Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Why Do Firms Leak Personal Details In Plain Text?

An anonymous reader writes "Having entered my personal details (full real name, home address) to websites with an 'https://' prefix in order to purchase goods, I am still being sent emails from companies (or their agents) which include, in plain text, those same details I have entered over a secure connection. These are often companies which are very keen to tell you how much they value your privacy and how they will not pass your details on to third parties. What recourse does one have to tell them to desist from such behaviour whilst still doing business with them if their products are otherwise desirable? I email the relevant IT team as a matter of course to tell them it's not appropriate (mostly to no avail), but is there any legislation — in any territory — which addresses this?"

163 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. depends by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It really comes down to what their privacy policy says, the country you are in and if they claim they do not share any information with 3rd parties and you were smart enough to use separate email addresses or unique identifying information so you can show the information had to originate with them then in many countries there definitely are legal avenues you can follow. But for the most part you are shit out of luck, find someone else to deal with. I started creating unqiue information that I can easily map to individual sites so I will know who is fucking me over whenever I register somewhere.

    1. Re:depends by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why do firms leak personal details in plain text?
      In the words of Tweak Tweak: "Uh... It's easy?"

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:depends by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Why do firms leak personal details in plain text?

      In the words of Tweak Tweak: "Uh... It's easy?"

      Or explained even easier. It is cheap!

    3. Re:depends by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or explained even easier. It's profitable.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:depends by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For most Security Leak issues, it comes down to a simpler problem.
      Most people have crappy computer skills.
      You can have a perfect system, but it takes one guy from sales or marketing to take the data, dump it as an excel of csv file and just email it or drop it in a public space because he just doesn't want to be bothered by dealing with IT

      XKCD kinda shows this problem. We still don't have a good way to transfer files with people on different network. We have the technology but no clear standard.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:depends by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      They see it as providing better customer service. Instead of an impersonal bulk email they can send you an impersonal form email with the name you entered at the top of it, complete with the incorrect capitalization that so many people seem to enjoy. Why make you go look for your account number when they can just send it to you in every single communication.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:depends by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Using token based systems, or really anything with any kind of security increases costs. And a lot of businesses are operating in reactive mode when it comes to IT...you will get what you need only after there is a clear and present need for it. So...upgrades / fixes only happen after a giant leak, or multiple giant leaks, occur. It's all taken from the 'if it isn't broken, don't fix it' ideology.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    7. Re:depends by tqk · · Score: 1

      XKCD [xkcd.com] kinda shows this problem.

      Not really (but thanks for that anyway :-). My free email acct. allows attachments as big as 50 Mb.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:depends by clgoh · · Score: 2

      But maybe not the recipient's account.

    9. Re:depends by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      It is also useful for proving (not conclusively though) that the email is not phishing.

    10. Re:depends by kermidge · · Score: 1

      More like "even if it's shitty design, as long as it works, ship it". Management types typically don't think or care much about security even now. If they do get around to security they haven't the knowledge or thinking tools to consider and evaluate stuff - they rely on IT-management types who are often in the same boat but with a tech flavor. Real security would require hiring and listening to people who know this shit and can design and code appropriately. This doesn't happen much, it seems.

      For recourse, bloodhawk, above, seems to have a useful approach.

    11. Re:depends by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      so are you going to break a 3.5 gig file into 50mb .rar files and email them to him one by one?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  2. https does not mean they are stored encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https is designed to prevent others from intercepting the traffic en route - it has basically nothing to do with how the data are stored. Should everything be encrypted? Yeah. Passwords should be salted+hashed+more because the company has no valid reason to know what the plaintext is. I hope that if I am buying something that they have a valid reason to know what the plaintext version of my address is - I don't think the USPS is that good (yet).

    1. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's not claiming that the data is stored encrypted. All he is saying that the data he sends encrypted shouldn't be sent back to him unencrypted later.

    2. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by symbolset · · Score: 2

      HTTPS means that you have a securely encrypted connection with the remote server. Not that the people who own the remote server are going to keep your privacy sacred.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Informative

      No smpt doesn't support encryption between servers.

      Actually it does. But obviously both servers (sender and receiver) must be configurered to use it (which most aren't, unfortunately). And sender must be configured to check receiver's certificate (which even less are).

      It's not a protocol issue, but a configuration issue.

      And knowing this, it is indeed unwise to include such confidential info in an e-mail.

    4. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HTTPS means that you have a securely encrypted connection with the remote server. Not that the people who own the remote server are going to keep your privacy sacred.

      But it does mean that nobody on the path can listen in on the connection. Which is defeated if then the same info is sent back over an unencrypted channel.

    5. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      He's not claiming that the data is stored encrypted. All he is saying that the data he sends encrypted shouldn't be sent back to him unencrypted later.

      He seems to be mainly saying tht he does not like his address getting into the hands of other parties.The fact that these other paties don't give a toss about his privacy does not really seem surprising.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    6. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he should stop using shitty email providers that don't support smtp/imap encryption then.

      There is no reason his email has to be unencrypted. Mine sure as hell isn't.

      Your incoming mail can easily be unencrypted for some number of hops between the sender and your ISP. There aren't that many SMTP systems that support transport encryption still. And I would wager the odds someone sending this sort of message is sending is originating via an unencrypted channel is even lower than average.

    7. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's opportunist encryption, which is worse than worthless, as it gives a false sense of security. All you need to defeat this encryption is to interfere in any way with the encrypted connection, SMTP is required to deliver the mail in plain text.

      GPG is not a real solution as even no one among technically minded people I know uses it for encryption. Signatures, yes, especially in Debian where around 50% of posts on mailining lists are signed, but, I recall exactly one case when a piece of sensitive data I received was GPG encrypted.

      But. an easy solution does exist: DANE. It's the only way to make that opportunist encryption mandatory (servers are required to abort delivery in face of failure), and DNSSEC prevents DANE settings from being stripped away by an attacker. Obviously, you need stapled certificates rather than mere CA selection, but that's common sense. With that, server->server and possibly client->server communication is secure, and when IMAP is protected by DANE, server->client as well. Local storage remains in plain text which is an obvious problem, but at least that is outside the topic of this discussion.

      The problem is, I'm not aware of any mail software that actually uses DANE yet :(

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    8. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you have a way to prevent someone from sending you unencrypted email?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and his solution is to mail the IT department at the company, like the PHB there gives a fig (or possibly even understands the problem)

      When he should do is mail the legal department instead, or failing that the CEO or CIO. They might not understand the situation either but they'll understand the words "privacy" and "violation" and sit up, then they'll pass the blame on to the IT PHB and he'll have to "just fix it" in some way. Which he will do by getting an underling to remove most if not all of the personally identifying information from all emails in a overly-broad way, until the Marketing department decides it needs to put your address on every email all over again.

    10. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by ralatalo · · Score: 1

      But he doesn't seem to realize (at least not stating) what of the original data provided was intended to be encrypted and what of the original data was just along for the ride.

      Ie. Is his credit card number being sent in e-mail or only his name and address ( which will be posted on the outside of any package he receives from them via any postal system, and read by everyone from the order fillers to the person that drops it off at his residence )

      Maybe he has a 'secure' phone number, what information is being sent in plain text via e-mail that he thinks should be secured better? On the Other hand, he only needs to provide 'valid' data for which they need to fulfill their business transaction. So, if they don't need to physically send him anything, get a PO Box and use some alias at the PO. Box. Get a 'burner phone', between P.O. Box and non-attached phone number, they shouldn't have any real information to leak, unless they go thought a court somewhere.

    11. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      He's not asking people to encrypt their messages with his public key and send him the encrypted text in base-64 format. He's asking for email providers to enable transport-layer security by default and possibly reject plain-text transmissions. An individual mail server can enforce this, but if the sender is using a mail relay, then the message might go unencrypted between the sender and the relay.

    12. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The person I responded to seemed to imply that you can force other people to send you encrypted email. I was under the impression that whether or not email is encrypted is decided on the sender's end of the connection. Are you telling me that you can impose encryption on those who send you email? That you can stop them from sending unencrypted email?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Well, that plus the fact that by sending an unencrypted email that is stored on the mail servers of an unknown number of ISPs and mail forwarders, they are (probably) violating the privacy notice that says they are only sharing his data with affiliated parties, government, etc.

      I was going to suggest S/MIME backed by certificates issued by a low-cost/free certificate authority (this would be a good service for the Open ID foundation or Amazon to get into, since they already have a widely-used SSO service), but based on the discussion above, that solution isn't 100% reliable, so I'd like to hear some ideas that:
      * are easy for stupid/lazy/cheapskate users and merchants to use
      * guarantee authentication (signing) and encryption, excluding the message routing. I'm not proposing a mail anonymizer service.

      It would also help if gmail would implement this as a feature. They're big enough they could act both as certificate authority and mail server.

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    14. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Even with DANE most people use a third party (gmail, hotmail, yahoo or their ISP) to store their email on as ISP's block direct to customer emails.

      No company can, in good faith, claim that they are not distributing confidential details to a third party if they send them in the clear via email.

    15. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      https is designed to prevent others from intercepting the traffic en route - it has basically nothing to do with how the data are stored. Should everything be encrypted? Yeah. Passwords should be salted+hashed+more because

      ... "because they should" ; yes.

      Unfortunately, one of the methods of "encryption" that is permitted under the standards for HTTPS (and, I think, SSL) is "plain text".

      As long as both ends of the conversation agree that this is the "encryption method" that they are going to use for the transaction, then the SSL/ HTTPS transaction completes validly. It's stupid, but it's valid.

      What one really needs is for clients (i.e. our browsers and email clients) to refuse to drop down as far as "plain text". Which will break some service providers, and that will be a good thing. Either they fix their security, or they go out of business ; BFD.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:https does not mean they are stored encrypted by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      HTTPS means that you have a securely encrypted connection with the remote server.

      Are you sure about that? I thought that having an HTTPS connection means that the client and server have agreed on an encryption protocol to use, but that the list of acceptable encryption protocols in a lot of configurations includes "plain text". Certainly it used to include that possibility, as a common fall-back position. Possibly implementations have improved since, but it would be a surprise if so.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. https has no bearing by bcjanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reason you get emails with your personal information has nothing to do with https (secure) v/s http (insecure), it has to do with the company you did business with sharing/selling your information with their 'business partners' and / or selling it to marketing companies, and the tracking cookies from other websites you've visited.

    --
    Linux is unix training wheels, while BSD *is* unix.
    1. Re:https has no bearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gibberish. It has to do with the company not realizing that email is insecure.

    2. Re:https has no bearing by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      AC has a point. This is why you get companies (here's a local example: http://www.attache.com.au/products/attache-accounts/ ) who give you your pay slips via HTTPS (because it's secure) but have the beancounters email through the base files in plain text (because they've got no idea how any of this works).

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  4. HTTPS means something specific by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...that you don't seem to understand. It has nothing to do with the way they use the data. It means only that the communication is being sent encrypted, and is thus not going to be caught by a man in the middle attack. That's it, nothing more.

    1. Re:HTTPS means something specific by lemou · · Score: 2

      Exactly, and their Term Of Services (if there are any), are probably not as secured as their website's sockets.

    2. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that his point was that the exact information that was sent encrypted is now being sent in plain-text over email. So, what's the point of using HTTPS to send private information if it's leaked right back through plain-text on port 25, and what can be done to tell companies to stop forwarding all those details through emails. Maybe they could email a link telling the user where to log-in to see his invoice instead of forwarding all his private information through email.

    3. Re:HTTPS means something specific by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I think what the OP meant was: because the original transmission was over https, he feels confident in discounting the possibility of an eavesdropper, as opposed to the company just being lax and/or promiscuous with his information.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    4. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the analogy would be whispering something into the company's ear, then having the company yell loudly back "OK, Bob Smith, you ordered a 5-month supply of boner pills, and is your phone number still 867-5309?!" I think the lack of conceptual security awareness contiguity evinced by the rather ramshackle habits of securing one transmission via HTTPs on the one hand and then not securing a future transmission in any way shape or form on the other hand is what seems to have irked the anonymous reader. Companies often contain multiple freely self directing agentive humans who often do things in ways which can appear on the outside to be dissonant.

    5. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, what's the point of using HTTPS to send private information if it's leaked right back through plain-text on port 25

      A locked front door and an open back door is better than two open doors. Although yes, they should lock the back door. What we really need is industry-standard secure-ish email.

    6. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Judging by the comments it seems that /. has changed. I guess the new crowd doesn't mind the invasion of privacy.

    7. Re:HTTPS means something specific by tftp · · Score: 2

      the rather ramshackle habits of securing one transmission via HTTPs on the one hand and then not securing a future transmission in any way shape or form on the other hand

      How would one secure an email? Existing S/MIME and PGP are not commonly used.

      A company cannot abandon email because it's the only notification method that is guaranteed to be delivered to the purchaser of goods. If you just show a confirmation number on the screen in big bold red letters and ask to write it down, 99% of customers will not notice that. Some may not even see it because they walked away or closed the browser as soon as the transaction went through.

      So the problem here is far deeper, it's not just lazy programmers. Perhaps it won't be solved until every one of us has a personal FIPS 140-2 USB or smart card processor on a keyring.

    8. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      We'll always have Blade Runner.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:HTTPS means something specific by El+Capitaine · · Score: 1

      Or just not enclosing personal information in an email? Examples: Never send anyone their current password via email (even if it's at account creation and it's salted/hashed in the DB). Other secure information such as credit cards, ssns, etc......why send them via email? Just say 'Hello , there is issue with your account. Please login to to correct it.' Or lets say we consider receipt of medication purchases private.....have the confirmation email just show the price and delivery address and block out the names of the medication with XXX, saying 'the information has been hidden for your privacy' - in fact if more sites do this, the general public might finally realize that email is inherently insecure.

    10. Re:HTTPS means something specific by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Since when are real name and address called "private information"?
      Aren't they public info?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:HTTPS means something specific by tftp · · Score: 2

      Most people would find it inconvenient when an important electronic receipt comes with all important fields blacked out. When I buy for a company online I forward these receipts to the accounting. What would I do if the email doesn't say what I bought, how much I paid, what c/c I used, and so on?

      I understand that it is perfectly possible to have a purely HTTPS online store, without using email at all. You could print your receipts securely on your local printer (or into PDF) and submit those. However hardly any store on the Internet operates this way. And even if we make that additional step and revolutionize e-commerce, still we would have a partially broken system that has a huge disconnect between the arbitrary identity of the user and the verified identity of the credit card (thus allowing anyone to buy with a stolen c/c.)

      In practical terms, email is not easily interceptable. En route it is usually encrypted with TLS. That is easy because SMTP servers do not insist on authentication of peers. So only the two endpoints, those that hold private keys, have access to the content.

      One could say that the SMTP server itself is vulnerable. Well, it is, unless you run your own. I do. It's trouble-free. On top of that, nothing prevents the server from encrypting stored emails so that it's hard for an operator (or an intruder) to gain access. For example, generate keypairs for each account, and make sure that the SMTP/database box has only the public half. To read mail (and decrypt) you have to log in with your password, which just happens to decrypt the private key - and that can happen on a completely different (IMAP) box, and only in RAM, and only while you are using the server.

      So for all practical purposes it is easier - and probably safer - to keep the current practice. Most retailers black out the c/c number anyway; the last four remain, but how many cases are known of actually recovering the full number this way? (Just send a Google Glass wearer to the checkout line at any store and capture as many cards as you care to.) The rest is not very likely to get stolen. As I understand, most thefts of login data occur directly from databases because they are either not encrypted, or encrypted with a symmetric algorithm, and the key just sits right there (it has to, otherwise you cannot encrypt.)

      But if people want change, it should begin at the basics - with secure and sufficiently trustworthy authentication and encryption; this means that everyone gets issued at least one keypair inside of a dongle. Once you have that, everything else becomes trivial. As I understand, DoD has implemented exactly such a system with a common access card.

    12. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Endophage · · Score: 1

      Except that just about every email server these days will also encrypt its connections (and if it doesn't you should switch provider) so your details aren't being leaked in plaintext on port 25...

    13. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The sensitive information is about the association of your identity to the service. Maybe you don't want this be known to others (e.g porn site or downloading of blue prints for 3d printable weapons)

    14. Re:HTTPS means something specific by grahammm · · Score: 1

      But it not his email provider which is not encrypting the connections, but the supplier's email provider over whom he no control.

    15. Re:HTTPS means something specific by HJED · · Score: 1

      Um, SMPT dose not use encryption between mail servers, it is older then TLS and whilst there are secure extensions to the protocol for client/server interactions there is no TLS protocol for server to server interactions.
      It is possible to encrypt emails with private/public key combinations, but I have never seen an ecomerce site do this.

      --
      null
    16. Re:HTTPS means something specific by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      That's what S/MIME is for... unfortunately no one uses it.

    17. Re:HTTPS means something specific by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      is thus not going to be caught by a man in the middle attack.

      ... which is nicely defeated if the man-in-the-middle can just grab it on the way back. So yes, the complaint is relevant.

    18. Re:HTTPS means something specific by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      not some bounced tracker through a third-party mailer outfit

      Good luck with that! If even the pirate party can't get this right, how will business ever get it?

    19. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      What we really need is industry-standard secure-ish email.

      In the UK we have http://ico.org.uk/ and the rest of Europe has something comparable. The problem is that corporations from your side of the pond don't like it. I think it has even been reported to the WTO as an illegal restraint upon trade.

      Many companies make mistakes. Some large, US based, "international" corporations see it as their duty to break civilised laws.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    20. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Since when are real name and address called "private information"? Aren't they public info?

      Where I work, 3 pieces of personally identifiable information together are considered to make the whole thing trackable directly to you. This is any three of a list that includes things like...

      forename
      surname
      email address
      a previous IP address
      account number
      username
      zip or postcode
      the fact that you have already done business with them or "sister company"
      and so on...

      It's not that they are secret but the combination of them can reveal information about you to someone else without your consent.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    21. Re:HTTPS means something specific by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

      The transmetropolitan comic is great, and I am waiting for cyberpunk 2077 to be released.

    22. Re:HTTPS means something specific by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, for a porn and/or downloadable weapon site I would be VERY suspicious if they even *ask* for my postal mail address. Or to put it another way: Any "physical" mail order still definitely has the unencrypted back-door of an delivery person that sees your parcel and brings it to your address. And these days the sender / recipient is also stored in possible multiple parcel tracking system. So it is 100% impossible to have physical deliveries from one party to another "not known by others", unless yo go pick it up yourself, in which case it also makes no sense to even input your address.

    23. Re:HTTPS means something specific by heypete · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, several Swiss banks do. My bank, PostFinance (the bank run by the Swiss post office) uses S/MIME to sign all outgoing mail, including their periodic newsletter. No confidential content is ever sent via email -- users are directed to login to the (https-enabled) website to view the sensitive information. All PDFs, such as account statements, are digitally signed and timestamped by a third-party timestamping service to prove their authenticity.

      It's nice to see *someone* getting it right.

    24. Re:HTTPS means something specific by dirk · · Score: 1

      The issue is that what is complaining about isn't really private information. Yes, the page he is entering the info into is https, but that doesn't mean everything on that page is private info. It is secure page to prevent man in the middle attacks for things like credit card numbers. Your name and address are not at all private information and can be found out in any number of public records (including telephone books). Just because my favorite type of ice cream is sent to someone on a page that is https doesn't make that information private. Hell, I can use https to post things to Facebook for Bob's sake. Should Facebook then be forces to treat that all with the same security as my password?

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    25. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      The problem here is with how html links work... the link description (ie what you see) doesn't need to relate to the actual url (the href), so you often see a link which looks legitimate but actually goes to a malicious site, and many mail clients (and even browsers these days) dont make it easy to see the actual url. This is why slashdot puts the actual domain name inside square brackets after every link because it's far too easy to disguise a link to goatse as something else.

      So your mail ends up looking just like every other phishing scam, which means that either people will distrust your mail, or become more likely to fall for phishing scams.

      The fact is, computers in their current form and the internet as a whole were never designed for the non technical masses, and many many problems result from this.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    26. Re:HTTPS means something specific by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interestingly enough, several Swiss banks do.

      Swiss banks must be decidedly more clueful than British ones then. Most of the British banks seem to think that putting some easilly obtainable PII in a plain text email allows you to authenticate it.

      A few years ago, the Nationwide took to sending me marketing email that:
      1. Came from a domain other than nationwide.co.uk.
      2. Included web links to their product descriptions, but also not at nationwide.co.uk (can't remember the exact domain, probably something like nationwidebanking.co.uk or nationwideonline.co.uk - either way, something that could easilly have been registered by a third party.
      3. Included the first half of my post code.
      4. Wasn't electronically signed.

      I complained to them, pointing out that although the stuff they linked to didn't actually ask for any personal account details(*), they were basically muddying the waters when it came to people being able to identify phishing emails from legitimate emails and that they were training people to expect legitimate emails to employ exactly the same properties as phishing emails, which is obviously very bad for security. I also pointed out that it would be better for them to use a technology like S/MIME to allow the user to authenticate the email, rather than some trivially publically available information like half a post code.

      They responded - basically they couldn't understand any of my points about why what they were doing was a bad idea or why a postcode isn't suitable authentication criteria.

      I escallated the complaint to the regulator. They refused to get involved.

      In the end I ended up closing my Nationwide accounts - mainly because of several repeated screwups, one of which almost caused a house purchase to fall through (which they compounded by refusing to talk to me about when I was trying to sort it out); but their utter lack of clue about security certainly played a part.

      Unfortunately, since that time, almost all the banks I use have started doing similar stuff. I brought this up with a friend who works in the highstreet banking sector (although not on the IT side) and he pointed out that the banks are generally not interested in security, they only want to limit their liability - if a bank were to sign all their emails and their key got compromised then the bank would be liable, whereas if the customer hands their details to a phisher because the bank has trained them that they should expect legitimate emails to look like phishing emails then the customer is liable.

      No confidential content is ever sent via email -- users are directed to login to the (https-enabled) website to view the sensitive information. All PDFs, such as account statements, are digitally signed and timestamped by a third-party timestamping service to prove their authenticity.

      I would find it very useful for banks, credit card companies, etc. to email my statements to me (encrypted and signed), as this would allow me to automate archiving of them. It seems very unlikely to happen any time soon though.

      Here's a good example of bad email from a bank - in this case, Capital One, a credit card issuer, they email me monthly to say my account statement is ready for download from their website:
      1. The email comes from capitaloneonline.co.uk - why not capitalone.co.uk, which is their usual domain?
      2. It includes my name and the last 4 digits of my credit card number and says: "So you know that emails we send are genuinely from us, we will always quote the last 4 digits of your account number." - my name, card number and the fact that the card is issued by Capital One are going to be known by *anyone* who has accepted payment from my card. Not exactly great authentication credentials.
      3. It includes an "access your account" link, which takes me to the sign-in page on the capitalone.co.uk site. At least they're using the right domain this time, but still it seems risky training people to click rand

    27. Re:HTTPS means something specific by tibit · · Score: 1

      Never mind that the last time I was there, one could get a chip card that served as an ATM card, a payment card, a transportation discount pass with your picture on it, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple other things.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    28. Re:HTTPS means something specific by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to take a stab at this, and guess at least #1 a UK thing, because Capital One in the US sends email from their normal domain. The rest still applies though. The other two banks I deal with are regular bank accounts, so the last 4 digits are much less likely to be linked to a full account number, but the presence of links in the email still doesn't sit right. TD Bank doesn't include a link to their site in the email, and they're probably the strongest of the three overall in terms of security for passwords as well.

    29. Re:HTTPS means something specific by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      The other two banks I deal with are regular bank accounts, so the last 4 digits are much less likely to be linked to a full account number

      My "regular bank" credit and debit cards have both the Visa/Mastercard number, *and* the bank account number printed across the front of the card. I wouldn't mind betting that both numbers are encoded on the magstripe, although its very rare for cards to be swiped these days (I'm not entirely sure what data retailers get to see during a chip&pin transaction though).

    30. Re:HTTPS means something specific by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Of course the card number is on the card itself. You need it for a whole lot of things, ranging from online transactions to ordering pizza. If you can't keep the physical card secure, that's your problem. I'm not so keen on having the bank account number on it, but it follows the same general principal - if someone has physical access to your card, they aren't going to be able to do any worse with that extra information than the card itself. Think about it - it's a debit card attached to a bank account. At least in the US, you can run a debit card as a credit card (requiring a signature instead of a PIN), and it gets processed under credit transaction fees, but it still just draws from the bank account. They aren't going to be able to access other information about the account, like the balance, online or elsewhere without detailed personal information like answers to security questions anyway, so your damage is limited to whatever they charge up in person.

    31. Re:HTTPS means something specific by war4peace · · Score: 1

      There are things YOU DO NOT ORDER ONLINE if you don't want them to be linked to yourself. Prescription meds and sexual aides are two of them.
      It's ironic that you trust a seller enough to submit all your super-private information, but you don't trust your e-mail provider enough for the same thing.

      To me, my e-mail provider is far more important than a website where I do my shopping.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    32. Re:HTTPS means something specific by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Interesting. My work e-mail address is forename.surname@workwebsite.com - I'd say it's directly trackable to me. Heh-heh.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    33. Re:HTTPS means something specific by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Not being an American, maybe it's a culture difference but around here, we assume ownership of what we buy. If people want to "secretly" buy stuff, they simply don't do it online. They go to the store and buy the stuff. Or they go to the grey/black market if they feel like taking the chance.

      Of course, some things such as cigarettes, liquor or sex stuff (toys, etc) require you to be 18 or older (in my country at least) so you have to present an ID card upon purchase, even offline. Sure, they don't make a copy of it but a hi-res surveillance camera located in a good position would do the trick just fine.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    34. Re:HTTPS means something specific by forrestt · · Score: 1

      So far it seems that most of the responders here have missed half of the purpose of HTTPS. Sure, using HTTPS vs. HTTP means that the traffic is being encrypted between your web browser and the server, but that is only half of the reason to use HTTPS. The other half is that there is a certificate on the server you are going to that verifies the authenticity of the site. That certificate is signed by a trust chain, the root of which, is installed into your browser as a trusted authority. Websites use HTTPS to prove to you that you are communicating with the correct site, not just to make the traffic invisible to prying eyes. The need for verification of who the server is sending its email to is usually totally unnecessary since the company sending the email relied upon the customer to supply the correct one.

    35. Re:HTTPS means something specific by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Of course you have control. You don't have to accept unencrypted communication. Just reject with a temporary fail and a message that says 'The use of STARTTLS is required for this recipient". If enough sites did this plain SMTP would disappear in almost no time flat.

    36. Re:HTTPS means something specific by tftp · · Score: 1

      May 19 17:16:37 xxx postfix/smtpd[28927]: connect from unknown[aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd]
      May 19 17:16:40 xxx postfix/smtpd[28927]: setting up TLS connection from unknown[aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd]
      May 19 17:16:44 xxx postfix/smtpd[28927]: Anonymous TLS connection established from unknown[aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd]: TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)
      May 19 17:16:48 xxx postfix/smtpd[28927]: 3B1D5487E1F: client=unknown[aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd]
      May 19 17:16:53 xxx postfix/cleanup[28932]: 3B1D5487E1F: message-id=<1369008893.841070-20720-slash-slashdot-daemon-91.v22.ch3.sourceforge.com@slashdot.org>

    37. Re:HTTPS means something specific by HJED · · Score: 1

      If I am not mistaken (and I might be) that is a client to server connection? Not a server to server connection.

      --
      null
    38. Re:HTTPS means something specific by tftp · · Score: 1

      This was a server to server connection, from one of Slashdot's SMTP hosts to my MX.

      Connections to IMAP are also protected by TLS, but they look different - like this:

      May 19 08:03:31 xxx cyrus/imaps[28590]: accepted connection
      May 19 08:03:31 xxx cyrus/imaps[28590]: starttls: TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits reused) no authentication
      May 19 08:03:31 xxx cyrus/imaps[28590]: login: lan.xxx.com [vvv.www.xxx.yyy] tftp plaintext+TLS User logged in
      May 19 08:03:31 xxx cyrus/imaps[28590]: seen_db: user tftp opened /var/lib/cyrus/user/t/tftp.seen

      As you can see, here it's Cyrus who reports the login. TLS between SMTP hosts is handled by Postfix. There is not much in common between the two, except that Postfix delivers to Cyrus. When I send an email, my MUA uses TLS to connect directly to Postfix (the submission port, or 25/tcp.) It looks like this:

      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/smtpd[2239]: connect from lan.xxx.com[vvv.www.xxx.yyy]
      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/smtpd[2239]: setting up TLS connection from lan.xxx.com[vvv.www.xxx.yyy]
      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/smtpd[2239]: Anonymous TLS connection established from lan.xxx.com[vvv.www.xxx.yyy]: TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)
      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/smtpd[2239]: D47EC487ED2: client=lan.xxx.com[vvv.www.xxx.yyy], sasl_method=LOGIN, sasl_username=tftp
      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/cleanup[2243]: D47EC487ED2: message-id=<050401ce5529$0be9e0e0$23bda2a0$@xxx.com>
      May 20 00:09:25 xxx postfix/qmgr[1394]: D47EC487ED2: from=<tftp@xxx.com>, size=2853, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
      May 20 00:09:28 xxx postfix/smtpd[2239]: disconnect from lan.xxx.com[vvv.www.xxx.yyy]

      Postfix is easy to configure to use TLS. CA-signed certificates give you nice log entries, but in general they are useless because it doesn't help anyone to know what company owns a given server. So I use self-signed certificates (make my own CA.) I then import that CA's certificate for IMAPS use.

      Today it doesn't take any effort whatsoever, nor any money, to have all connections of your SMTP/IMAP server encrypted every which way. Many servers on the Internet are already configured this way - and all popular email hosts, like Google and Yahoo, are using TLS. The man with a tap at the router will not gather much.

      If you run MS Exchange - even as the dirt cheap Small Business Server - then you get TLS included automatically. SBS generates a self-signed certificate, but you are encouraged to spend money on signed bits. (It is not required.)

    39. Re:HTTPS means something specific by Inda · · Score: 1

      Point two is so dangerous.

      We had a server compromised due to 'it's only the last four digits'. One domain host required the last four digits for authenication, another host freely gave out the last four digits to anyone who asked nicely.

      It's only the last four digits *facepalm*

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  5. Name and address? by scottbomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are waaaaay too paranoid these days. There is nothing sacred about your name and address. No one can steal your identity with it. If the email had your SSN or DOB in it, that would be different. But your name and address? If you have a landline phone, it's probably in a phone book and on numerous telephone directory websites and has been for years. Public court records have your name and address too. Nobody cares.

    1. Re:Name and address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing that gets me is that when people give social security numbers, they always give the last four digits. The problem is that those are really the most sensitive for anyone who got one before the year 2011. I met a guy in college who could construct a whole SSN using your place of birth and birth date. The reason is that the first 3 represented geographic location and the middle 2 were given out in a certain order. The last four ticked up for each person assigned and where therefore the hardest to narrow down and guess. The reason is that they were not designed to be used the way we use them, and instead the government should come up with a ground up, randomly assigned number to actually identify people with or require that the ssn not be used that way.

    2. Re:Name and address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well since it's no big deal, what is your name and address?

    3. Re:Name and address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason is that they were not designed to be used the way we use them, and instead the government should come up with a ground up, randomly assigned number to actually identify people with or require that the ssn not be used that way.

      Or we could just go with digital signatures aka RSA. It is 2013. Why the fuck are we still relying on a system that, each time you identify yourself to someone via SSN, you give them the non-revocable ability to impersonate you forever? It is earth-shatteringly stupid.

    4. Re:Name and address? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am sure that the incredible fucktards at Air China who sent recently sent me a flight confirmation would like to know that.

      It contained my full legal name, home address, and phone numbers. This does not bother me so much, as this is Sweden where most information of this sort is considered public knowledge. Want to know how much my flat is worth and what I paid for it? Did I pay taxes last year, and if so, how much? Feel free to hop on over to Skatteverket and file an info request.

      The email also contained this:

      Identifying document: US Passport
      Identifying document number: #XXXXXX
      Identifying document valid until: xxxx2020

      Until 3 days ago, as I have not yet actually used this passport for travel, the only people on Earth who knew this number were me, the US Dept of State, and the Swedish Migration Bureau. Now who the fuck knows. Who THE FUCK knows.

      And my girlfriend cannot understand why I threw a fit over this, or why I am talking about legal options.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Name and address? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Is the passport number actually useful for anything? I can understand the desire to not send it in plaintext, and I would have been upset if that happened to me too, but I'm having trouble thinking of what an attacker could do with that number.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Name and address? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Government could fix the whole SSN issue by doing something direct and simple.

      Publish all SSN's in a big directory.

      They were never intended to be 'secret numbers' that would be used to validate anybody's identity. They were registration numbers for the Social Security System.

      Publishing them ALL would force businesses and organizations to come up with real 'secure identifiers.'

    7. Re:Name and address? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      If you reside in Sweden, you must by law register with the Folkbokföring (civil registry) and you must update your record with them when you move (got in a spot of trouble over this when I bought a place here and moved into it because I didn't then know about the registry or the law), so finding someone's address is dead simple. Your personnummer ("personal number"), which contains your DOB, is also a matter of public record.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    8. Re:Name and address? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I fully agree; when I see someone saying "my name/address is private information" I feel like cracking a big smile. Or pitying them. Whichever comes first.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:Name and address? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Use my passport number plus my full legal name and DOB to forge a passport that might easily pass for the real McCoy in some places.

      Airports all have RFID/barcode scanners now, but there are many other ways into and out of countries. E.g., when I visited Cambodia a couple of years ago, the Khmer border guards at both Poipet checkpoints just looked at the photo, wrote down my name/nationality/passport number in their list, and waved me through. (No, I did not merely visit the gambling "free zone", I actually went into Cambodia.) Same thing happened when I crossed back into Thailand later that day.

      There were no readers or scanners of any sort in evidence going in either direction. My girlfriend probably could have slapped her photo over mine and used my passport there.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:Name and address? by houghi · · Score: 2

      I, like probably most here on /., have my own domain. Whenever I need to enter details for something I order, I use a new email alias for each site. e.g. for this site it would be slashdot.org@example.com That way I will know who the fucks were that sold my address, because in many cases it will be sold and not leaked.

      And them , if I know, I could decide what action to take. e.g. in your case none if it were the Americans or a lot, if it were the Swedes.

      It does not prevent anything. It just makes identifying the guilty easier.

      OTOH in the last 10 years that I do this, I have not once seen spam coming into one of those addresses, unless it was from the website itself.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Name and address? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 2

      There is a difference in having your name and address returned to you in a plain text email, and having it publishing it on a site like Slashdot.

      To be honest, I always thought the secure information was the credit/debit card number. Now it that was sent in a plain text email I'd be annoyed.

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    12. Re:Name and address? by Sesostris+III · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. If (say) buying something from Ebay, you need to share your name and address, else how are the third party going to get the physical goods to you?

      What they don't share (and which I always considered the important reason for https) are your payment details.

      Actually, as I often send stuff either to my work address or to friends and family, I like having the destination address recorded in an email so I can confirm it is being sent to where I want it to be sent to!

      (Interesting point, if I get Amazon Shipping Confirmation with a family member's name and address in it as the destination address, is their privacy being violated?)

      --
      You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
    13. Re:Name and address? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      People are waaaaay too paranoid these days. There is nothing sacred about your name and address. No one can steal your identity with it. If the email had your SSN or DOB in it, that would be different. But your name and address? If you have a landline phone, it's probably in a phone book and on numerous telephone directory websites and has been for years. Public court records have your name and address too. Nobody cares.

      Remember that the e-mail contains a lot of other information than just the name, address or telephone number. It gives it much more context than just picking some random contact from a phone book.

    14. Re:Name and address? by Mirar · · Score: 1

      I find this the best idea in this thread.

      It shouldn't be possible - it's ridiculous that it is possible to steal an identity by using public information.

    15. Re:Name and address? by caluml · · Score: 1

      "Want to know how much my flat is worth and what I paid for it? Did I pay taxes last year, and if so, how much?"

      Yes! Finally!

    16. Re:Name and address? by zyzko · · Score: 2

      This,

      I do not live in the US, and we do have here (an evil and communist) centralized SSN system.

      Still, companies and even government agencies sometimes (although they are getting wiser...) use SSN's as passwords when they should not - SSN should be public, your "GUID", and just identify that "I am this person", but not verify that identity. It is stupid - because once the SSN leaks out it is extremely hard to change, and you can't manage your identification method on per-service basis (on some less important cases you could resort to no authentication at all, on some use passwords, and decide that on the really important ones you have to be present and provide biometric proof).

      Your address and name - well, it might not be wise to yell them out loud on every occasion, but they are not secrets either. I can imagine that the original poster shreds all his snail-mail thoroughly, but majority of people do not and that information is readily available in the trash for any passer-by.

    17. Re:Name and address? by msk · · Score: 1

      Week before last a mayoral candidate here mailed pre-printed absentee ballot requests to lots of people in the city.

      On postcards.

      They didn't apologize.

      I'll be voting for someone else.

    18. Re:Name and address? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are going to hate checking into hotels in foreign countries.

    19. Re:Name and address? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Well since it's no big deal, what is your name and address?

      First Name: Cro
      Last Name: Magnon
      Street Address: 1234 Inna Cave

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    20. Re:Name and address? by psydeshow · · Score: 1

      Your passport number is a secret? No.

      You do realize you have to write it on entry and exit forms, and hand it over for scanning at border crossings, right?

      Sometimes, you're even required to surrender your passport to a foreign embassy for a few days so that they can wipe their noses with it before they return it to you with a visa affixed, and god knows what RFIDs or chemical tracers embedded.

      Your passport number is essentially public. Get over it.

  6. Bleah. by Airdorn · · Score: 1

    You and your stupid personal details.

  7. What's SSL got to do with it? by Horshu · · Score: 1

    So you sent your info to someone encrypted. They sent it back to you unencrypted. SSL *does* assume you trust the recipient.

  8. The reason is simple... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    ...You're dealing with human beings, and human beings make mistakes.

    That's why.

    1. Re:The reason is simple... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      ...You're dealing with human beings, and human beings make mistakes.

      That's why.

      Let's not assign to incompetence that which may simply be apathy.
      For personally identifiable information that is non-sensitive, is there any reason they should care about taking measures to secure it (especially when it's not their own)?

  9. Because it's not important? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should they care?

    There's no benefit to them keeping your information safe, it costs them time, money, and effort to do so, and there's no real consequences when they screw up. They will just put out a statement saying "all of our customer information was stolen, we recommend everyone change their password, and the hole is now patched - it can't happen again!".

    Also, they can blame the thieves. "It wasn't our fault, it was that scoundrel who noticed that you can change the account number in the URL to get into someone else's account."

    As to "we value your privacy", what does that actually mean? It means that companies have discovered that people trust companies that make that statement, and are more likely to purchase from such a company.

    That's all it means, and no more. It doesn't mean that they care or that they abide by the statement, it means that they think they can get more business by using that phrase liberally in their public-facing documents.

    You're living under the naive assumption that companies mean what they say and will do what they promise. They do what the consumer protection laws force them to do - any statement that reflects these laws is probably true, while the rest is simple puffing.

    1. Re:Because it's not important? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Sure... but even if they really DO care, who's to say they just weren't successful at keeping your info safe anyway?

      I've been saying for years now that "computer security" is largely a sham. Time and time again we find out that the biggest manufacturers of anti-virus software are companies run by shifty individuals with poor coding abilities, and respected makers of firewall appliances and routers sourced components from countries like China which had back-doors built into them at the processor level. Encryption schemes provided by all the big commercials software makers are suspect too, since U.S. govt. seems to demand they give them "keys" to break in, if needed.

      Look at the stream of security flaws being found in Java, and think about how often it gets used in the design of web applications.

      How many web sites run on IIS -- another product historically full of security holes?

      There's a LOT of money to be made by promising people you can help secure their systems, and as long as nobody really TRIES to get past whatever you put in place, you can brag about its "100% effectiveness". Anyone trying to do e-commerce business online has a primary goal of generating a profit selling the goods or services they're concentrating on providing. So right off the bat, these people are simply NOT going to have the time to invest a whole lot into securing customer data. They're going to go with the existing "pre fab" tools and products that are advertised as secure and recommended by others. When it turns out one of those isn't so great after all -- oops, there goes your private data again!

      I think you really DO have to place the lion's share of the blame with the thieves - which include both the hackers who took the data, AND the "computer security" folks who made a small fortune selling half-baked products and services to people trying to achieve security.

    2. Re:Because it's not important? by El+Capitaine · · Score: 1

      The great thing about those pre-fab solutions is that when someone DOES steal consumer data, you have a scapegoat too!

    3. Re:Because it's not important? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why should they care?

      There's no benefit to them keeping your information safe, it.

      Perhaps that is the reason why the asker asked if there was legislation dealing with this. Then the corporation might care.

    4. Re:Because it's not important? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      Yah, that's similar to "Your call is important to us."

      Oh, yeah? If my call is so important then answer the phone.

      Funny how we roll over for the simplest lies:
      "The check is in the mail."
      "I'll pull out in time, honest I will!"
      "Your data is secure with us."
      "All your data is backed up daily."
      "We employ industry-standard security practices."
      "We keep no personally-identifiable records."
      yadda, yadda

  10. The usual ID 10 T error by dbIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's just like some fool sending you an encrypted archive with the password in the same email. It looks cool and they don't know how much of a useless waste of time it is. The actual gatekeepers only get the superficial cargo cult appearance of security from the people that should be the gatekeepers, but that's seen as OK since you'd need to employ somebody to do it all properly. Putting on a show is cheaper.

    1. Re:The usual ID 10 T error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's just like some fool sending you an encrypted archive with the password in the same email. It looks cool and they don't know how much of a useless waste of time it is. The actual gatekeepers only get the superficial cargo cult appearance of security from the people that should be the gatekeepers, but that's seen as OK since you'd need to employ somebody to do it all properly. Putting on a show is cheaper.

      There's nothing too crazy about that if the email system is trusted more than the entire lifetime of the file on theirs & your computer, like a mobile work computer, or if the sensitive lifetime of the information is very long (SSN, bank account numbers can last a lifetime). Weight the importance of protecting it in transit vs. where it is likely to sit afterwards and for how long.

      Lets say HR sent everyone a copy of their pay & benefits with home address, there's some level of protection there from computers being swapped out to other users, going to the service desk for maintenance, getting stolen, etc. I'm assuming the archive utility sensibly deletes temp files that were extracted after you close it...

      Security is not black & white, there's lots of good enough reasons for not taking the time to IM or call you with the archive password, like if you had to send out hundreds of them. It is good enough protection for some things.

  11. Its not for your name and address. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The companies that use https are using it for many reasons, such as to protect your credit card information to remain compliant with their card processors and by extension the credit card companies policies, as well as probably a few laws. Non-sensitive information is not protected information, so they can use that in any way allowed by their TOS that you agreed to.

  12. Passwords by darkain · · Score: 1

    Last year, I switched ISPs... My new ISP emailed me my password in plain text as a "confirmation" after signing up for my account. Needless to say, I was horribly pissed off about it.

    1. Re:Passwords by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how this is a problem. The ISP will track your IP assigns and logins anyway to ensure you're not "sharing" an account.

      Found that out rather quickly when my sister's router died and I gave her a spare I had here. She was surprised at how plug and play everything was and I got a nasty phone call at the very start of the next business day saying my account has been flagged as two people are logged in from two different IPs. The guy on the phone was able to give me the address and everything.

      This is not a problem if a system is designed only ever to be accessed from one location continuously. I suppose someone could have logged in as me and modified my account settings like change my plan or maybe some robin hood could pay my bill for me, but either way I'd get an email that it happened.

  13. Re:Legislation is not the answer by darkain · · Score: 1

    The problem is, how do you know which companies do this, until AFTER the fact? The OP stated it came in an email, which is after the fact.

  14. Don't worry about it by iceco2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is, who are you worried will find this super secret sensitive information (Your name, address and fact you use the site)?
    The government? They don't need to intercept the e-mail they have easier ways of knowing it?
    Some criminal targeting you specifically who manged to intercept this e-mail? He already knows who you are all he learned is you use this site,
    simply seeing the IP is enough?
    Some random script kiddie on the internet? intercepting e-mails is not that easy, yes they are in plain text but they are not broadcast over the internet for everyone to see
    you have to position yourself along the route it travels (and this route normally doesn't change much) and attack somewhere along it, not impossible but hardly effortless. and why would he?
    Which only leaves corporate espionage targeted against the site you are visiting, which though more likely then any other vector still seems a bit far fetched, and in the end all they learn is your name&address.
    There are plenty of serious threats out there on the internet, this doesn't seem like one of them.
    focus your worrying else where.

    1. Re:Don't worry about it by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I think it depends which info exactly is in that mail. Sure firstname and lastname are hardly confidential. But often these confirmations also contain credit card numbers, social security numbers (if the site asked for it), and other stuff you may not be confortable sharing with the world at large.

    2. Re:Don't worry about it by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      What you forgot to add is:

      With so many (most?) people using webmail services (gmail, hotmail, etc) for personal e-mail, the e-mail even if sent encrypted will be decrypted on a third-party system just so the recipient can read it.

  15. Good luck querying on encrypted data by Crimsane · · Score: 1

    When you want to do a search for a customer by email, you can't do that if its encrypted. We keep passwords in databases hashed, not encrypted, its not the same thing. If you want to be able to do customer support, it needs to be in a database unencrypted.

  16. It's forbidden in places with sane privacy laws by Etylowy · · Score: 2

    is there any legislation — in any territory — which addresses this?

    It's forbidden in Poland. Similar rules apply in many european countries

  17. encrypted email is not standard by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    If they offer the option of encrypting the email, it's not going to work for 99.9% of people anyways.

    1. Re:encrypted email is not standard by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is standard. Go look up S/MIME.

    2. Re:encrypted email is not standard by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You are talking about A standard. The OP was talking about THE standard.

      I can categorically say in the last 20 years I have not received an email implementing any of S/MIME. S/MIME is only marginly more wide spread than RFC1149

    3. Re:encrypted email is not standard by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone use RFC1149, when it's been essentially superseded by RFC2549? I mean, really!

  18. Charge them money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Charge them money. After all, it is your unfo they are making money from.

    Of course, they will NOT pay. So you start a class action lawsuit against them and every other company
    doing this. You may win, you may lose.

    But if you win you will stop one hell of a lot of companies from doing this as it costs them nothing now
    but may cost them heaps in the future

  19. What's sensitive? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

    Your name, address and phone number are published in the phone book. What's sensitive here?

    On a Web site, it's done over an encrypted connection not to protect the information but to prevent a third party from sitting in the middle collecting payment information. The combination of personal information with payment information (credit card number and expiration date), that would be sensitive. On their own either set of information should be non-sensitive, but combined it's sufficient to pass the authentication checks merchants and credit-card companies do. But just personal information without any associated payment information, what's anyone going to do with that that they couldn't do by looking through your local phone directory?

    1. Re:What's sensitive? by Inda · · Score: 1

      That must be an Amercan thing.

      My name, address and phone number have never been published in the phone book - whatever one of those is. I've been paying for a land-line phone for over 20 years.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  20. Well also how are you supposed to store things? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    See if the point of someone having your information is to, well, be able to access your information then it needs to be stored in that format. A password can be hashed, but something like name and address needs to be stored in text. Encrypting it is the kind of thing that does a limited amount of good. They may well encrypt it on disk, but the software that accesses it still needs to be able to decrypt it, wouldn't be of much use if it couldn't. So if someone busts in through a problem in the software, they can get your data.

    It is easy to get mad and say companies should "do something" but ask yourself what that something is, I mean really analyze the problem, and then try and come up with a solution that works. It is harder.

    We deal with that kind of thing at work. Securing data isn't just a magic switch you can flick. Like our new storage array has self-encrypting drives. Great, we can, with no performance loss, encrypt everything on it... However that only really helps against it getting stolen, or if we forgot to wipe the disks when we decommission it. Being that all data is encrypted, the unit has the password (it is a power-on kind of thing) so if you bust in over the network, well then you can get at the data unencrypted.

    For more sensitive stuff you can take it a step further, use Sophos (ya that is what they bought, no not my choice) full disk or file container encryption. That means that if a system with it is lost, nobody can get the data. However, when that system is online and the FS mounted, again a break in can get at the data.

    The only way to stop network breakins from being a possible compromise is to take the systems entirely off the Internet. Not only is that unfeasible in normal cases, but it is impossible if you are talking the system that is to handle talking to the users online.

    I can't come up with a way that you can have a system where the data is secure, even if the system gets compromised. Of course you try and stop systems from getting compromised, but the idea that data should be stored somehow that even if a system gets broken in to you can't get at it is rather silly.

  21. Re:Since when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Says "Anonymous Coward". :P

  22. Speaking as someone who has worked on Retail sites by Anaerin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally speaking, retail sites (Ones who have the really important information, like credit card numbers and the like) also only store hashed passwords. So asking for a password will get you a temporary link e-mailed (usually requiring further security questions) to set a new password. Other personal information, your name and e-mail address, are not considered worth securing, as you automatically send them out with every message you send, and all your mail is invariably addressed to you with your full name by your other contacts.

    Postal addresses are generally something of a grey area. On the whole, they're not particularly secured (Anyone who was determined to find out could find your address from the phone book, electoral roll, or other public list). Credit card numbers are typically secured by removing/obscuring all but the last 4 digits, and items ordered are again typically treated as "Better to include with a receipt, as a double-check, than to exclude".

    There is, as always, a fine balance in the "Privacy is required" to "more information is better" debate, but leaving that aside, while SMTP is a plain-text transfer medium, it generally requires quite a lot of work to actually get someone's details. For instance, you have to:

    • Poison a DNS record for a particular host (To point mail traffic at your server), or somehow spoof an IP address/routing record on the open internet

      Note, this will have to be done for the SMTP server(s) of the particular provider's message you want to intercept

    • Intercept the particular mail message you want (There's going to be a lot of mail coming through, most of it inconsequential)
    • Forward all the mail you've received on to the correct host (Which will be tough if you've grabbed their IP address(es)).

      If you don't do this, the provider will quickly notice they're not getting mail anymore and try to find out why, which'll get you discovered quickly

    • Find some way to actually use the mostly useless information you have gleaned.

      So Mr. John Smith lives at 1234 Anyroad, Someville, KY, and bought a can of compressed air and a USB mouse... So what? Start flooding him with ads for compressed air products? Offer him hot USB on PS2 action from waiting serial mice in his area? That'll get you some sales... NOT. Oh, and you can buy that kind of information already, from his credit card company or bank (who make a very nice profit selling those details anyway) for considerably more cheaply and easily than poisoning the entire internet.

    This isn't easy, or practical. Sure, if you want to, you can do it, but what is the point? If you're stalking them, there's much easier methods (going through their trash, trawling public records, google searching their name). If you're selling to them, there's easier ways (Buying details lists from credit bureaus, mass mailing).

    The problem of secure e-mail has been around for a long time, and many solutions have been proposed for the problem (S/MIME, PGP, Domainkeys), but it's largely a chicken-and-egg problem - Secure mail systems are not universally supported, so it's not used/Secure mail systems aren't used, so they're not supported. Solving this problem is left as an exercise for the reader. Obviously.

  23. But not what you just said by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Whether or not the information is encrypted is not important in this case. It may be to you, but it's not to the party you are dealing with. The big deal is that you can be reasonably assured that you are in fact dealing with that party and not someone imposing as them, or someone intercepting the communications between you and them. HTTPS will always sign each data transmission, making it virtually impossible to alter the data under way or to have someone else impose you.

    HTTPS is seldom about privacy, especially with all the monitoring, tracking and statistics going on. Try visiting the web without google or facebook getting cookies and tracking data on you, regardless of you visiting a site that uses HTTPS or HTTP. You can, but you'll have to go through great length to do so.

    The data being sent back to you, goes to an e-mail provider you trust. If you don't trust them, you wouldn't be using them. The information you gave to the website is something that isn't that sensitive that you wouldn't want "strangers" to have. If it was, you wouldn't be handing it over to some web site. Yes, your address is in there. Very annoying that over a thousand companies and government departments (on average) have you on file. However, it's trivial to find out where people live, usually, so it's not a very big secret. The most annoying thing to me is the spam they keep mailing you even though you clearly indicated you were not interested in that. Sure, it could be handled a bit more secure than this, but in the end, you are responsible for the amount of personal data you are putting online and you know in advance that once you put it there, certain things are probably going to happen with it. If you only want to deal with companies that will default to sending you GPG encrypted e-mail, you'll not be shopping online a lot for the foreseeable future.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  24. Re:I totally agree!! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    The point is, when anybody adds 'on the Internet' to a statement, it becomes hugely more critical.

    "Somebody knows my mailing address."

    Now, that is pretty bland. Anybody who drives by your house probably can figure that out quickly.

    But change that to "Somebody on the Internet knows my mailing address" and it's time to pee down your pants leg.

    It's similar in so many ways to the magic of patenting something by tacking 'on the Internet' on the end.

    I've been 'online' for decades, going back to the BBS era. I was active on a local social BBS back in the late 80's. We got together on Sundays to play softball.

    Everybody was so fricking scared to present themselves to the other people they were playing softball with using anything but their 'handles.'

    There's something weird that happens when you allow people pretend to themselves that they have anonymity. No other explanation makes sense.

  25. Get over it... by wakeboarder · · Score: 1

    Your data is probably shared all over the internet anyway. Example of this is when you go to sign up for myups, they know who your parents\granparents (and their addresses. They use the info to generate questions to validate who you are, try it, it's spooky). You can't guard you info everywhere, and if someone really wants your information, they will get it. Just don't make yourself a target. I try to limit what goes where, but I don't loose sleep at night about it.

  26. Post Their Details Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "What recourse does one have to tell them to desist from such behaviour whilst still doing business with them if their products are otherwise desirable?"

    Now that you've got slashdot's attention, you could try identifying them here along with the specifics of their customer privacy issues as you have observed them for others to consider. The Internet will sometimes pick up on that sort of thing and respond in a way that can cause a company to renew its interest in the matter.

    I bought a used PC once. I found some stuff on it, including customer data. I contacted the company I had bought it from with suggestions about how to go about wiping drives securely before disposing of PCs. Unsurprisingly, I got a "not that big a deal" response. Mostly for my own childish amusement, I contacted them again and attached a few things that were on the drive, assuring them that I would be happy to either not worry about it or to wipe the drive for them, whichever they wanted me to do. The data included enough to identify the drive as having belonged to a company officer, along with details about one of their clients that they invoiced over $10 million a year, customer data, and porn. I attached some examples of all but the porn, only mentioning in passing that there was also porn. Being a fiendish bastard, I knew that in that case, it would be more effective to let people's imaginations do the heavy lifting. The response that I got indicated a high degree of interest in reducing future privacy deficits.

    In my experience, there are only two things that can motivate a corporation to do anything: Sufficient fear, or sufficient reward. If you want a company to change something, it may be necessary to offer them one or the other.

  27. Key + lock together means why bother to lock? by dbIII · · Score: 1
    It looks like you missed the entire point - if you include the password in the same email as the encrypted file then there was no reason at all to encrypt it in the first place other than a waste of time and a cargo cult illusion of security. Sending the attachment in plain text makes more sense in the situation since all the encryption does is waste time. Less of an idiot would contact you, give you the password, then send the attachment WITHOUT the password - just like how the banks don't send you the ATM card and the initial personal identification number in the same envelope but keep them apart.

    Security is not black & white

    It is in some cases where a failure is just a counterproductive waste of time like the one mentioned above and others that even make it to the news on occasion.

    It is good enough protection for some things

    No - it is completely unprotected if you have the locked thing in the same place as the key - you may as well just leave it unlocked. The danger in the case is that the sender assumed that only the intended person could get the information and they assumed that encrypting the file would magically do that even if the key was included.

    I hope that was enough and didn't come off as condescending. I did not expect to have to explain it on such a site and especially didn't expect someone that had missed the point attempting to give me a flawed lecture on security trying to find a non-existent excuse for an epic failure and finishing with some very bad advice.

    1. Re:Key + lock together means why bother to lock? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I cannot see your argument as valid in any way and frankly see it as utterly ridiculous. To me it's a very clear security failure, an utter waste of time and an indication the person who does it (eg. first time I saw it was a new HR guy that didn't know better) is way out of their depth. It's so clear in fact that I suspect that you are deliberately taking a ridiculous stand just to watch whatever reaction happens for your own entertainment.
      Just in case you are serious it appears I have to mention the obvious - email delivery mistakes and unauthorised readers at shared or vunerable computers (eg. home computers) - which is exactly the sort of things that led people to encrypt files before sending in the first place. Sending the key with the lock fails in the only situations where you would bother to send it locked in the first place.

    2. Re:Key + lock together means why bother to lock? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Case 2 is pathologically stupid.

    3. Re:Key + lock together means why bother to lock? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It is very simple and is "black and white" since the entire point is to get sensitive information to a person via a method that can easily deliver it to an undesired third party instead. A good analogy would be leaving in on the doorstep. I think you are assuming that it's the same as delivering it directly to the right person by hand instead, which is a very bad assumption with email (and if you are going to assume that there is no point encrypting anyway since to entire point is secure transport and not your IMHO silly assumption about it being for secure long term storage - that's just misunderstanding and reaching for straws).

  28. Re:Are you daft? by Quasimodem · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your payment is sacred. All other, not so much. (Fixed)

  29. Re:Are you daft? by lxs · · Score: 1, Funny

    Because every byte is sacred,
    Every byte is great!
    If a byte gets wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

    Let the user spill theirs
    On the dusty ground
    God shall make them pay
    For each byte that can't be found.

    Every byte is wanted,
    Every byte is good.
    Every byte is needed,
    In your neighborhood.

  30. Re:Speaking as someone who has worked on Retail si by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    Oh, and you can buy that kind of information already, from his credit card company or bank (who make a very nice profit selling those details anyway) for considerably more cheaply and easily than poisoning the entire internet.

    Scary. Fortunately, in my country we have banking secrecy laws. Ooops, had. Most people are concerned about the tax man, but these shenanigans are actually a much bigger threat when banking secrecy goes away.

  31. Ya but by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In those places, a $100 bill would work as well or better than a passport for getting through checkpoint guards. The idea that someone would bother with your passport number in trying to forge a passport to get through there is rather laughable, since they didn't even bother to check said number to see if it was legit.

    At a border with better security? Not going to work. Passports have a lot more security to them than that, particularly now.

    Basically if places have weak security, the have weak security. Someone isn't going to bother to try to get a legit name and number to forge a passport. If they have tight security, then it wouldn't do any good as they check the other features, which wouldn't match.

    1. Re:Ya but by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      "I have all the expensive and complicated tools I need to make a counterfeit passport, but I lack some random dude's name and passport number to put on it! Curses, foiled again!"

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
  32. Worse is passwords by rvdginste · · Score: 1

    A lot of websites send you a plain text email with your information, including a password in plain text right after you created an account with them. I've wondered about the same thing. You can use https for when the user is entering his new password, and you can store a hash of the password in the database instead of the plain password.... but if then you will just email the password back as plain text, then what is the point?

    1. Re:Worse is passwords by anyaristow · · Score: 1

      I've never seen that for sites that deal with sensitive information, like payment info. If someone manages to get one of my web forum passwords, what gain is there in exploiting it? It's an argument for not reusing passwords, but not a call for much alarm.

  33. Re:Are you daft? by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

    Bit slapping dance.

  34. Re:https has no bearing mod +1 Grammar Nazi by ron-l-j · · Score: 1

    Grammar is still important today. Even if it comes with a backhanded intelligence remark. I say give that man a red pen !

  35. Hanlon’s Razor by krsmav · · Score: 1

    Plain-text leaking of personal details calls for application of Hanlon’s Razor (attr. Richard Feynman): Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

  36. Fake Name by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Fake Name... Most emails I receive from such sites start with "Hello Gofuckyourself!" etc... if you want to be creative you can tailor the message to be as entertaining as you'd like. As an added benefit, if you give a different name at each site, when you get spam, you can know who sold your private data.

  37. Password recovery by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

    There's a usual mechanism for password recovery -- tell the site your email address, and it emails you your password. This personal information is sent unencrypted. It's not clear how this would work on encrypted email, because it may also be the email decryption key you've forgotten. Or your password safe's passphrase.

    Any suggestions?

    1. Re:Password recovery by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Yes. Store a salted password hash, not the password itself. When someone requests a password recovery, ask them some pre-defined security questions, and mail them a one-time-only password reset link. Which is generally speaking the "Usual" mechanism. Anyone that isn't doing this should not be trusted with your details.

    2. Re:Password recovery by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Add to this: password is (if they do it properly) one-time only, and must be changed online after entering it.

      Were an attacker to comprimise your account, you'd simply reset your password again and they'd lose access.

  38. Plain text in Snail Mail by slashkitty · · Score: 1

    Another problem I'm having with companies is after I opt for electronic communications, they still send me postal mail. Ads, confirmations, account info. I try to explain that I don't want any postal mail coming to my house. I don't want all my account details going past housemates. I consider online communication to be more secure. How can I get them to stop exposing my personal information?

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:Plain text in Snail Mail by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Because of laws making it a federal offense to tamper with postal mail, it's considered more secure than electronic communication. It's also required in some cases, as electronic communication is not considered a legally binding document, contract or receipt.

  39. welcome to walmart i love you by Progman3K · · Score: 1

    Because they're obviously paying top-dollar for their staff and listening to their suggestions

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  40. Why isnt encryption on by default? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    I mean, why doesnt thunderbird or iceferret or basically any client "generate a key" like ssh does when its instantiated. Why cant the clients have a button to distribute the public key whenever its appropriate? I see no reason why this level of security cannot live on top of ssl. "You have just uploaded your public key, would you like all email from us to be encrypted using this key before we send it?"

    1. Re:Why isnt encryption on by default? by Marrow · · Score: 1

      By instantiated, I mean either the first time the product is used, or when the local email setup is created.

    2. Re:Why isnt encryption on by default? by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      Because there would be no trust to that key. Sure, it means your message would be encrypted, but so would all the spam you receive, 'cause there would be next-to-no incentive. And where would you distribute that key from? Who is in charge of that key server? What happens with forwarding? How about mailing lists?

  41. Legislation addressing this by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I email the relevant IT team as a matter of course to tell them it's not appropriate (mostly to no avail), but is there any legislation â" in any territory â" which addresses this?"

    They might be able to sue you for spamming them, but I doubt they have a case.

  42. Re:ok then by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

    It''s a gateway to more and more info, but still the real problem is how easy stores, banks and credit reporting firms make it to steal identities. If they were more interested in protecting the consumer, true anti-fraud measures would be put in place with free notification options.

  43. Re:Speaking as someone who has worked on Retail si by Anaerin · · Score: 1

    And it's not a "chicken and egg" problem. It's a "Microsoft Outlook and Exchange refuse to support it builtin with a publicly usable technology", so major companiess are simply not going to do it by default.

    Microsoft Outlook and Exchange have supported S/MIME (Publicly-usable technology) out-of-the-box since at least Outlook 2000. So please stop trying to Microsoft-bash here.

    Oh, and I have heard of "Carnivore". I've also heard of ECHELON and the Illuminati. If the government wants my address, there are a LOT easier ways of getting hold of it. The IRS, for example (as you seem to be using the US government), or the census bureau. Please adjust your tin-foil hat, or better yet, remove it completely, as it only helps the mind-control rays work.

  44. Ok then by TheRealDevTrash · · Score: 1

    So they should just send you correspondence encrypted, and you can uh um so something with it, I suppose.

    --
    I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.
  45. Re:Who DOES NOT have my name and address!? by TheRealDevTrash · · Score: 1

    The Post Office gives that away to them.

    --
    I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.
  46. Its simple by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    The data is usless unless it is in a form that is human readable at at least some point in the future. Therefore its possible to get the data in plain text.
    If you expected your data to be encrypted and the key thrown away, I'm sorry but nobody does that.

  47. Any legislation in any territory? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Maybe in Petoria, but other than that, I don't know.

    Ask Peter, he runs the place. Or ran it, before the Yankee invasion.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  48. The "its not perfect security" doesnt work for me by Marrow · · Score: 1

    When the alternative is no security and false security.
    1. I am not saying use any key server. I am saying that it would be a simple matter to transfer a public key to a website like amazon so that when they email you information it is encrypted with your key.
    2. The incentive is that no one but their customers should know what you bought. Heck, if google can scan my emails for order history, then they can SELL that information to people. Even people I might not want to have it. And the vendor that sold it would have to compete against targeted marketing.
    3. The email can be forwarded infinetely. Point to point security is the goal.
    4. Lets just keep this about orders right now and not general email. Think of this as an "overlay" on top of general email. One that does more to protect customers of sites. Lets even say its to protect customers from mail SERVER intrusion or scanning.

  49. Re:The "its not perfect security" doesnt work for by Marrow · · Score: 1

    Even person-to-person emails could benefit. The email clients could include taglines or header information that say "Send me your pub key". A button
    could popup on your email client, "sender would like your pub key for future emails, would you like to send it?". You press yes, and its emailed to them.
    All future comms are point-to-point encrypted .

  50. Let me fix this for you by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Let me fix this for you with what is really going to happen:

    Here is a common workflow my friend, employee opens an email with an encypted ZIP file, double clicks the archive, double clicks the office document containing all his sensitive info, types in the password provided extracts the document, saves it in plain text

    Or the other - third party gets the document and the key and does whatever they want with it - which is exactly why I put it forward as an example of being nothing but security theatre and utterly useless.

    If you can trust the communications channel to be certain that no third party is going to get it then there's no point encrypting something that is just going to end up as plain text on the recipient's machine anyway.
    Lock + key delivered together = plaintext + stupid waste of time + wondering what sort of idiot you are dealing with.

  51. Encryption as mandated by the consumer by i · · Score: 1

    Encryption like PGP should be mandated if the consumer asks for it.

     

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
  52. If they did encrypt, would you know? by lpq · · Score: 1

    If you saw user details being spit out that were encrypted, would you know?

    I.e. it's only in the case of user-details being spit out without encryption, that you would know they were your user-details. At some point, if you entered your details in plain text, or if the site allows you display some of your user details, those details could easily be seen pre- or post- encryption.

    Especially if you are seeing your own details, I would say that doesn't tell you "much"... OTOH, seeing everyone's details ... that 's a different matter.