Live data from Hacker News

Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

washingtonpost.com

151–153 of 153 posts

Re: Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would spam filtering or searching work in such a service?

Spam filtering: Step 1. Spam filter Step 2. Encrypt Searching: Client side tool which builds a local index as messages are decrypted to be read for the first time. The index is it's self encrypted and incrementally synced between clients. That took me less than 5 seconds to think up. Google can spend time and money thinking up better solutions if they want to actually do something.

If there's any sort of processing on incoming data, then there's going to be a lot of unencrypted copies floating around in various caches and intermediate staging systems. A secure system requires encrypting the data right off the wire, before it's stored anywhere.

Search indexes are very large -- you don't want to double or triple the amount of storage your email client uses. Also, being able to search only mail that you've downloaded and decrypted is a terrible user experience. I'd estimate over 60% of the mail to my personal inbox is from some automated system, rather than directly from a human, and I typically don't look at them unless a search hits them.

It takes 5 seconds to think of solutions with terrible security and usability characteristics. Thinking of a system that will be a measurable improvement in security and will actually be used by people is much more difficult.

Re: Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spam filtering: Step 1. Spam filter Step 2. Encrypt Searching: Client side tool which builds a local index as messages are decrypted to be read for the first time. The index is it's self encrypted and incrementally synced between clients. That took me less than 5 seconds to think up. Google can spend time and money thinking up better solutions if they want to actually do something.

If there's any sort of processing on incoming data, then there's going to be a lot of unencrypted copies floating around in various caches and intermediate staging systems. A secure system requires encrypting the data right off the wire, before it's stored anywhere. Search indexes are very large -- you don't want to double or triple the amount of storage your email client uses. Also, being able to search only mail th…

These are all easily solvable issues. But to get back to the point of this thread: Google has done nothing to help secure peoples email.

The fact that you can't identify any ways in which they could, or refuse to acknowledge them, or think they're too difficult for a multi-billion dollar company makes no difference to the point under discussion.

Re: Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

#153
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you quote is me arguing that your premise that contextual advertising is somehow distinct compared to scanning for spam both in function and legal implication is flawed. Its flawed because that premise is at once irrelevant and falsely asserted. Neither a spam filter nor contextual advertising are inherent to private communication. What is relevant to private communication is that it is private . If I CC larry p…

You are off in the weeds. > What is relevant to private communication is that it is private This is not the basis for 4th amendment protections. You are also confusing things: attorney-client privilege comes to us from Common Law, not the 4th amendment and is not a good basis for discussing what is private, as there are many more restrictions on it (a warrant can almost never compel your attorney to testify against y…

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/secret-court-decl...
Post reply on HN