11–20 of 79 posts
If they really said that, that's amazingly weak and clumsy.
I would have been impressed if they had openly said it's because they can't analyze your email for ads and targeting.
In fact I'd be very impressed if they said up front, briefly and not implied in a ToS book, that the reason you get free email is so they can read your email.
"Because translation." If they really said that, that's amazingly weak and clumsy. I would have been impressed if they had openly said it's because they can't analyze your email for ads and targeting. In fact I'd be very impressed if they said up front, briefly and not implied in a ToS book, that the reason you get free email is so they can read your email.
The fact that they went with a dodge suggests they know that they risk a lot of blowback if people started to learn about their actual business plan.
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.
[1] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/gpg-and-me/
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/08/09/e-mails-bi...
From my perspective, what I miss with decryption only in the client (where the mail database is stored encrypted) is search. That's also the primary value of Google Apps for me. Easy encryption across the Internet would be more valuable to me than encrypted storage, but the option to have encrypted storage for things that are really private would make sense. I tend to opt for alternate channels with no storage in tho…
Yet another casualty of "software as a service". There could be better search tools on the client, but the fad for the last decade has been to push vendor lock-in and data mining instead of installable client apps. So now the full consequences of those choices are starting to be recognized.
I remember end-to-end vs. point-to-point from my crypto class back in the Pleistocene, so I thought I'd share the analogy my professor used just because I loved it: In WW2, the Allied Navies faced two main naval code strategies: Germany's and Japan's. Roughly, the Japanese Navy sent their routing information in plaintext, while the Kriegsmarin sent it in ciphertext. Because the German routing instructions were encryp…
More convincing than translation would be spam filtering. I think end-to-end encryption would make spam filtering a lot more difficult.
Anyone who says that PGP is not meant for common use has 20+ years of history clearly proving them right. Moxie doesn't believe it in[1], even PGP's own creator doesn't use it any more[2]. OP is trying to make news out of nothing. [1] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/gpg-and-me/ [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/08/09/e-mails-bi...