On Mon, November 10, 2014 13:56, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well, yeah... If I wanted to keep secrets, I wouldn't be sending them
over the internet at all. You don't really trust your software or other third parties that much, do you?
Read my signature.
The point is that it is not what I trust. It is what my correspondents do with their mail irrespective of trust. And that is totally out of my control. Nonetheless, we must take whatever steps we can to protect whatever residual confidentiality there is.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Mon, November 10, 2014 13:56, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well, yeah... If I wanted to keep secrets, I wouldn't be sending them
over the internet at all. You don't really trust your software or other third parties that much, do you?
Read my signature.
Hmmm, gmail conveniently collapses previously-seen content into an ellipse so that didn't jump out out me before.
The point is that it is not what I trust. It is what my correspondents do with their mail irrespective of trust. And that is totally out of my control. Nonetheless, we must take whatever steps we can to protect whatever residual confidentiality there is.
I don't get your point about gmail then. If you don't expect internet email to be secure in any case then you won't send secrets over it and it won't matter who archives, forwards, or searches it. This is all pretty obvious for public mail lists anyway and there's not that much point in trying to mix them with even business-level security. I prefer to have a completely separate account for list use although some companies might be so restrictive as to not let you use even web access to it from work machines.
On Tue, November 11, 2014 11:10 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:18 AM, James B. Byrne byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Mon, November 10, 2014 13:56, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well, yeah... If I wanted to keep secrets, I wouldn't be sending them
over the internet at all. You don't really trust your software or other third parties that much, do you?
Read my signature.
Hmmm, gmail conveniently collapses previously-seen content into an ellipse so that didn't jump out out me before.
The point is that it is not what I trust. It is what my correspondents do with their mail irrespective of trust. And that is totally out of my control. Nonetheless, we must take whatever steps we can to protect whatever residual confidentiality there is.
I don't get your point about gmail then. If you don't expect internet email to be secure in any case then you won't send secrets over it and it won't matter who archives, forwards, or searches it. This is all pretty obvious for public mail lists anyway and there's not that much point in trying to mix them with even business-level security. I prefer to have a completely separate account for list use although some companies might be so restrictive as to not let you use even web access to it from work machines.
Indeed, e-mail is not a secure channel of communication (as everyone of us repeats for decades). That is because there are _bad_guys_ doing bad thing (sniffing packets)... Now we come to the point that some company collects information. In general doing virtually the same thing. And we should feel no disrespect to that company, right? I feel it is unfair to the first category of guys (the bad ones sniffing network traffic).
Do you not have any problem with that? Because I do ;-(
But alas, it is the majority that rules (sort of "democracy" as opposed to "constitutional republic").
Valeri
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed, e-mail is not a secure channel of communication (as everyone of us repeats for decades). That is because there are _bad_guys_ doing bad thing (sniffing packets)... Now we come to the point that some company collects information. In general doing virtually the same thing. And we should feel no disrespect to that company, right? I feel it is unfair to the first category of guys (the bad ones sniffing network traffic).
Do you not have any problem with that? Because I do ;-(
I don't - for a couple of reasons. First, google doesn't charge for the service so I'll use it for what it is: a good place to collaborate, and ignore the fact that it might be a bad place to keep secrets. And public mailing lists are pretty clearly about open collaboration. Second, your, and the recipient's ISPs are going to be as bad or worse about allowing government spying. They don't really have any choice about that if they want to exist so I don't have a real problem with that either, except that they charge us all extra for the capability.
But alas, it is the majority that rules (sort of "democracy" as opposed to "constitutional republic").
Ummm, at this point is it much more a matter of corporate ownership than anything else. If you don't like the government, you have to buy a better one.
On Tue, November 11, 2014 1:30 pm, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Indeed, e-mail is not a secure channel of communication (as everyone of us repeats for decades). That is because there are _bad_guys_ doing bad thing (sniffing packets)... Now we come to the point that some company collects information. In general doing virtually the same thing. And we should feel no disrespect to that company, right? I feel it is unfair to the first category of guys (the bad ones sniffing network traffic).
Do you not have any problem with that? Because I do ;-(
I don't - for a couple of reasons. First, google doesn't charge for the service so I'll use it for what it is: a good place to collaborate, and ignore the fact that it might be a bad place to keep secrets. And public mailing lists are pretty clearly about open collaboration. Second, your, and the recipient's ISPs are going to be as bad or worse about allowing government spying. They don't really have any choice about that if they want to exist so I don't have a real problem with that either, except that they charge us all extra for the capability.
But alas, it is the majority that rules (sort of "democracy" as opposed to "constitutional republic").
No, I meant it with respect to google, "metaforically speaking", not meaning actual government of one sort of another. So, you are in the majority as far as google or other "free" services are concerned, I figure, and I'm not - in our internet "democracy" that is.
Valeri
Ummm, at this point is it much more a matter of corporate ownership than anything else. If you don't like the government, you have to buy a better one.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-
James B. Byrne -
Les Mikesell -
Valeri Galtsev