Slashdot Mirror


GhostMail Closes in September, Leaves Users Searching For Secure Email Alternatives (zdnet.com)

On September 1, "GhostMail will no longer provide secure email services unless you are an enterprise client," reports ZDNet. "According to the company, it is 'simply not worth the risk.'" GhostMail provided a free and anonymous "military encrypted" e-mail service based in Switzerland, and collected "as little metadata" as possible. But this week on its home page, GhostMail told its users "Since we started our project, the world has changed for the worse and we do not want to take the risk of supplying our extremely secure service to the wrong people... In general, we believe strongly in the right to privacy, but we have taken a strategic decision to only supply our platform and services to the enterprise segment."

GhostMail is referring their users to other free services like Protonmail as an alternative, but an anonymous Slashdot reader asks: What options does an average person have for non-NSA-spied-on email? I am sure there are still some Ghostmail competitors out there but I'm wondering if it's better to coax friends and family to use encryption within their given client (Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, whatever...) And are there any options for hosting a "private" email service: inviting friends and family to use it and have it kind of hosted locally. Ghostmail-in-a-box or some such?

7 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Privacy is dead by gweihir · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is not. It takes a little effort though. But if you encrypt email with PGP/GnuPG, use TOR or TAILS for sensitive browsing, don't post your life's story on social media and make sure your PC has reasonable security, then unless you are a priority to be spied on, you will not be.

    Sure, they will still know who you did send email to, but that is about it. As far as I remember, the NSA TAO (the "hackers") has capacity for 100-1000 targets, but not much more. The rest is all mass-surveillance and that can be made much, much harder for them. And it should. Mass-surveillance has zero value to make society safer (remember all those spectacular recent failures ?) and a lot of potential to make everybody less safe and to reduce quality-of-life by eroding freedoms.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. Ennetcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A more recent and closer example is surely Ennetcom. The dutch provider of encrypted messaging. The dutch police raided the owner, admitting that encrypted comms is not illegal, but that the communications were being used by criminals.

    The actual charges though, did not reflect the PR. There was no such 'illegal because it could be used by criminals' charge. They did a 'possession of an unlicensed weapon', against the owner and a 'money laundering' charge.

    That second charge, the Dutch press expanded on, saying the company was assisting laundering money by selling the phones which could/were resold by criminals to other criminals to launder criminal money. i.e. a nonsensical vague claim. How would selling a phone to another criminal be laundering? You'd receive criminal money as payment!

    It was timed shortly after the failure by the FBI to force Apple to backdoor their phones and it was by the drug police, a unit trained by the FBI, so it appeared to be related to lobbying from external back actors.

    So be careful what you say.

    1. Re:Ennetcom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You miss a bigger irony! Dutch SIM company Gemalto, employees started using Ennetcom phones after Gemalto was found to be hacked by GCHQ to steal all the SIM card keys. So the secure phones issued to defend a dutch company against foreign government hackers were blocked by their own dutch police force.

      Another thing you missed: Ennetcom's servers were in Switzerland, the money laundering charge was how they were able to get the Swiss to confiscate the servers, which a simple gun license charge wouldn't have achieved. This company is also Swiss based and so they didn't want police raiding them, and throwing any random charges against their executives.

  3. Re:Similar happened with anon.penet.fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fox News already went to court over this. They successfully argued that they are an entertainment channel and therefor are allowed to lie and make up stories.

  4. Re:ProtonMail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only problem is you'll end up "vendor locked" due to no support for standard protocols such as IMAP or POP3. :-(.

    Thus, if you ever want to change providers, you'll loose all your emails first.

  5. Re:FastMail by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

    anything in Canada that anybody in the RCMP and/or CSIS even thinks someone in US law enforcement might like to look at gets fedexed there by 9am the next day.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  6. Re:FastMail by Bronster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thanks for the plug. We definitely recommend that users who are concerned about security use GPG with our servers via the standard IMAP/SMTP protocols. We have very good standards support, and as others have pointed out in this thread - if we ran GPG server-side, you'd be delegating the security to us anyway, because we would see plaintext versions of your communication.

    For the best security, you should definitely be running the encryption on equipment under your control (and not 0wned under you... which is your own lookout in that scenario)