[fserb]

as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is. Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof. Fuck that. Name on technology that is so. Air gapping isn't. Granted, air gapping allows you to at least know about it. But that's that.

"invasions of privacy" is not a use case. Give me details. By whom? Your partner? Your coworker? 4chan? Your mayor? Russia? What information are they getting from you? Why? It's very likely that whatever use case you come up with, you are better defended with 2auth gmail than with whatever other solution.

That's a problem with the web. In 15 years, and not counting legal government requests, there were what? 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught? 5? That's your "provably bullshit"? What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this?

[CaptSpify]

> as I said, government intrusion can't be defended as is.

yes it can. zero-knowledge encryption is already a thing.

> Name one web technology that is government intrusion proof.

Apparently the iPhone is. pgp encryption is another one. I'd suggest brushing up on basic security before saying things like that.

> "invasions of privacy" is not a use case.

Why not?

> By whom?

By anyone that I don't authorize. Sure, that could be my partner, coworker, any government authority, etc.

> What information are they getting from you?

Are you serious? If you don't even understand that threat model, then again, I'd suggest looking in basic security models.

> you are better defended with 2auth gmail

2auth gmail is orthogonal to the issue. That's an security method. Currently Google does that but still can grant access to anyone they want. That's a problem that 2auth doesn't address.

> not counting legal government requests

Why not? Why remove a legitimate security issue from the discussion?

> 3 cases of email data breaches that were caught

I have no idea how many have been caught, once again, that's orthogonal to the issue. How many examples doesn't matter. It's that they do have access and can do it whenever they want.

> What do you use on your life that has a lower failure rate than this?

That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense.

[fserb]

> Apparently the iPhone is

If you are referring to the San Bernardino phone thingy, the FBI withdrew the request exactly because they did access the phone by themselves. It just cost more money.

> pgp encryption is another one

lol. Isn't there tons of reports claiming that PGP leaks too much metadata? And that the NSA is collecting those? And that there's no reasonable way to use PGP without leaking those (like hidden-sender whatever).

> > "invasions of privacy" is not a use case. > Why not?

Because I want specifics. Just saying someone "invaded your privacy" doesn't tell me anything. Tell me a full story: entity X did Y to know Z from W. And show me how using gmail made W more unsafe on that case. And what I'm trying to tell you, is that there are two cases:

- legal government related. In which case Google can't (and won't) protect you. It's a fair claim. If you are doing something that the US government wants to know about, don't use gmail. But most things won't protect you from that anyway. Ask Dread Pirate Roberts about it. :)

- non-government related. In which case you are better protected with gmail than most things you can reasonably do. Ask Hillary Clinton. :)

> That's a completely illogical argument. "We shouldn't ensure privacy/security because other things in life fail more often" makes no sense.

Where did I say we shouldn't ensure privacy/security? What I'm refuting is your claim that "it's bullshit because it failed once". Gmail does a better job than most other things. Most things in your life fail more often than that. And most things don't evolve security/privacy wise as well as gmail does.

[CaptSpify]

> the FBI withdrew the request exactly because they did access the phone by themselves

As far as I saw, that was just speculation. Any source on that? I'm inclined to believe it, but if true: why do they want the encryption removed rather than just snooping that data on the sly? It's better if your victims think they are secure.

> lol. Isn't there tons of reports claiming that PGP leaks too much metadata? And that the NSA is collecting those? And that there's no reasonable way to use PGP without leaking those (like hidden-sender whatever).

Possibly. But if so, I haven't seen them. Sources please.

While meta-data is absolutely useful, contents are even more useful. Just because something has one security issue doens't mean that we should give up security altogether.

> Because I want specifics

What specifics? Do you want me to make up a story about how someone could use information to attack someone else? or to use existing examples: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/04/world/americas/silk-road-ross-... https://cpj.org/blog/2017/06/how-surveillance-trolls-and-fea... These are just 2 examples I pulled from a 5 minute search.

This isn't anything new. Having access to communication is pretty much the basis for espionage. If you don't see how that applies.... I'm not sure I can help you.

> legal government related. In which case Google can't (and won't) protect you

That's my point. They can protect you, they choose not to. Zero-knowledge encryption is still a thing. Just because Google doesn't use it doesn't mean it's not possible.

> non-government related. In which case you are better protected with gmail than most things you can reasonably do. Ask Hillary Clinton. :)

Only if Google can't access that data. If they can, it's much easier to bypass encryption and just ask Google to hand it over. Google can solve this problem but chooses not to.

> Where did I say we shouldn't ensure privacy/security?

When you say that gmail should be trusted. There are clear privacy/security holes with their model that you are ignoring. That's what this whole discussion is about.

> What I'm refuting is your claim that "it's bullshit because it failed once"

A) It didn't just fail once.

B) Failing just once proves that the system is not secure, and needs to be fixed. Failing multiple times from the same attack vector proves that they aren't taking security/privacy seriously, because they won't fix the root problem.

> Most things in your life fail more often than that

... so? Whether thing A fails more often than thing B has no bearing on whether thing B can and will fail.