131–140 of 206 posts
I would like to see Gmail offer end-to-end encryption for "confidential" emails.
How are they supposed to do that on the protocol level?
If the person has the key, they can decrypt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assumed it was in the context of advertising. You literally can't have an email service that doesn't process your emails somehow. Spam filtering and phishing protection has to work on the content of the email, the act of sending email needs to read parts of it to send it. At the absolute least they need to "read" your email to store it's contents and send/display them. If that is something you want to prevent, then…
The OP mentioned Google reading their email and does not mention the context of advertising you assumed. Another poster pointed out that Google no longer scans Gmail for advertising purposes anyways: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-email... . I understand what you are saying about all email getting "processed" however, Google is doing way more to process email than spam protection or else they…
None of those things are "external people we automatically share your email with". They're "Google" and the people who you'd ask for help when you call a customer service line.
I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…
Except that the last two don't change much while keeping pace with first is like riding a tiger. You can never get off.
I would like to see Gmail offer end-to-end encryption for "confidential" emails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long before someone makes a chrome browser plugin that will automatically screenshot and download any message flagged in this manner? Completely agree with your last sentiment. We all assume that "kids these days" grow up well aware of these things, but my experience to date has been that new hires are disturbingly unaware of these things.
The "kids are tech savvy these days" narrative seems pretty ridiculous once you consider the fact that most of them have never so much as manually installed a piece of software that didn't involve an "app store" on a touchscreen device.
They don't know computers any more then they know toasters. They push a button and get a result. If not reboot it and push button again.
I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…
There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…
> This also helps with email retention policies. Sometimes you want ephemeral communications you don't want a record of.
This IMO is a lost battle. Once "Sent" gets pressed you should assume the message is out in the wild (any retention policies only complicate experience and can be ignored/countered by clients). If you want ephemeral communication, pick up the phone or talk face to face. My 2c.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is nothing more than a "me-too" feature to stack up one more checkbox in the gmail vs exchange sales pitch https://support.office.com/en-us/article/mark-your-email-as-...
I imagine they will show confidential emails to other gmail users inline, but make a link for non gmail users. It is in Google's interest to make GMail less and less the same as "plain mail", until you are forced (for practical reasons) to create a Gmail account to interact with other Gmail users. Together with Amp and Chrome, eventually we will be at a point where the decentralized internet is replaced by Google's s…
I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…
There are two schools of thought: 1) Security has to be enforced by code 2) Your employees are reasonable, and won't try to maliciously bypass security controls I'm firmly in camp #2. In a normal corporate setting, a locked door or a locked cabinet is security, even with a cheap, easily pickable lock. That's all this is. And for 95% of corporate applications, that's good enough. If you have high-level executive crime…
But if you're taking screenshots or photos of a secure e-mail because it doesn't allow you to copy the text, you know you're doing wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Airbnb app prevents screenshots on certain pages on the OS level on Android, I'm sure the Gmail app will do the same.
Worthless from a security standpoint, because the screenshots can still be taken from a desktop or laptop device.
I don't use AirBnB so I can't actually think why you'd want to disable screenshots in certain places. I'm curious now though, can someone tell me?
I feel that many of these pseudo-secure, proprietary enhancements to email create a false sense of security for non-tech-savvy users. Given the smoke-and-mirrors presentation of this as a way to "secure your email^tm" and the plethora of recent info leaks, i am sure some poor c-level exec will get caught inadvertently sharing something with an external recipient thinking that it will disappear in a few days, but then…