Comment by masnick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by masnick | Hacker News Reader

In my opinion, this kind of argument is demagoguery and ignores practical security concerns.

For the average person, which is more likely?

(1) A hacker taking over their email account to get bank info, etc.

(2) Some nebulous threat from Google having too much information about you.

Google and Gmail offer some of the best security controls and threat detection of any webmail provider that I've seen (pioneered two-factor authentication for email, warn you about strange sign-in activity on your account, allow you to kill other sessions, etc.).

If the outcome of this kind of article is people move to less secure email because of some intangible threat, I think it's a net harm. Gmail is still the best choice for my mom.

I wrote about this more than a year ago at greater length on my blog: http://www.maxmasnick.com/2012/02/12/gmail_paranoia/ and there's more discussion on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3582609

My point is that any post criticizing Gmail for it's business model should also consider what is realistically a problem in the actual world (hacking) and hopefully offer some advice on what to do about it. I'm not sure this kind of "Google reads all your email and it's terrible. Full stop." post is very helpful.

Ok, a couple more things to preempt the inevitable trolling:

(1) Government snooping is a separate issue, but as far as I know there are no major email providers that a non-technical person can use that aren't vulnerable. We sorely need easy-to-use, widely used email encryption. Google isn't likely to do this because it would be counter to their business model, and this _is_ a problem.

(2) I don't use Gmail myself, but not because they are algorithmically reading my email. I switched (to FastMail) because I don't like the design direction of the Gmail UX, the FastMail UX is substantially faster, and the support is better (i.e. it exists). However, given that the average webmail user (a) doesn't want to pay for email and (b) is going to use one of the most popular services by default, I still think Gmail is a good choice.

> Government snooping is a separate issue, but as far as I know there are no major email providers that a non-technical person can use that aren't vulnerable.

But at least, those other email providers are different that your web search provider - while if you use Gmail, your profile will also contain your searches (if you use Google for search), visits from those searches, and then also data from other Google services you choose to use.

If you're talking about government snooping, they most likely can aggregate information from different sources.

If you're talking about the nebulous "one company has all my information and may do something evil" argument, I still say that it doesn't matter. Email is by far the most sensitive thing most people do online, so if there was a real threat from a company having all that information, also having searches is not substantially worse.

Regardless, I still don't see a credible threat of harm from Google having this information that outweighs the actual threat of hacking.

I disagree with the premise that the large scale systematic privacy violations and surveillance by on the worlds most powerful corporations is the minor threat.

In my opinion, this is the greater threat to our society, and individual criminals compromising individual email accounts is just minor criminal activity, which has always existed in one form or the other.

I believe you mistake immediacy for relevance.

I think government surveillance is an issue because people can be arrested or harassed for things. I still don't see what harm can come from a private company having my data as long as they don't share it or use it for something nefarious. I don't see the threat of that happening with google.

To be clear these are two very separate issues: government surveillance and privacy policies of corporations.

We agree on the first point and disagree on the second.

If I'm wrong on the second, please give me a plausible example of something google would do with user data that would be actually harmful besides sharing with the government.

Big difference. We are the government and have at least the illusion of changing overreaching government policies (and the recent Obama speech shows that it is at least possible to get them to recognize that).

There is NOTHING we can do to change Google.

Wow, that's a rant you wrote! We should use software that allows encrypting of sensible information on the client's side. That's it.

If they want show me ads - all right then, let me choose out of categories that I'm really interesting in(i.e. Android, Ruby, running, my favorite authors and tv-shows etc-etc). And I will click that links.

> Wow, that's a rant you wrote!

Thanks :) I'm tired of seeing this kind of post over and over again. At best it's misguided in that it's only telling half the story, at worst it's linkbait.

> We should use software that allows encrypting of sensible information on the client's side. That's it.

Well said. If you care about security, this is the answer. We really, really need good, ubiquitous email encryption software. Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely to be widely adopted anytime soon.

> If they want show me ads - all right then, let me choose out of categories that I'm really interesting in(i.e. Android, Ruby, running, my favorite authors and tv-shows etc-etc). And I will click that links.

The holy grail of online advertising is ads that provide value to the user. This is the model behind sponsors of nerdy podcasts (http://5by5.tv). The ads reads can actually be helpful. It's not easy to do with a user base as diverse as Gmail's, but I'm sure Google is trying.

>Government snooping is a separate issue, but as far as I know there are no major email providers that a non-technical person can use that aren't vulnerable.

Not to mention, uh, snail mail is run on the government rails.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com