Google Transparency Report
transparencyreport.google.com
Google Transparency Report
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Google Transparency Report
#2The "domain by % encryption" table[0] is really cool - effectively a "name and shame" for still having old or misconfigured software.
0: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?h...
Re: Google Transparency Report
#3The "domain by % encryption" table[0] is really cool - effectively a "name and shame" for still having old or misconfigured software. 0: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?h...
And for email that's only looking for Opportunistic Encryption.
On the deliver-to-Google side that's only checking if they bothered doing TLS, and doesn't try to guess whether they'd fall back to insecure delivery if it was blocked, whether they check certificates, whether they allow archaic old ciphersuites and other configuration that's unsafe or anything like that.
On the accept-mail-from-Google side that's not penalising them if they don't have plausibly trustworthy certificates, or they don't speak any modern ciphersuites or protocol versions, only if they literally can't accept TLS.
Google offers an envelope versus postcard analogy, and that's exactly appropriate. Opportunistic encryption, like the envelope, means probably a postal delivery worker didn't bother reading your letter, it'd be a hassle. But anyone who is in the snooping business, like an intelligence agency or a direct adversary, OE doesn't stop them.
Re: Google Transparency Report
#4The "domain by % encryption" table[0] is really cool - effectively a "name and shame" for still having old or misconfigured software. 0: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?h...
It seems very poorly written to me and more likely to confuse the lay audience it appears to be aimed at. If you read it carefully, you can see where it neatly checks off the things a technical person might complain about but the overall impression it gives is that encryption is something like forest fires or vaccinations, requiring a universal effort. The actual privacy implications are not really explained.
Re: Google Transparency Report
#5For those curious, the spike in National Security takedown requests in 2016-2017 seems to have been largely driven by requests from the Russian government (which have since petered out), not the United States.
https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/by...
Somewhat interestingly, the biggest takedown requests in the U.S. seems to be due defamation lawsuits, and they come from the judicial (not executive) branch.
https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/by...
Not sure what to make of this; but it's interesting. :)
Re: Google Transparency Report
#6The "domain by % encryption" table[0] is really cool - effectively a "name and shame" for still having old or misconfigured software. 0: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email/overview?h...
Also, if you enable "green" email, you seem to get Google's top 10 email exchangers overall. You can even drill down by region.
Re: Google Transparency Report
#7Adding a link to Facebook Transparency Report: https://transparency.facebook.com/
Re: Google Transparency Report
#8Adding a link to Facebook Transparency Report: https://transparency.facebook.com/
Facebook and a lot of others are listed at the bottom of Googles page.
Re: Google Transparency Report
#9I think it's kind of funny that China has tried to get over 10,000 items removed, with the majority of government takedown requests happening in the past two years it seems[0], given that Google is officially banned in the country.
[0]: https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/by...
Re: Google Transparency Report
#10The political advertising section is fascinating. You can see exactly what ads each entity ran, when, and how many impressions they received. Surprising to see the GOP dominate the spending overall!
I could spend hours here.