21–30 of 45 posts
Anyone still using Google services since the NSA revelations is an idiot. I'd like to see them bankrupt after their betrayal of their do-no-evil and open source roots.
Care to name a good alternative then? And a good way to notify hundreds of people and companies to change my address to a new one,and convince dozens of friends to stop using hangouts and use X instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take "Because Google's entire business model around email is processing it to serve relevant ads next to it, which requires that they be able to read it" for $1000, Alex.
They could still do that in a secure way, client-side, if they wanted: when content is displayed in-browser, javascript could parse it, send home relevant words (on an encrypted channel), and receive relevant ads. The server would have to ensure that data is not saved, or it's anonymously aggregated right away -- you'll have to trust their word on that, but that'll always be the case. Computationally expensive, maybe…
So - encrypt everything and send the keys trough snail mail? They can't read legally the mail right?
Encrypt everything, and post your public key on any keyserver you choose. There is very little sensitive information in a public key (though it can tie you socially to another party, in a cryptographically strong manner, for those who are concerned about such things).
But the point is that an out-of-band and secure key transfer isn't required.
It's like Google is asking their users to leave their service. How about creating a Lavabit-like solution instead, Google, instead of telling users that "if you use our service, you have no expectation of privacy"?
I'll take "Because Google's entire business model around email is processing it to serve relevant ads next to it, which requires that they be able to read it" for $1000, Alex.
I'm 100% sure besides showing "relevent ads" in real time as you check your mail, they also keep a huge profile for your account name, cross check with all their other services and mainly search, and generally have a file on you and your preferences.
And that's besides sharing your email with their government friends.
So - encrypt everything and send the keys trough snail mail? They can't read legally the mail right?
PKI specifically means you don't have to rely on secure key transfer. Encrypt everything, and post your public key on any keyserver you choose. There is very little sensitive information in a public key (though it can tie you socially to another party, in a cryptographically strong manner, for those who are concerned about such things). But the point is that an out-of-band and secure key transfer isn't required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take "Because Google's entire business model around email is processing it to serve relevant ads next to it, which requires that they be able to read it" for $1000, Alex.
Why does everyone assumes it's just about the "automated processing" they do? I'm 100% sure besides showing "relevent ads" in real time as you check your mail, they also keep a huge profile for your account name, cross check with all their other services and mainly search, and generally have a file on you and your preferences. And that's besides sharing your email with their government friends.
Anyone still using Google services since the NSA revelations is an idiot. I'd like to see them bankrupt after their betrayal of their do-no-evil and open source roots.
>>Anyone still using Google services since the NSA revelations is an idiot Care to name a good alternative then? And a good way to notify hundreds of people and companies to change my address to a new one,and convince dozens of friends to stop using hangouts and use X instead?
Gmail: Self-hosted qmail or exim
Google Maps: OpenStreetMap
Hangouts: Jitsi
Android: Firefox OS
Search: Startpage
Chrome: Firefox
Google Drive: ownCloud
The "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties" quote has been massively taken out of context by everyone who is covering this story. The overall case appears to be about people complaining that Google scanning their emails and showing contextual ads is a privacy violation. Most of this document is an explanation of why that shouldn't hold (Gmail users…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could still do that in a secure way, client-side, if they wanted: when content is displayed in-browser, javascript could parse it, send home relevant words (on an encrypted channel), and receive relevant ads. The server would have to ensure that data is not saved, or it's anonymously aggregated right away -- you'll have to trust their word on that, but that'll always be the case. Computationally expensive, maybe…
I think it's a little naive to assume Google just matches a few words in each email and serves ads based on that.
Quote: "...they nonetheless impliedly consent to Google’s practices by virtue of the fact that all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing. Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient’s assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the…
I use google apps now, but when I ran my own mail server multiple binaries took a whack at every mail I received to decide if it was junk. I couldn't imagine modern email without doing that.