| > 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. |
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.