Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

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 you, for instance, which is not the case for almost all normal communications).

The mere existence of a third party does not negate the reasonable expectation of privacy, otherwise no third party communication system would be safe from warrantless searches. What has long mattered is the reasonable expectation of privacy, which under current case law does not always but in many situations does override any details like the extent that a third party is involved in that communication (for instance, cc-ing Larry Page on an email does not make a message suddenly have no expectation of privacy any more than sending it to anyone else, as the limited list of recipients makes it on its face not for publication or public posting).

> It is the insertion of an active third party into the communication which is a problem. Its a problem because it damages the inherent idea of 'mail' as a sender-recipient private relation (post office =/= an active recipient). And from here, the problems start.

Again, this is wrong. The fact that there are people at the post office, people that could open your mail, people that do actively examine your mail for things like drugs or bombs does not negate your 4th amendment protections. Are you reading anything I'm writing? That's directly addressed in the quote three posts above this one.

> In any event, I think you are missing the legal abstraction at the core of the analysis.

This is just silly. What you are suggesting is that the third party doctrine has overruled all, and that merely using an email provider that scans for spam or looks for abuse has left you open for warrantless searches (which is almost all of them except ones your run yourself since open mail relays are virtually extinct). Not only have you provided no evidence for this belief, the ECPA says you are wrong for emails newer than 180 days, and it looks increasingly unlikely that the courts will agree with you for emails that are older.

You appear to be confusing Google saying that people sending email to users of gmail expect their emails to be handled by the machines that run gmail (or they should, because that's the only way it can physically work) with an argument about the 4th amendment. Breathe easy. That is not the case. Whether or not Google is breaching the plaintiff's expectation of privacy (and it would, again, be bad news for every email provider out there if they are found to), scanning your email is not publicly posting your email, and this tort case has no bearing on your 4th amendment protections from searches by the government. This was established in Katz v US 46 years ago, and remains true today.

Thank you for providing your insights, it is important to know that the data on the disks is encrypted. I know about the encryption (https) between the browsers and Google's services - Google was one of the first actually to switch the services to https.

But I have to say that I am still quite surprised that there is no encryption between data centres. Working from time to time for industrial customers, on business critical software, most of the time it is required to encrypt data between servers, even when the hardware is in the same building, because they are afraid of leaks/attacks from inside.

I think Google has to do some explanation to the public about their security. Though I do not know if it is not too late for some google users.

Includes in the output: Server public key is 2048 bit ... Protocol : TLSv1.2 Cipher : ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (ie: not RC4, as long as your client supports non RC4 ciphers, uses ECDHE for PFS) and: TLS session ticket lifetime hint: 100800 (seconds) (session keys are discarded by the client every 1d4h, so presumably the server rotates them every 24 hours or so (4hrs to allow for clock skew, I assume, or to allow for the fact that people might be slightly late on something they check every 24 hours (eg when the wake up each morning)))

Nobody is going to make the change from 1024 bit keys to something else without first verifying that the new bit length is "secure enough" for a reasonable enough time (if nothing else, you don't want to have to go through the expense of the process of getting everything upgraded more often than you have to). Although you're right, it would be nice if they published their reasoning.

I don't know how to verify the security of hangouts. Looking at the webrtc standard, it doesn't appear to support encryption. There is also a lot of opposition to standardising encryption for webRTC because of "DRM" concerns. So I guess it's probably not encrypted, but don't quote me on that.

Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee.

Ah, but convincing folks to run SSL inside the corporate firewall leads me to believe that Google may have treated the fiber between datacenters as not actually leaving the property.

(Yes, it is a tough sell to get folks to run SSL inside.)

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.