Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

tutanota.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

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

#21

Post by JupiterMoon »

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…

Agreed. The question is. Can you perfectly, always and with regard for potential future changes to what may be sensitive information decide which ones to encrypt?

One email sent the wrong way when tired. One change in legislation (to e.g. retrospectively criminalise an activity or legalise a certain type of snooping). Now your company's IP is compromised. Or now your in jail. Or now you can be blackmailed.

Furthermore the idea that you will be encrypting the mail may cause tired future you to write something you wouldn't put on a post card.

So unless you are perfect and never ever click in the wrong place good luck in this brave world of ours.

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

#22

Post by JupiterMoon »

pdkl95 wrote: post #17
mattmcknight wrote: post #12

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…

> what I miss with decryption only in the client ... is search 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 dunno. Thunderbird has pretty decent global search now.

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

#23

Post by pdkl95 »

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 they suspiciously ask what was so important that you needed to hide it? No, wrapping your mail in an envelope was commonplace.

This is what we need to do for digital messages: wrap them in an envelope (encryption). More importantly, we need a culture that sees sending encryption as normal. You may not be sending anything important at the moment, but other people are, and if encryption is only used for "important" things, it invites suspicion.

If Google has a problem with this, I suggest they find a new business plan.

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

#25

Post by bandrami »

tomjen3 wrote: post #18
bandrami wrote: post #8

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…

Why not encrypt the routing separately?

I simplified. They did encrypt the routing separately but it was essentially a known plaintext attack because you could see which ships moved after which transmission.

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

#26

Post by realusername »

mattmcknight wrote: post #12

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…

Nothing is technically preventing the client to retrieve indexes built client-side beforehand when reading the email. The main problem is everything is currently made to make the client dumb and the server the ultimate source of truth.

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

#28

Post by lectrick »

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…

Martin Fowler's seminal essay on why privacy is important at a societal-change level is also relevant:

http://martinfowler.com/articles/bothersome-privacy.html

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

#29

Post by y0ghur7_xxx »

a3n wrote: post #11

"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.

> If they really said that, that's amazingly weak and clumsy.

He did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJdGblrWX9o&t=273

Post reply on HN