[v8dev123]

Encryption is "obscurity". For example, Quantum computers will break RSA.

> Quantum computers will break RSA

Now here it will take X amount of time so is breaking any protection like DRM.

The goal of any security method is increasing attack time.

TLS got attacked, SSL got attacked. History repeats itself. Period.

> Oh, and there's no need to call people "communists", "attackers", or "criminal scum". Be civil.

Why? I have a right to use these terms. What should I use instead?

Would you call Osama Bin Laden as "His Highness Bin Laden"?

The words exists for reason. I use them in appropriate context.

People don't understand Russian soul. I'm very direct and speak my mind!

>> Second, several other email providers don't think they need to rely on some performance-killing DRM to "protect" their web app (oh no, what of all the value!).

>> Outlook has a part of their files minified, but doesn't use any obfuscation; apps like ProtonMail[0] and Tutanota[1] are even open source.

So? What's your point?

You have Linux which is Open Source and you have Windows (A lot of parts including their licencing is obfuscated)

The performance hit is minimal. ProtonMail & Tutanota are way slower than GMail and lack cutting edge features we offer.

Gmail vs Outlook is like Ferrari vs Toyota.

Gmail has great UX even my grandmother can use it.

[emn13]

The point is that nobody relevant is going to get stopped by this DRM. That's because nobody relevant is likely to even try copying it in the first place, and if an economically relevant party were so unwise, I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. They might learn some tricks sure, but the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none. (And if there really is some kind of secret sauce that needs protecting, relying on DRM seems quite... optimistic. Finally, we're only talking front-end here, not backend; and surely that's at least as important a part of the value proposition here.

While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it.

[v8dev123]

>> I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won.

Attackers don't care about laws. All they care about their end goal.

You have fraudsters who game the AdWords, reCaptcha etc

Gmail is a strategic tool.

>> the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none

You are underestimating value of Gmail product. I'm not allowed to share what kind of value the client side has but it certainly does.

>> While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it.

Again, you are underestimating value Gmail provides to consumers.

This country is a democracy. Companies can obfuscate or de obfuscate code at their wish whether there is value or not.

Privacy people can use Privacy oriented tools or go build their own seriously.

DRM is a billion dollar industry!

[emn13]

How exactly is a post-logged-in-app obfuscation supposed to be relevant to fraudsters that game the AdWords and reCaptcha etc?

Obviously people and corporations can choose to obfuscate; their prerogative. Doesn't mean it's effective nor wise in every instance, though, does it? Gmail is entirely free to waste effort and make its app slower and less (easily) maintainable, no question there.

[v8dev123]

The same fraudsters are gaming Gmail. Using web interface to send emails using Google Source IPs.

You might call them spammers but they are often fraudsters.

[emn13]

So your claim is that they can't automate the UI (well) via conventional browser automation tools, and can't access whatever endpoints gmail the client-side-app uses without being detected, but could if the code wasn't obfuscated?

[oxylibrium]

> The performance hit is minimal.

I'll bite once again - from personal experience, I knew Gmail is slower than ProtonMail, but I tested it anyway. I loaded both Gmail and ProtonMail, using the browser's profiler. Gmail spent 6x the time ProtonMail did in the garbage collector, and 2x the time ProtonMail spent in the JIT compiler.

DRM is a contributor to that.

[v8dev123]

6x is minimal for me considering how complex Gmail is. It's not that slow. I can use it quickly and get up running and it's okay for anyone unless you're a person who is not patient for few seconds.

You always have the option for loading "Basic HTML" and you can get Protonmail or Toyota like experience there ;)

I don't know what's your agenda really is. Attacking DRMs are bad.

You have issues like spammers abusing Gmail interface to send emails using Google IPs and there DRM rocks.