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

Gmail confidential mode

gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#81

Post by enriquto »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #61
enriquto wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Airbnb app prevents screenshots on certain pages on the OS level on Android it is creepily dystopian that this sort of behavior is even possible

I think you're overreacting there and misappropriating that term to express your outrage, without thinking of realistic use cases. It's a security feature. Bank apps and 2FA apps probably have it as well when displaying sensitive information. In Airbnb it's probably a protective measure to avoid sharing information via screenshots instead of links to the app / website though. That's not dystopian either though.

> It's a security feature. Bank apps and 2FA apps probably have it as well

And I would be creeped out as well by a bank website disabling the ability to take screenshots!

The computer is mine to command. I simply do not find acceptable that a user program can disable basic functionality.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#82

Post by Spivak »

drglitch wrote: post #72

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…

This feature isn't about security. Email is already pretty secure with TLS and DKIM. This is basically the equivalent of the "DO NO FORWARD" header people use for internal-only information but with a little more UX polish.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#83

Post by somebehemoth »

Klathmon wrote: post #76
somebehemoth wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm probably misunderstanding "read your emails" but the link you provided suggests that GSuite users are very much subject to their "emails being read" but with greater restrictions on who can read it and why ( https://gsuite.google.com/terms/dpa_terms.html ). Lots of text about following EU or other legislation, but definitely this text does not say, "Google does not process your email." There is an entire page ded…

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 would not need a massive agreement and a separate page listing subprocessors and further breaking those subprocessors down by region and noting whether they are internal or external to Google.

I think my point is simply agreeing that I think it is too bad Google does all this "processing" of user data and that GSuite offers some protection, but not enough.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#84

Post by acdha »

josteink wrote: post #70
incompatible wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't really sending email any more, just a link to a website.

Also requiring the recipient to log into Google to allow google to track them.

I agree that this is something to be concerned about but according to the instructions it doesn't require a Google login so you could do the entire session in a private browsing window if you wanted as long as you can get the verification code by SMS or the email address.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#85

Post by milankragujevic »

drglitch wrote: post #72

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…

If it makes you feel better, I had an "security online" course in middle school and high school, but had no drivers ed or sex ed at all, from primary to high school to college :) Serbia is the country.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#86

Post by numbsafari »

drglitch wrote: post #72

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…

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.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#87

Post by nmstoker »

Looks like they should clarify the bounds of this functionality. Obviously they know who they're talking about, but good communication wouldn't assume the reader does.

Presumably it's only working within a G Suite organisation (equivalent to aspects of similar features in Exchange)

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#88

Post by Spivak »

realusername wrote: post #62
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overreacting there and misappropriating that term to express your outrage, without thinking of realistic use cases. It's a security feature. Bank apps and 2FA apps probably have it as well when displaying sensitive information. In Airbnb it's probably a protective measure to avoid sharing information via screenshots instead of links to the app / website though. That's not dystopian either though.

It's not a "security" feature, anything which can be displayed can be captured, you can even take a picture of your phone with another phone if you want, it just makes users annoyed without adding any security.

Just because you can get around a policy doesn't make it ineffective. I'm sure that slight barrier reduced the number of people taking screenshots of their bank app 99%. Perfect is the enemy of good.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#89

Post by npongratz »

josteink wrote: post #70
incompatible wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't really sending email any more, just a link to a website.

Also requiring the recipient to log into Google to allow google to track them.

And conditioning users to click on links they see in emails. Ugh.

Re: Gmail confidential mode

#90

Post by gnode »

prima-facie wrote: post #36

This has the potential to create a huge legal headache. We can no longer rely on email to be there in our archive and presented as evidence in court, but now have to worry about expiry. In many countries an exchange of emails which represents a series of terms, restrictions, an offer, and finally acceptance can be considered a legally binding contract between parties and can be presented in court. With expiry and ema…

I think the alternative reality we're entering is one where we cannot communicate without record. We coped in the past, where putting something in writing was the exception, not the default. As direct vocal communication becomes less common, it highlights the importance of being able to speak off-the-record.

That said, these measures provide little guarantee of that.

Post reply on HN