Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

protonmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–226 of 226 posts

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#221

Post by lern_too_spel »

bitexploder wrote: post #206
lern_too_spel wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing that you conjectured is supported by any documents. Snowden grabbed pretty much everything he could get his hands on as a SharePoint admin, so if any of that were true, it would have made its way into bigger news than the ho-hum stuff that was reported.

https://thinkprogress.org/former-nsa-director-hayden-lied-to... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying “””The undisputed documents show that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that makes copies of all emails web browsing and other Internet traffic to and from AT&T customers and provides those copies to the NSA…

> Secret government documents, published by the media in 2013, confirm the NSA obtains full copies of everything that is carried along major domestic fiber optic cable networks.

This is utter nonsense posted by somebody who has the reading level of a Snowden or a Greenwald. There is no such document. Can you point me to one?

That you pointed to PRISM as an example, a system that processes communications from specifically targeted foreign individuals already obtained by the FBI, shows you haven't read any of the documents.

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#222

Post by privateSFacct »

privateSFacct wrote: post #219
Apaec wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with Google having a competitor, why are you so hyped about?(This is why I think you're a fanatic) Also, why are you so eagerly defending the big guy/monopolist in the room. Is this the attitude of an entrepreneur or hacker? One that is part of the "hacker news" community?

Apaec - can I encourage you to focus on the post / article and make comments about that rather than attacking other posters? If you think this feature (which you don’t need to use) is a “trick” that has no value that is fine - explain why no one should use it - give some examples etc Stop with the whole focus on other posters motivations, calling them “toxic fanatics” etc. Google has lots of competitors - the big one…

@dang - I'm sorry I'm unsure of how this @ mention banning process works. Please do review apaec approach before following their request for a ban.

For example

"I guess it can't be proved that this guy is a shill for AWS. But this kind of toxic fanatism(yet trying to sound logical) is just harmful for the HN community.

dang: Can this kind of behavior be punished?"

as an earlier comment around something to do with AWS. Why does someone "trying to sound logical" mean they are a "shill" or a "toxic fanatic"?

In this thread I'm called a "toxic fanatic" and there is a claim about my support for monopolies and my lack of desire for competition (all of which is totally untrue in actual fact) with no substance regarding the value (or not) of the privacy / confidentiality feature google introduced. I'm also threatened with a ban.

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#223

Post by privateSFacct »

mulmen wrote: post #220
privateSFacct wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some messages are MUCH more sensitive than others. You might have a default 3-5 year rule (many corps do). That’s way too long for some messages. especially if sending across an ou boundary where you don’t know the retention treatment this will be great. Sales teams can be very sloppy w email -> auto import into CRMs, sharing permissions, delegating permissions, running their own optimization apps etc. Because the wa…

Everywhere I have ever worked has a 30 day email retention policy. This would never change message to message. It’s a regulatory issue and you have no reason to retain messages longer than the minimum so you’re better off enforcing it at the server level.

So because most businesses according to your experience retain emails for just 30 days this feature is not needed.

I’m curious if anyone has worked at a place that retains email longer than 30 days, I know I have

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#224

Post by okmokmz »

behringer wrote: post #174
okmokmz wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>as a worker in a corporation, the chances that you would want an email so badly that you start breaking more corporate rules trying to get a copy of an email is very unlikely This seems like it should be true, but having worked with end users in the past I would not take this for granted

You're right? I guess we should just allow end users to do whatever they want. /s

That's not what I said, what I implied, or anywhere close to the point I was making. Nice attempt at a witty comment I guess...

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#225

Post by politician »

joshuamorton wrote: post #175
politician wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an arms race. Allow me to use an iris app on my smartphone to defeat your iris-reading DRM while I take a video of the content. It's not possible to do what Gmail wants to do without a SCIF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_Compartmented_Inform...

You're making broadly wrong assumptions about what Gmail wants to do here.

As an employee of a very large corporation, are you trying to claim a special inside knowledge about the strategic thinking of the corporation. Are you in or do you report to the C-suite?

If not, consider that you might be making your own broadly wrong assumptions.

Re: Gmail confidential mode is not secure or private

#226

Post by [deleted] »

politician wrote: post #225
joshuamorton wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making broadly wrong assumptions about what Gmail wants to do here.

As an employee of a very large corporation, are you trying to claim a special inside knowledge about the strategic thinking of the corporation. Are you in or do you report to the C-suite? If not, consider that you might be making your own broadly wrong assumptions.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN