of the Constitution address only the federal government, States are still bound by it to the extent it addresses them, as it does, among other places, in the 14th Amendment.
        amreact 11y ago
        The first paragraph is correct because I clearly meant it in figurative language, not literal language. Regardless, my point is this: the US government does not obey the US constitution. The last paragraph is correct in context. Specifically, with regards to encryption, states are allowed to do whatever they want because the Constitution doesn't mention encryption and because of the 10th amendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The last paragraph is also correct because the ex post facto law clause of the Constitution only applies to Congress, not the states [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    The US system is protected by a strong constitution. Others around the world are not so lucky. The point is that these email records are permanent not ephemeral. And therefore they have to be viewed in a more nuanced light. For example something does not have to be a crime to come back and bite you. This could be a job losing issue, an issue that prevents you from running for public office, or even a blackmail issue. For example (and I'm not stating my position on this issue) opposing gay marriage used to in the US be an acceptable moral stance. According to what happened to Brenden Eich this is no longer the case and emails on the topic someone sent 10 years ago might come back to hurt them today.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    Jurisdictions change. "Ukraine’s Parliament Votes To Open Soviet-Era KGB Archives To Public" http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraines-parliament-votes-open-soviet-era-kgb-archives-public-1876756 http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraines-parliament-votes-open-soviet... In "The Internet With a Human Face", Maciej Cegłowski asks: "What happens if Facebook goes out of business, like so many of the social networks that came before it? Or if Facebook gets acquired by a credit agency? How about if it gets acquired by Rupert Murdoch, or taken private by a hedge fund? "What happens to all that data?" http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm That's just one of the problems we're facing.
madez 11y ago
"(Search- and filterability) or end-to-end encryption" is a false dichotomy. You should have both. If you can't get both, then there is something wrong with your setup.
DennisP 11y ago
Searching and filtering your emails is pretty easy to do locally.
Zigurd 11y ago
Actually, yes you do. Unless encryption is everyday and used for mundane messages, it becomes a label that says: "Target this guy and his encrypted traffic."
anc84 11y ago
Would you share your mails with us then?
- abritishguy 11y ago
  I am so tired of this response. Claiming that I don't personally feel the need for a fully enclosed, solid steel cubicle to get changed in doesn't mean I'm happy to get naked in public. I feel that whilst the changing cubicle you find at a public swimming pool wouldn't prevent a determined actor from invading your privacy it provides adequate privacy for me. Yes, servers at Google can read my email - I'm willing to accept the risk of a Googler committing a fireable offence and going through my emails.
  - dredmorbius 11y ago
    It's not just Googlers who might do that. Google's been attacked by national intelligence agents. Notably from China, targeting emails of Tibetian activists. With potentially life-ending condequences. Hackers and theives. Corporate takeovers. The NSA, or GRU, or Mossad, or MI6, ore any of the other various state intelligence agencies throughout the world. Drugs gangs throughout Central and South America. Rogue contractors have been known to walk out of Google with gigabytes of highly secure information. Oh, my error, that was the fucking National Security Agency. If Google can read your email, anyone can. The only question is how the dice roll.
    - abritishguy 11y ago
      I'm happy to accept that risk

JupiterMoon 11y ago

Agreed. The question is. Can you perfectly, always and with regard for potential future changes to what may be sensitive information decide which ones to encrypt? One email sent the wrong way when tired. One change in legislation (to e.g. retrospectively criminalise an activity or legalise a certain type of snooping). Now your company's IP is compromised. Or now your in jail. Or now you can be blackmailed. Furthermore the idea that you will be encrypting the mail may cause tired future you to write something you wouldn't put on a post card. So unless you are perfect and never ever click in the wrong place good luck in this brave world of ours.

malka 11y ago
What insane law system makes an action retrospectively criminal ? Does the US law system allows this ?
- pmontra 11y ago
  I think you can start investigating Joe for an email he sent 10 years ago and that your scanning algorithm picked up from the archive only now. Maybe you're searching for matches with different keywords (the X in "war on X" changed). That email and the actions could have been lawful at the time and now, but Joe could be marked as suspicious and all sort of unpleasant things can happen to him and his friends.
  - ascagnel_ 11y ago
    If it was legal when the actions occurred, you cannot be tried. Similarly, if you committed a crime before the law was changed to allow it, then you have still broken the law.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      The point here is that you can be placed on certain watchlists with no due process. No trial is required to be placed on the US no fly list or any countries terror watchlists.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  At least in the US, 'ex post facto' laws are specifically forbidden by the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    The original poster is called "abritishguy". Assuming this translates to information about his location then his country according to that article (and according to it's lack of formal Constitution) has no such protection.
  - amreact 11y ago
    True, but the US government doesn't even pretend to follow the Constitution anymore. Also, the Constitution can be amended. We can't guarantee that ex post facto laws will remain unconstitutional for the duration of your lifetime. Also, states are technically not obliged to abide by the US constitution.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The first and last paragraphs are incorrect; you may disagree that the federal government actually follows the Constitution, but that's a different issue. And while many provisions of the Constitution address only the federal government, States are still bound by it to the extent it addresses them, as it does, among other places, in the 14th Amendment.
      - amreact 11y ago
        The first paragraph is correct because I clearly meant it in figurative language, not literal language. Regardless, my point is this: the US government does not obey the US constitution. The last paragraph is correct in context. Specifically, with regards to encryption, states are allowed to do whatever they want because the Constitution doesn't mention encryption and because of the 10th amendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The last paragraph is also correct because the ex post facto law clause of the Constitution only applies to Congress, not the states [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  The US system is protected by a strong constitution. Others around the world are not so lucky. The point is that these email records are permanent not ephemeral. And therefore they have to be viewed in a more nuanced light. For example something does not have to be a crime to come back and bite you. This could be a job losing issue, an issue that prevents you from running for public office, or even a blackmail issue. For example (and I'm not stating my position on this issue) opposing gay marriage used to in the US be an acceptable moral stance. According to what happened to Brenden Eich this is no longer the case and emails on the topic someone sent 10 years ago might come back to hurt them today.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Jurisdictions change. "Ukraine’s Parliament Votes To Open Soviet-Era KGB Archives To Public" http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraines-parliament-votes-open-soviet-era-kgb-archives-public-1876756 http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraines-parliament-votes-open-soviet... In "The Internet With a Human Face", Maciej Cegłowski asks: "What happens if Facebook goes out of business, like so many of the social networks that came before it? Or if Facebook gets acquired by a credit agency? How about if it gets acquired by Rupert Murdoch, or taken private by a hedge fund? "What happens to all that data?" http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm http://idlewords.com/bt14.htm That's just one of the problems we're facing.

madez 11y ago

"(Search- and filterability) or end-to-end encryption" is a false dichotomy. You should have both. If you can't get both, then there is something wrong with your setup.

DennisP 11y ago

Searching and filtering your emails is pretty easy to do locally.

Zigurd 11y ago

Actually, yes you do. Unless encryption is everyday and used for mundane messages, it becomes a label that says: "Target this guy and his encrypted traffic."

anc84 11y ago

Would you share your mails with us then?

abritishguy 11y ago
I am so tired of this response. Claiming that I don't personally feel the need for a fully enclosed, solid steel cubicle to get changed in doesn't mean I'm happy to get naked in public. I feel that whilst the changing cubicle you find at a public swimming pool wouldn't prevent a determined actor from invading your privacy it provides adequate privacy for me. Yes, servers at Google can read my email - I'm willing to accept the risk of a Googler committing a fireable offence and going through my emails.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  It's not just Googlers who might do that. Google's been attacked by national intelligence agents. Notably from China, targeting emails of Tibetian activists. With potentially life-ending condequences. Hackers and theives. Corporate takeovers. The NSA, or GRU, or Mossad, or MI6, ore any of the other various state intelligence agencies throughout the world. Drugs gangs throughout Central and South America. Rogue contractors have been known to walk out of Google with gigabytes of highly secure information. Oh, my error, that was the fucking National Security Agency. If Google can read your email, anyone can. The only question is how the dice roll.
  - abritishguy 11y ago
    I'm happy to accept that risk