Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6174465" data-attributes="member: 8835">I'd bet you pay money for that secure service, and that it does NOT operate like normal email.One of the factoids I forgot to mention, as it may form some of the basis for Google's position is that basic email is NOT secure per its specification.SMTP is the protocol used and it does not guarrantee delivery or secrecy.When I send an email from my server to yours, it is transmitted in clear text.&nbsp; Anybody with a packet sniffer that is sitting between our servers on the network could intercept those bytes and read the message.thus, there is no expectation of privacy in the sense that your email is safe from criminals or even someone doing a network test for an unrealted and legitimate reason.Truly secure email requires more technical aspects to be aligned.If you and I work in the same company running Exchange for instance, mailing something to you is secure because Exchange talks to itself with its own protocol.If you work at a different company, IT can setup TLS (forget what it stands for) between our 2 servers and that can be secure.If both parties are on the same server, the data never leaves the server.&nbsp; For example If I email Vyvyan from my hotmail to his, then it is secure by virtue of it never traveled outside of Microsoft.In the case of services offering Secure Email, they invariably have a few different forms.&nbsp; The one snowden used could accept email from outside services that were thus &quot;unsecure&quot; but they could guarantee that NOBODY but you could log into your account to read it once it got to their server.Other services require all parties to be have accounts with them (a form of &quot;all in the same server&quot; solution).&nbsp; At best, your insecure email will get an email saying you have new email on the secure service and contain a link to the web site so you can log in and see it.Google's argument may be relying on this foundation that plain email was never secure in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 6174465, member: 8835"] I'd bet you pay money for that secure service, and that it does NOT operate like normal email. One of the factoids I forgot to mention, as it may form some of the basis for Google's position is that basic email is NOT secure per its specification. SMTP is the protocol used and it does not guarrantee delivery or secrecy. When I send an email from my server to yours, it is transmitted in clear text. Anybody with a packet sniffer that is sitting between our servers on the network could intercept those bytes and read the message. thus, there is no expectation of privacy in the sense that your email is safe from criminals or even someone doing a network test for an unrealted and legitimate reason. Truly secure email requires more technical aspects to be aligned. If you and I work in the same company running Exchange for instance, mailing something to you is secure because Exchange talks to itself with its own protocol. If you work at a different company, IT can setup TLS (forget what it stands for) between our 2 servers and that can be secure. If both parties are on the same server, the data never leaves the server. For example If I email Vyvyan from my hotmail to his, then it is secure by virtue of it never traveled outside of Microsoft. In the case of services offering Secure Email, they invariably have a few different forms. The one snowden used could accept email from outside services that were thus "unsecure" but they could guarantee that NOBODY but you could log into your account to read it once it got to their server. Other services require all parties to be have accounts with them (a form of "all in the same server" solution). At best, your insecure email will get an email saying you have new email on the secure service and contain a link to the web site so you can log in and see it. Google's argument may be relying on this foundation that plain email was never secure in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification