Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much • Hacker News Board

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#31

Post by jordanthoms » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:30 AM UTC

blfr wrote: post #16

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...

Actually, I suspect PGP usage is increasing right now. It's very commonly used in darknet markets, and they are growing very quickly and will probably continue to do so.

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#32

Post by harmarsupercar » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:31 AM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #23

https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html In case anybody hasn't read it yet, Philip Zimmermann's essay on why he wrote PGP is very relevant to this discussion. Google is effectively saying envelopes are not meant for common use. Did you send everything by postcard back in the snail-mail days, only using an envelope when the contents was very-important? If someone saw you mailing an envelope, did the…

Totally agree. The fact we happily send so much data around :/ clear text has always irked me. The only layer of protection is that there's probably no one interested enough to look

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#33

Post by mikkohypponen » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:32 AM UTC

For what it's worth, I spoke at re:publica right after Eric, and commented a bit on Google's privacy goals.

Video: http://youtu.be/pbF0sVdOjRw

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#34

Post by lectrick » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:32 AM UTC

CHY872 wrote: post #24

philippnagel wrote: post #7

I say it is. Who's right?

20 years of history at least provides evidence for you being wrong.

Paper envelopes dating back to 2300 years ago in China at least provides evidence for you being wrong.

User-unfriendliness ≠ "not meant for"

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#35

Post by madez » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:45 AM UTC

abritishguy wrote: post #15

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 perfectl…

"(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.

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#36

Post by mcintyre1994 » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:47 AM UTC

I wish there was a real quote here, because I find it hard to believe his only example of a Google value add is translation. Personally I'm happy to use Gmail for insecure communication as long as I can keep search - it'd be utterly unusable without.

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#37

Post by tormeh » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:48 AM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #23

https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html In case anybody hasn't read it yet, Philip Zimmermann's essay on why he wrote PGP is very relevant to this discussion. Google is effectively saying envelopes are not meant for common use. Did you send everything by postcard back in the snail-mail days, only using an envelope when the contents was very-important? If someone saw you mailing an envelope, did the…

Not really a valid comparison. Encrypting a message is more like sending your letter in a titanium safe.

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#38

Post by pcrh » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:53 AM UTC

tormeh wrote: post #37

pdkl95 wrote: post #23

https://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html In case anybody hasn't read it yet, Philip Zimmermann's essay on why he wrote PGP is very relevant to this discussion. Google is effectively saying envelopes are not meant for common use. Did you send everything by postcard back in the snail-mail days, only using an envelope when the contents was very-important? If someone saw you mailing an envelope, did the…

Not really a valid comparison. Encrypting a message is more like sending your letter in a titanium safe.

It isn't so bad. Tampering with mail is a federal crime.

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#39

Post by DennisP » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:57 AM UTC

abritishguy wrote: post #15

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 perfectl…

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

Re: Re:publica 15: Google Promotes Privacy, But Not Too Much

#40

Post by woodman » Mon, May 11, 2015, 11:58 AM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #14

More convincing than translation would be spam filtering. I think end-to-end encryption would make spam filtering a lot more difficult.

Proof of work. Every email the spammer sends out would need to be properly encrypted (or else the target wouldn't see your ads). This would actually put a lot of control in the hands of the user - set the amount of work required to mail you through key strength. Spammers would absolutely hate this, it would be like the USPS requiring bulk mailers to prove they aren't spamming by including the recipient name (not "Current resident" or "Our friend at").