Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google is Testing Self-Destructing Emails in New Gmail (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

The upcoming update to Gmail might include a feature which would allow users to send emails that expire after a user-defined period of time. From a report: Working on an email service is hard as you have to be compatible with all sorts of email providers and email clients. But it doesn't seem to be stopping Google as the company is now evolving beyond the simple POP3/IMAP/SMTP protocols. Based on those screenshots, expiring emails work pretty much like expiring emails in ProtonMail. After some time, the email becomes unreadable. In the compose screen, there's a tiny lock icon called "confidential mode." It says that the recipient won't be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email.

172 comments

  1. O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I receive data on my computer. It is then uncrypted and displayed on my screen. Ergo, stored in clear in RAM. What prevents me from finding a way to copy-paste this data?

    1. Re:O rly? by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing - it's not for you or any other thinking person. It's meant for the same people who use the other insanely popular "self-destructing" message apps. They undoubtedly know it is stupid, but ultimately they need to compete with stupid.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole thing is nonsense. To get it even close to being workable google would have to remove pop3, imap and smtp support from gmail to start. Then it would have to eliminate every other worldwide email provider. Even then, unless you are on a chromebook or stupid enough to use the gmail app on iOS or Android there is still no way to enforce it.

      But but but snapchat; all the left wing brain dead kids cry. Yes because nobody ever took a screenshot of a naked snap and posted it to the inter webs did they...

    3. Re:O rly? by ctilsie242 · · Score: 2

      I also receive data. The E-mail message gets read, and auto-archived on my encrypted IMAP server VM. Unless Google changes IMAP to have expiration dates and forces Dovecot to respect that, the message is going to remain.

      Usually I see two ways of having disappearing E-mail work. One is that the E-mail stays with the provider. This works, but once a protocol like IMAP, POP, or another snarfs the E-mail and copies/moves it, that protection is useless. Another way is requiring a special extension, be it a web app, or the content only viewable in some specific program. That also works, but in the age of ransomware, who trusts running a content viewer?

    4. Re:O rly? by gnick · · Score: 1

      ...in the age of ransomware, who trusts running a content viewer?

      Like Acrobat? I receive the occasional PDF and even include "New Features.pdf" with my software distribution.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Then it would have to eliminate every other worldwide email provider.

      They're making strong inroads into just that.

    6. Re:O rly? by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      Or, they could prevent you from sending them to non Google servers, or they could convert the email into a link as soon as it leaves Google (this could even be true for people receiving their Google mail via POP3 or IMAP). The link could be forwarded, but break in x number of days. And they could enforce whatever nonsense in a browser visiting that link.

      None of this is to say it isn't stupid, simply that it's a pretty easy thing to do to force browser viewing of the email, no matter where it goes.

      I highly doubt they'll be able to effectively block printing and copy paste from a web browser.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:O rly? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      I also receive data. The E-mail message gets read, and auto-archived on my encrypted IMAP server VM. Unless Google changes IMAP to have expiration dates and forces Dovecot to respect that, the message is going to remain.

      Usually I see two ways of having disappearing E-mail work. One is that the E-mail stays with the provider. This works, but once a protocol like IMAP, POP, or another snarfs the E-mail and copies/moves it, that protection is useless. Another way is requiring a special extension, be it a web app, or the content only viewable in some specific program. That also works, but in the age of ransomware, who trusts running a content viewer?

      I use IMAP to read gmail. I'm probably not the only one. They would have to disable IMAP/POP for those messages. Then they would have to enforce gmail usage via their chrome browser only so that they can lock down the copy-n-paste hole.

      Ultimately it becomes a proprietary message reader that can also read emails and surf the web (approved content only)! Once the a monopoly is achieved they can introduce foolproof google-only DRM into their browser.

      The DRM won't be used for Hollywood releases, it will be used to detect wrongthink.

      Of course proprietary email standards never took off before, so there is not reason to be afraid that it will take off now.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    8. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ultimately will kill this is that the world doesn't run on Gmail. Microsoft has had RMS/IRM since the mid 2000s, and that hasn't taken off, so if MS which owns the enterprise can't do this, I doubt Google can.

    9. Re:O rly? by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      They don't send you an email. They send you a link to the email. That's how they control it. All you have is a link.

      Which is still stupid, but.

    10. Re:O rly? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      They would have to disable IMAP/POP for those messages. Then they would have to enforce gmail usage via their chrome browser only so that they can lock down the copy-n-paste hole.

      And two more words: Screen Capture

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re: O rly? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is nonsense. To get it even close to being workable google would have to remove pop3, imap and smtp support from gmail to start. Then it would have to eliminate every other worldwide email provider. Even then, unless you are on a chromebook or stupid enough to use the gmail app on iOS or Android there is still no way to enforce it.

      But but but snapchat; all the left wing brain dead kids cry. Yes because nobody ever took a screenshot of a naked snap and posted it to the inter webs did they...

      Nah.

      If recipient address ends with @gmail.com or any other @domain.tld that Gmail manages, they get the email with the new bullshit.
      Otherwise, they get an email with a link to a copy of the actual email in Google Docs. The link expires at a certain time.

      In both instances, the page is riddled with Javascript cancer to prevent copying and pasting. Anyone with a brain will still be able to retain/copy/share it, of course.

    12. Re:O rly? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      If you're using Gmail you'll see it.
      Otherwise you'll get an email with a link. The link takes you to Google Docs to view the shit.

    13. Re:O rly? by wwphx · · Score: 1

      And in case they disable that, three words:

      Camera in cellphone.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    14. Re:O rly? by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I can read it, I can copy it. The only way to keep me from copying an email is to keep me from reading it.

    15. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: they send you a link to the non-email document. So then the grandparent poster changes from "DRM in email doesn't work" to "DRM in web content doesn't work" and we can just keep shaking our heads as vendors keep trying to assert control over client systems...

    16. Re:O rly? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But there is no way to plug the analog hole. You can still take a screenshot... it might need to be from another device, but it is there.

      But, one thing works in its favor-- verification. If I have a screenshot of a document there is no way for me to prove its authenticity. Without some kind of verification means, much information loses its value.

    17. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until it's downloaded and in my inbox, it's not received.

      Just like snail mail is not received until it's in my physical mailbox.

    18. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it will look just like all the e-mails my spam filter already stops...

    19. Re:O rly? by cstacy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And they could enforce whatever nonsense in a browser visiting that link.

      This means that mail reading apps need a new feature: auto-archive linked web content. When a message includes an (e.g. unlikely trivial IMG self-destruct implementation) link, and you have enabled (for this message, or for the domain) Show Web Content, then in addition to showing the content, you save it. If the pixels appear in your browser (or email app that includes a browser, like most do), then you can save them for yourself. Depending on how they write the Javascript, it might be less straightforward to analyze to get the desired content. (In the worse case, if it's in my video frame buffer...) But at the end of whatever nonsense Google (or whoever) comes up with, there is visible content such as an image. And there is no way to stop that from being automatically copied and conveniently saved as part of the message.

      If I was making this feature in the app, I would automatically save the content the first time, along with retrieval metadata. That metadata could include the entire page contents (that is, the Javascipt and everything, not just all the downloaded pixels). This would then be hashed. On subsequent viewings of the message, I would compare the hash to see if I need to download another version. Message presentation would then include an indication that this was saved content, and indicate whether it had changed. Options on the message include: Always Show Original vs. Show Latest Content. Either way, the message presentation shows what's going on and let's you click to see other versions that you've captured.

      Some people would like to see the latest content, presumably a little picture of a charred envelop and the words "Message self-destructed after reading on 4/1/2018 01:02:03 EDT". There could even be a setting in the app to disable offering by default the historical versions. Or even settings to disable capturing the initial version (or later versions, or more than x number of versions, etc.) For those who like to go along with the self-destruct fantasy.

      There are security issues associated with this, most of which should already be addressed by existing apps, since people send HTML mail all the time. Basically what's going on is that every time you retrieve the message, you are downloading a new virus. And every time you display it you are executing potential malware (even if it's just showing you a captured JPEG, it could be a crafted one). General security principles should take care of stateful tactics based on having downloaded previous versions, but that's something to think about since you've now introduced thises new data store features into the app.

    20. Re:O rly? by o_ferguson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conversely, once this "feature" is poplar, you can just produce a "screenshot" of whatever shit you want, and then claim it was sent as an "expiring email." No need to prove it was actually sent anymore. Anyone who uses "expiring email" willingly opens themselves up to whatever fakes other people desire to produce.

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    21. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it seems that Google has gone from spying into snake oil business too. Perhaps they will start selling registry cleaners and RAM freeing applications next?

    22. Re:O rly? by skids · · Score: 2

      Without some kind of verification means, much information loses its value.

      Trusted timestamping the screenshot is probably better proof even than having it in your inbox, as there's no telling how easy forgeries are to send through the system on a closed source SaaS.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    23. Re:O rly? by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the literal photo shot of the literal screen that you can read. Short of showing the message only in some kind of retina projector (with necessary authentication mechanism to ensure somebody can't just replace the eye with other sets of optics), who are they kidding themselves about these "self-destructing" emails?

    24. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to think you're right, but Photoshop can do some amazing things.

    25. Re:O rly? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      you can just produce a "screenshot" of whatever shit you want, and then claim it was sent as an "expiring email." No need to prove it was actually sent anymore.

      I have no idea where you got this idea from. Are the laws different on your planet than here on planet Earth? If you want to claim an email is valid, you do still have to prove it was sent, even if it was sent using an expire flag. You can't just make stuff up and claim that you don't have to prove it is real because you say it came from Gmail's expiring email system.

    26. Re:O rly? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      But, one thing works in its favor-- verification. If I have a screenshot of a document there is no way for me to prove its authenticity. Without some kind of verification means, much information loses it's value.

      Unless the email trail is 100% through Google's servers (and probably even then), it will contain headers which allow tracking of the email across the servers which have handled it. So I would think you could "Show Original", then save that as a PDF or take a screenshot, and be able to verify the veracity of your copy.

      That said - I generally use IMAP (via an application like Apple Mail or Thunderbird) to check my work mail, which is Google apps-based. Should I start getting messages that say something like "you must click on this link to view this email", I will either ignore the message as spam or respond to the sender telling them why I am not going to click on a link which purports to show me an email message. But I can't believe the bright minds at Google would be stupid enough to not see the problems in doing something like that (/snark)...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    27. Re:O rly? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I use IMAP to read gmail. I'm probably not the only one. They would have to disable IMAP/POP for those messages.

      In which case I would either ignore the message, send it to spam, or email the sender back with some variation of "I can't read that message" (possibly with either feigned ignorance or snarky smugness, depending on the sender).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    28. Re:O rly? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're using Gmail you'll see it.
      Otherwise you'll get an email with a link. The link takes you to Google Docs to view the shit.

      We've spent the last decade or so training users never to click on links in emails. This seems like a good reason to double down on that practice.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this will be abused by all sorts of shady groups. Debt collectors wanting to build a paper chain of "attempts" to contact you (because if they were serious and legit, they'd properly serve you), but not really disclosing their self-erasing emails have a life in recipient's inbox of say 1 minute, etc.
      Or creating plausible deniability for stalkers... unless there was a serious crime or negative outcome involved with said alleged stalking or harrassment, odds are low that courts would go to effort to ask Google for email transactions, such as for divorce proceedings.

      Not sure they've thought this through.

    30. Re: O rly? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Your examples are the exact opposite of what was being responded to. Denying that an email was sent is not the same as trying to forge an email and then claiming it cannot be denied because it was "expired". It's not "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email", it's "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email and I don't have to prove you sent it because it was sent using expiration." That last clause is the ridiculous claim.

    31. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh come on, don't try to say you've never faked a screenshot. Everyone does it.

    32. Re: O rly? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Putting a trusted timestamp on a screenshot doesn't prove it's legit; it just tells you that if I forged it, I did it prior to the date of the timestamp.

    33. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing proves it's legit.

      The fucking timestamp came from the camera using it's own key. There's absolutely nothing to prevent someone from using Paint.NET to recreate whatever screen that they want the camera to vouch for.

      That's not how trust is supposed to work at all. If the party presenting the evidence cannot be trusted, then the evidence is invalid. It's authenticity is disputed and cannot be proven to be correct.

      Although, for most using these systems, the point is to get the info to the recipient. Being able to legally prove who sent what later isn't important.

    34. Re:O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you say so. Go ahead and try to copy a 20 dollar bill on a copy/scan/fax machine. Attempt to playback some bootleg movies on official blue-ray players. Both things will only copy/play the content for a short period before stopping. That fingerprinting tech can be brought into computers, phones, and cameras to stop people from taking pictures or or viewing a ton of content.

      The analog gap is slowly closing though a combination of technical and legal means. There will always be ways around it until we get chips embedded in our brains, but it increasingly becomes not worth the effort.

    35. Re:O rly? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      in the age of ransomware, who trusts running a content viewer?

      The 70% of web users that use Chrome.

      Google could tell the other 30% that they can't view these emails.

    36. Re: O rly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To get it even close to being workable google would have to remove pop3, imap and smtp support from gmail to start.

      No they don't. The email you download will just contain a link to the expiring content. (Still won't work due to screen shots etc.)

    37. Re: O rly? by skids · · Score: 1

      That's correct. However, contemporaneous records have some legal standing in building an overall case of credibility. Especially if they were taken before there was a plausible reason or means to produce a forgery.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    38. Re: O rly? by skids · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how TSS works. The supplicant's clock is never used. What a TSS proves is that didn't alter whatever you are timestamping after a certain time. If other evidence can build a reasonable case that you did not have the means or motive to produce a forgery before then, it has value as evidence.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    39. Re: O rly? by unrtst · · Score: 1

      That was the exact opposite on purpose!

      One side of the case could claim, "you can't prove I was stalking you by email because you have no email".

      The other side can claim, "I can prove you were stalking me by email because I have a screenshot of a google expired email".

      Who is the court going to side with? Either google will need to prove it one way or the other, meaning it didn't actually go away, or they'll have to pick one of the above. If there is supporting evidence of stalking, it might be enough to convince the jury, especially if it's a civil case.

      None of this matters though, cause people will find easy ways to make legit copies of it quite quickly. There doesn't need to be a provable paper trail back either, since email is already very easy to spoof but can still be used as evidence.

  2. Screenshot... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So easy to take a screenshot. Also, it's ultimately up to the browser whether to enable copy/paste or not.

    1. Re:Screenshot... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Screenshots would never be admissible as evidence.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? Then why are photos allowed as evidence. One is simply a digital version of the other and both can be doctored and both can be debated by experts over their validity and whether or not they've been tampered with.

      In the era of a self-destructing email, it would be taken in to account that of course there's no evidence of the damn thing.. that's the nature of it.. A screen shot of such would be no different than someone taking a picture of a death threat note tying someone to a crime, when all that's left of the note is a pile of ash.

    3. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if it included the mta path and message ID with the header output.

      Google keeps messages for X years even after you delete them. Itâ(TM)s required in the EU for law enforcement purposes. For the UK and most of the EU X=7 years

    4. Re:Screenshot... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that ironically?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Screenshot... by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FYI: Just because something can be doctored does not mean it is not permitted as evidence. The most common form of evidence is witness testimony, which is inaccurate, easily altered, and degrades over time.

    6. Re:Screenshot... by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Are they going to block copy and paste with Javascript? I'm sure that will prevent copying and pasting.

    7. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      emails can be doctored almost as easily as screenshots.

    8. Re:Screenshot... by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Assuming it weren't, it wouldn't be too much more difficult to take a video of the entire process of opening the email. Even better if as you take that video it is uploaded some some cloud service that time stamps everything as well. At some point you've got evidence that is every bit as good as the email itself and if you won't accept that, then what good would the actual email do as evidence?

    9. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So easy to take a screenshot. Also, it's ultimately up to the browser whether to enable copy/paste or not.

      Don't even need a screen shot. The bits were sent to *my* computer. I can save them off any way I want.

      Hell, I can just look in my browser cache.

    10. Re: Screenshot... by aviators99 · · Score: 2

      Can someone point me to a reference that states that GMail keeps messages more than a month after deletion, as AC parent says?

    11. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screenshots are perfectly admissible as evidence. Either as circumstantial or as actual evidence if it has externally verifiable unique identifiers. Such as email headers...

    12. Re:Screenshot... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Basically they are worried that other companies (proton mail) are gaining marketshare by having this feature. It's not about whether the feature works, it's about whether they can click the 'feature' checkbox.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Screenshot... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Or pull out your phone and take a picture of your screen. Stick a post-it note with date and time handwritten on the screen, if you really need proof of when it was taken.

      Besides which all this doesn't federal law mandate that ISPs have to retain copies of all email sent and received for, what 18 months or something like that? If someone really had a legal reason to see it, they could get a court order demanding it anyway?

      If there's something you don't want other people seeing, maybe you shouldn't use email of any kind for it.

    14. Re:Screenshot... by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I think that misses the point somewhat. The purpose isn't to necessarily to prevent the recipient from having continued access to the information if they want it. The point is to prevent the recipient from leaving the message in their inbox out of carelessness.

      It's not uncommon for someone's email account to be compromised, and then the attacker might have access to every email ever sent or received from the account. If you "expire" emails after some period of time, it lowers the risk that those emails will be compromised during that kind of attack.

    15. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hell, I can just look in my browser cache." --- That doesn't work like you think it does. Plenty of web bits don't go to your cache.

    16. Re:Screenshot... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why?
      Evidence is evidence.
      Come back to me when they come for you because of the child porn screen shots on your computer.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Itâ(TM)s called the Investigatory Powers Act in the UK and itâ(TM)s actually 1 years retention of data for all national level or international level companies. Small, local companies donâ(TM)t have to comply. GPs claim of 7 years is based on the older Regulatory Investigative Powers from 2000-2016.

      It applies to data and service providers so for the ISP itâ(TM)s web history, email, phone calls. For data and service providers its all data and meta data.

      Itâ(TM)s a horrible piece of legislation and currently being fought in the UK courts by many parties. In the Mainland EU they are trying to pretend that they disagree with the UK at EU parliament level but have the same data collection program only itâ(TM)s classified in the EU so nobody talks about it. In the UK people in the know are raging but the general public have no idea.

      The US is no better, infact the UK collects extra data in conjunction with the US as part of the US Prism Program

      I work with these systems every day, I work digital forensics with a large police county. You donâ(TM)t even have to be law enforcement to get access, your kids school can request access, your doctor can request access, pretty much anyone in a public service job can request your web and email history.

      First google link in search: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/30/telecoms-companies-to-retain-browsing-data-under-new-law

      Some of the Agencies that can access collected data:
      https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html

    18. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      google doesn't delete anything. EVER. deleted emails? nope. dmca'd search results? nope. removed youtube videos? nope. nothing. ever. gets. deleted.

      you don't need a reference to cite. they can't make money off anything that's been deleted. they can't have their treasure trove of data that makes TLAs and competitors drool, with deleted data.

    19. Re:Screenshot... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Screenshots would never be admissible as evidence.

      If a text email is allowed, but not an image, it would be allowing a lesser secure mode as legit.

      I can alter a text message with no problem at all. I'm good at photoshopping too, but would almost certainly leave some evidence that I altered an image.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the other answer says lol. Apologies, I thought we were still under RIPA 2000 laws in the UK. I have been out of IT and the UK since 2012 in my defence

    21. Re:Screenshot... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Also, it's ultimately up to the browser whether to enable copy/paste or not.

      And I know Firefox lets you bypass those blocks by holding the Shift key and right-clicking. (This stops Javascript execution of the right-click event, so the regular right-click Firefox menu will display with all the normal options).

      I assume other browsers have similar features to bypass Javascript.

    22. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a real lawyer, I use screenshots all the time. Usually, I use them with text messages and Facebook posts, but I could see it working here too. The courts I am in front of allow screenshots because a lot of time, they are the only evidence available in a way accessible to the Court. The thinking of the courts is that you want the best evidence available to be what is admitted. If you don't have the better evidence but have a good reason why, they will let you do so.

      You cannot haul your cell phone provider in front of the court for every little dispute, nor can you bring Apple, or Facebook, so they let in screenshots. In the case of emails, they prefer printouts with full headers but not everyone knows that so in small claims, they will allow lesser evidence in.

      In this case, because the email, by its nature, destroys itself, screenshots are all that would remain of said email. Therefore, the best evidence available to a party is the screenshot, so if the disagreement is about the content of the message, then screenshots will almost have to be admitted if the actual content is in dispute. No better evidence + Good reason why == admissible evidence. Of course, all this assumes there are no other objections to the evidence (relevance, hearsay, privilege, etc.).

    23. Re:Screenshot... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      Someone who sends confidential information by way of unencrypted email need not be concerned about the security they don't have.

    24. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding ding ding. It's all about what you can print on the cover.

      As long as you can claim "Nine inches*" for your phone, it doesn't matter if it's diagonal, it doesn't matter if you're skirting around a "notch", all that matters is what journalists (lol) will write after they hold the phone for 60 seconds and are given the press kit. It doesn't matter if your "5mm thin" is skirting around a camera bulge, they're gonna have a case anyway (and overbite the "bevel-less" screen).

      Rant aside, I'm making a point: It's all about image. Feature claims, like parent said. Functionality is irrelevant to hype.

    25. Re:Screenshot... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I have literally never seen a text or a facebook post admitted any other way.

      What do you think they do for that type of information?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    26. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if e-mail is automatically accepted as such.

      I'm sure if an e-mail was accepted then a screenshot *of* an e-mail would be equally accepted. You still have to make the case that it is legitimate either way.

    27. Re: Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to POTUS. He's still looking for Hillary's emails

    28. Re:Screenshot... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Screenshots would never be admissible as evidence.

      It's really astonishing how a statement so at odds with the law, and maybe even common sense, could be up-moderated on Slashdot.

      Screenshots are entirely admissible as evidence and have been used successfully in many cases.

      All evidence comes with the testimony, under oath, of the person who provides it. So, just as a photographer would testify that photographic evidence - which is certainly nothing new - is unaltered, a person providing a screenshot would testify about how they acquired it and would attest that it is unaltered.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    29. Re:Screenshot... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Again, I think you're missing the point. These services that send self-destructing emails aren't sending them unencrypted.

    30. Re:Screenshot... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Besides which all this doesn't federal law mandate that ISPs have to retain copies of all email sent and received for, what 18 months or something like that?

      I have no idea what the law is, but many organizations (companies, e.g.) require retention of all official communications in case there are lawsuits about stuff.

      One professor here moved from 'professor' to 'associate dean' and because of that had to move her email from the local system over to the university email system that retains everything.

      This Gmail feature will be a lot like the Exchange "recall email" feature. On a semi-regular basis I get email from some Uni official who then five minutes later changes his mind and tries to recall the message. I see both the original and the recall because I'm not on Exchange. It's funny.

    31. Re:Screenshot... by PixelPusher1532 · · Score: 1

      It's really astonishing how a statement so at odds with the law, and maybe even common sense, could be up-moderated on Slashdot.

      I was going to say "you must be new here", but you have a four digit ID.

    32. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a video of opening an email? Significantly harder to fake and much easier to identify as a forgery.

    33. Re:Screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, you grokked the length of his ID, but not his name. You must be new here.

    34. Re:Screenshot... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well I'd argue the opposite is true - the probability that someone will allege or deny something happened is inverse to the probability that the information was stored permanently. If I got a self-deleting email claiming it'd be gone soon the first thing I'd do is pick up my cell phone and make a picture. Why? I don't know why, but it'd be freaky. And you know it would be abused to say send dick pics to women (or girls?) and then denying it ever happened. Apart from not working, making messages ephemeral is not really a good thing. Sometimes logs are bad. Sometimes logs are good.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    35. Re: Screenshot... by aviators99 · · Score: 1

      The link explaining the law only talks about browsing data. Not e-mail messages. I researched this earlier in the year and could not find any mention of e-mail retention by GMail. But would like to know if it's true.

    36. Re:Screenshot... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      One screenshot isn't. 50 screenshots from different sources can be cross-referenced.

    37. Re:Screenshot... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      If I got a self-deleting email claiming it'd be gone soon the first thing I'd do is pick up my cell phone and make a picture. Why? I don't know why, but it'd be freaky.

      Well that's a bit silly and childish.

      I've seen these kinds of emails in use, and the way I've seen it used has been in business settings, for things like, "Hey, I'm sending you this confidential information. Please note that this email will expire in 48 hours. Make a copy of this information for your own records." Again, it's not to prevent the recipient from having continued access to the information if they want it. It's ineffective for that purpose. The purpose is more to prevent information from leaking to third parties in the event of an email breach.

      The biggest value of these things isn't even about the fact that it can be set to expire. Email is totally insecure, and these kinds of messages allow for some security. The actual message isn't sent in plaintext via SMTP and isn't stored on the recipient's server. Enabling the message to expire is a bit of a handy side-effect.

  3. FAILPROOF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of course you cannot take a screenshot, right?...

  4. Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screenshots still exist, and unless they completely block that email from being downloaded via POP3, or IMAP people can still store it locally.
    These kinds of "self destructing" messages are a stupid concept anyway.
    Anyone trying to implement it has watched too much inspector gadget as a kid.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so it's just an email with a link to the content. I'm guessing this means you won't be able to open it in links or something like that.
      The screenshot point still stands though.
      I really don't understand the use case here though.
      What's the point of sending someone you don't trust a message?
      All it does is make it more difficult for that person to prove the message said what he says it did.
      And by marking a message as self destructing you are basically telling everyone: "save this email, I will deny having sent it later".

  5. Confused by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So wait, in one story summary Google is fighting against the right to be forgotten, and in another they are developing self-deleting emails?

    Wha?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's perfectly consistent.

      The email are 'self-destructing' only from the user's perspective. Google can still read them.

    2. Re:Confused by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      Google and its customers (hint: you are NOT the customer) will still have full access, only users will be inconvenienced.

    3. Re:Confused by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      and send them to the FBI

    4. Re: Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google can still read them."

      This.

    5. Re:Confused by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      Different departments, different people, different agendas

    6. Re:Confused by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      You are very confused. The RtbF is the right to demand that others remove or delist content that they created about you. For instance, let's say a journalist from the BBC wrote an article detailing your white collar fraud conviction and subsequent appeal. In any reasonable sense, we could say that this article belongs to the BBC.

      The Right to be Forgotten says that John Disley has the right to make Google delist this article so that it does not show up when someone searches for his name. It's not his article, it's not Google's article -- the article belongs to the BBC but the RtBF says that he has the right to have Google delist it.

      It is very confused to equate this with the idea that if John Disley writes an email, it's at least plausible that he could request that it be deleted by the recipient after reading it.

      [ Note: the BBC helpfully publishes a list of all RtbF articles so you can see for yourself what sort of things are requested to be delisted and make your own informed decision. ]

    7. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google doesn't want to be told they have to delete things or be in violation of the law.

      That doesn't preclude them from choosing to give users the option to delete things in a completely different context.

    8. Re:Confused by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

      It's obvious. The FBI would be potentially deprived of information if the emails were destroyed permanently. So this is never going to happen.
      It's just a step towards getting the legal right to block access to any user's e-mails at Google's will IMO.
      I can't see any benefit for the user, except malicious. Short-term email? Is it hard to delete it with a click in a fraction of a second? Seriously?

    9. Re:Confused by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1

      The right to be forgotten, as you said, is very different from the right to suppress something you write to specific recipients. The latter even looks like 1984. And this is more disrupting that it may seem. Permanent vs temporary has been the fundamental distinction between oral communication and written communication in man's history.
      Of course, as long as there are other email solutions and that Google's "innovations" don't get standardized, you're free not to use Google and not be bothered. To be used, this feature implies that both ends of the email use Google. Just plain stupid (and arrogant).

  6. Extensions? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not long before a bunch of extensions are released to automatically save a copy of all these "self destructive" emails...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  7. pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice I suppose, except that i wont prevent taking a screenshot which you then copy/paste, print, forward, etc....

  8. DRM for emails? by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DRM for emails? Do not want.

  9. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My autoforward just broke your autodestruct.

    Assholes.

  10. Snapchat, LAWL by nctritech · · Score: 2

    It's Snapchat for email. Snapchat is stupid. This is stupid. *takes screenshot*

  11. Pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the emails will still be stored on the NSA servers.

  12. Really? is it something that can really resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...an improved OCR software on your laptop or mobile phone or so?... ...a fiverr, amazon mechanical turk or a man-in-the-middle-of-a-pron-site attack?!

  13. the further proprietization of email. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    self-destructing, secured, or even recall-able messages have been the hallmark of feature sets demanded by users without so much as a cursory understanding of email. Since most of human civilization uses GMail im sure the hubris of google rides high in testing this new "feature" but for power users or those outside the domain of the big G, this is feature is as useless as 'do not track.'

    mash away at self destruct all you like. Once the message leaves your Google mailserver and enters my Postfix, its mine.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:the further proprietization of email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is up there with stupid ideas like "read receipts" and DRM on consumer media. Just wait, some day you'll only be able to read GMail when you are on an Android or ChromeOS device that has secure-boot configured to attest to the pristine Googliness of its video drivers.

    2. Re:the further proprietization of email. by RedEars · · Score: 1

      Your forgot the "Mwahahahaha..." at the end.

      --
      He who forgets will be destined to remember. - EV
    3. Re:the further proprietization of email. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2

      Embrace, extend, extinguish.

      Remember to use takeout.google.com to get your mbox before you shut down your gmail.

      I’m so sick of these ‘free’ accounts.

    4. Re:the further proprietization of email. by sjwest · · Score: 1

      Microsoft have a similar feature, which looks retarded outside of exchange sites and makes the staff using that feature still look like idiots.

      I once had a mainframe email account with such a feature.

      I wonder what the us courts think about use of such features legacy it might be evidence tampering.

    5. Re:the further proprietization of email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recall feature of Outlook/Exchange, or, as we like to call it, the call attention to this email feature.

    6. Re:the further proprietization of email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled waaahwaaaaahwaaaah

  14. Mission Impossible by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Your mission Dan/Jim, should you choose/decide to accept it, ... As always, should you or any of your Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape/disc will self-destruct in five/ten seconds. Good luck, Dan/Jim.

  15. Still Far Behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So Gmail is starting to catch up with some of the features you can find in desktop clients. Exchange/Outlook has been able to do those things for years. You can also encrypt emails, sign them, add voting options, etc...

    As far as self-destructing emails, well it deleted itself before I was able to look at it so I guess I can't do whatever it says. And you've got no proof you asked me to do something. If I can't re-reference something to aid my failing memory then I'll safely assume it doesn't exist. Outlook has retention policies, but those are more for the receivers rather than the sender.

    I think they're just doing it because of all the services which now want access to your email account so they can scan everything for their service. If emails start disappearing (from your view, never from Google's scans), then Google's competition can't gain the same data set they have.

  16. Google should not have power over email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It’s unclear if this feature is going to be compatible with non-Gmail users as the company asks you to confirm your Google account to view the confidential message."

    Google is an ad and privacy broker, where you are the product. I maintain various mail servers of small companies (compared to Google), and it's already a battle against the arrogance of big providers like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, where most the spam comes from, but they also have the tendency the blacklist non-spamming clients for no apparent reason (mostly collateral damage of false positive spam filters) while hiding behind insane, hidden contact forms, which are designed to discourage you and give you the middle finger.

    Don't give Google more power, don't use their email service.

    1. Re:Google should not have power over email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't use their email service

      You and I might not, but who is actually going to bother with alternatives? The average user 20 years ago was all about that Hotmail because paying monthly for an email address was costly, and even among power users most people aren't going to set up their own domain just so they can avoid using Google's service. Then there are the the eejits who use work emails for personal stuff, but they tend to not have those addresses for long.

      And even if you're willing to take on the costs of hosting your own secure email address, your privacy gets fucked the second you have to send an email to anymore not using a secured address. So unless you're living in some wondrous bubble where the only people you need to stay in contact with are also privacy nutters with similar setups, your privacy is dead, and Google will continue to have overwhelming power.

  17. Embrace, extend, and extinguish? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the company is now evolving beyond the simple POP3/IMAP/SMTP protocols

    I find this rather worrying for the future of e-mail...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Embrace, extend, and extinguish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google has gotten a lot worse and more evil than Microsoft ever was.

  18. Should be illegal, allows sender to be in control by SysEngineer · · Score: 1

    It is your mailbox, the receiver legally has the right to control their mailbox. That is like saying SPAM can not be deleted. But still Google has the email on their server. This takes the control of your email away from you. Very Microsoftish, knowing what is best for the user.

  19. Google gets a Govt. order to disclose & by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Is Google going to have to turn over their backed up server data?

    1. Re:Google gets a Govt. order to disclose & by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Is Google going to have to turn over their backed up server data?

      Why do you think Google has backups? Backups are way too expensive for an operation their size.

  20. Translation provided by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the company is now evolving beyond the simple POP3/IMAP/SMTP protocols."

    Translation: "Those leave complete control of the recipients mailboxes in the hands of the recipient. We can't have that."

  21. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would not think that product ideas like this can come out of company where sane engineers have any impact on business decisions.

  22. My inbox is mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any "feature" that thinks in can delete from there is a bug that will get blocked.

  23. You mean automaticly deleting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right.

    I set that to self destruct, you couldn't possibly have read it!

    Blink blink, why make people crazy? You better deal with them once they pass the mark.

  24. This is why Google bribed Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To stop supporting XUL extensions as it would be trivial to write an XUL extension to copy and paste the text from an email. Even if they use something like canvas and webgl XUL has wrappers for it. Join the resistance, download an XUL web browser like Waterfox or Basilisk today

    1. Re:This is why Google bribed Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is to stop a webextension from doing exactly the same?

    2. Re:This is why Google bribed Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard spotted.

  25. Gmail sucks bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google can't figure out how to get even simple IMAP to work correctly. They have something they call "folders" but it is flaky as heck and sure isn't IMAP.

  26. Even if you can't take a screenshot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can take a picture of the screen with your cell phone. Actually, I'm getting more
    and more emails at work where people do that rather than copy/paste.

    1. Re:Even if you can't take a screenshot... by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Stuff where JavaScript blocks things like copying text are also easily defeated. Holding SHIFT while right-clicking in Firefox seems to override most of the blocking stuff. If that won't work, the developer console is happy to help.

  27. So.. it's non-Internet? (no, probably not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously cannot possibly implement this on any system that isn't exclusively maintained by Google. e.g. assuming I were even able to install the make-it-stop-working "feature" on my imap server and/or mailreader, what reason would I have to not fix the defect while still remaining compatible with it?

    It's nearly inconceivable that it would be compatible with anyone else's email. And I know that gmail is pretty popular, but how popular can it remain, if it's not quite interoperative with the rest of the world's email?

    This sounds like some kind of switch to a more AOL/CompuServe-like platform, away from the Internet. How quaint!

    And that is just unbelievable, literally. I know we are living in the age of maximum stupidity, but this is even dumber than having Trump as your president.

    So, it seems a lot more likely that this will actually have nothing to do with email, and will instead just be some web page, and people will email links to that web page. Or maybe even some funny new uri scheme that is opened by a DRM-compatible application available for a small number of platforms, in order to prevent web browsers from being able to read the content too handily. (Since once the message is in the DOM, I have it and can access it, so it needs to not ever get into a browser in the first place.)

    I don't know whether to be disappointed or amused that Google (a company most of us think of as a web company) is doing something so technologically backwards.

  28. Wut? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    It says that the recipient won't be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

    holy shit how far has Google fallen!?

    I remember when they wouldn't even try to float that one by the general populace because they know that we're going to read it.

    God DAMN, has this "post-truth society" thing really infected everyone else?

  29. Terrible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A boon for spammers, phishers, and scammers.

    Being able to set a time the evidence of your crimes expire is mana from heaven for the criminal underclass.

  30. Works how I expect - with a Google link by m.w.hurley · · Score: 2

    Did anybody read the article? Funny I know. Looks like it will work like our company's secure email used internally for PHI. When I get a secure email I get a link to the secure email system. If you're a gmail user, Google will magically make it load like a regular email. If you're running your own email server or are otherwise outside gmail, all you'll have in your system is the link.
    Yes you can work around it with a screenshot or copy/paste. But the act of running your own system will not magically make it be in your system unless you do something manually like that. Maybe some wget shenanigans.
    I wonder how doing that will play out with various computer usage laws in place in US or elsewhere. Same for that proton mail I saw mentioned in the article. Sure the data's in your system, but if you're told up front that you're not allowed to store it outside of their system, would that be breaking the law? Or how could it play out during e-discovery if one of these manually saved emails is found after the expiration date? So maybe not only could you be "violating" Google's access policy, but would you also "violate" the Google user who sent the message?

    1. Re:Works how I expect - with a Google link by m.w.hurley · · Score: 1

      I haven't posted to Slashdot much. Looks like I'm in HTML edit mode which should have automatically put line breaks at my line breaks but as you can see it's all one blob. How do I fix this?

    2. Re:Works how I expect - with a Google link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see line breaks. For example, "Yes you can work around..." starts on its own line rather than flowing after the preceding sentence.

      If you want a paragraph break, you should have two line breaks.

    3. Re:Works how I expect - with a Google link by m.w.hurley · · Score: 1

      I see the line breaks now. Thanks.

    4. Re:Works how I expect - with a Google link by m.w.hurley · · Score: 1

      When I posted this, I had blank lines between paragraphs. Looks like they got eaten into one line break.

    5. Re:Works how I expect - with a Google link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're running your own email server or are otherwise outside gmail, all you'll have in your system is the link

      Right, and note that you'll need your Google account to access that link.

  31. April Fools? by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    If your April Fools stunt is delayed from some reason, that's not to be taken as releasing it later. These jokes are only funny on the morning of April 1st.

    The only reason you might want this is for emails that are only relevant for a short period of time e.g. "Want to go for supper tonight?" and put a cancel-by time of 5:30pm, if you haven't heard back by then you can make other arrangements and your email will be gone so you won't have to worry, sitting at the fast food place putting a way a burger, gettting an email at 5:55pm saying "I'd be delighted! Pick me up at 6:30?". You can think of your own other scenarios for limited-time-relevancy emails that you don't want a whole thread about after-the-fact.

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
    1. Re:April Fools? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to think of real world use cases for this "feature" but beyond the keep-your-inbox-tidy scenario you outline, I'm also coming up blank. Seriously, can anyone give an example scenario where this feature would be useful?

  32. I will quit using gmail if I see many of these. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have absolutely no more interest in being sent e-mail that I can't copy and archive than I do paper mail that self destructs.
    If you don't want information leaving your server keep it there and have the person who you want to have access it access it via console overtop a VPN.

    This is not e-mail and if Gmail implements this I should hope they have filter all of this type button to go with it. Or I may have to look for a different e-mail client.

  33. "Confidential Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I.e. the flag the NSA will look for first when sorting it's data. It might as well say: "Dear TLAs, Please read me and store me for all time" mode.

    1. Re:"Confidential Mode" by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      well presumably there would be some kind of encryption. How that works without exposing keys is a mystery to me.

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    2. Re:"Confidential Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paraphrasing your presumption it goes along the lines of "google is going to impose barriers on themselves from being able to read and process my content"

      I don't think so. No wait. I'm sure it won't happen.

  34. Screenshot? Shot of screen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you have found a way to stop me making a screenshot (how..?)
    How will you stop me from photographing the screen?

  35. Just what bullies want by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    The ability to harass someone, and then have the evidence self destroy itself.

  36. This could be a deal breaker by mario6915 · · Score: 0

    I have major issues with someone else having the power to remove a message from my Inbox, I don't care if they sent it -- once it hits my inbox I should have ultimate control. I also can't wait to see when people start using this for nefarious reasons like death threats. Good job Google! I also hope it never conflicts with regulations or policies that require all emails to be captured and stored for a certain amount of time.

  37. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perfect for sending threatening emails to the less technically literate - even if they take a screenshot... who will believe a screenshot of an email?

  38. Confidential? by plopez · · Score: 1

    My ass. This is Goggle after all. Confidential except for advertisers, law enforcement, or intelligence agencies.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  39. Big data backup by stooo · · Score: 1

    Why not ?
    raid level 4-6 makes inexpensive redundancy.
    Why would google not use a similar scheme to make an "online backup" without the expensive double storage need of conventional backup ?

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:Big data backup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raid Is Not Backup....

    2. Re:Big data backup by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between redundancy and backups. Google certainly has redundancy. I would be shocked if they have backups. And by backups I mean a disconnected, cold storage, copy of all of the data.

    3. Re:Big data backup by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      We know GMail at least used to keep offline backups because they've had to restore from backups before.

  40. Mission: IMPOSSIBLE by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Will it come with the (tv version) Mission: Impossible guy saying this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds...Good luck Jim!

  41. So only Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So only Google gets to keep a copy? Once on the net, always on the net.

  42. Google evolving beyond POP3/IMAP/SMTP?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK Google, t(-_-t)

  43. Sounds like false security by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    It says that the recipient won't be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email.

    Obviously impossible, unless the recipient also cannot read the email.

  44. Don't crush my groove, man! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "In fact, the only place it won't be destroyed is in our databases we give access to government! You have nothing to hide, repeal the 4th now!"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  45. Not only confidential. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has quite a few uses outside of top-secret mission impossible stuff.
    This could be used for sales, appointments, deadlines and such.
    And equally instead of just delete, you could have auto-archive after a time, so someone keeps record of things.
    Burn-after-reading feature would be handy for one-time keys to login to websites, change passwords, etc.

    I would rather see it merged with the e-mail specs than it be some proprietary hacky system.
    It would make e-mail so much more useful and less of a fucking headache to manage if you deal with loads of temporary-use e-mails or things that become invalid after a time.
    Removes a stupid amount of mental overhead in keeping track of these things. Also saves space.

  46. They missed half of what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice to have an optional expiration date on emails. For instance, sale emails I receive could have an expiration date set by the sender, and as the recipient I could default to accepting these, ignoring these and if I accept them I could optionally override on a per email basis.

    Then the client or server could intentionally obliterate emails that I don't care about.

  47. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google also testing rotor blades that come out of a hat and large springs that come out of your shoes.

  48. Too many idiots in this thread by Chameleon+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You all think you're so smart saying "Lol, I can copy/paste or screenshot it!". That's not the point, dummies! Say you want to send someone some info you don't want hanging around in their inbox. They get it, use the info to access...whatever...and then you get assured that they don't just hoard that email. If a user's email is compromised, it's just a house of cards as they can easily skim through and see all the services you're signed up for and reset passwords to those, including banking, credit cards, etc. It's advised to keep your inbox clean to prevent stuff like this from happening, at least now companies that send out the emails will have some control over this.

  49. So no more analysis of SPAM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news for all the spammers of the world!

  50. I am a _certain_ copies still exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will just ask the NSA/CIA/FBI for a copy.

  51. ProtonMail - existing capability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come reports don't include info that other mail systems already include this capability?

  52. Just what was needed... by hAckz0r · · Score: 0

    This will enable my new ransomware extortion ring to be far more productive with a lot less work. Is it my fault that the victim can't forward or print our ransomware email for the authorities to even investigate?

    1) Send extortion email with a No-Print attribute, and a one hour time delay for payment after first opening it.
    2) Wait for payment using the supplied untraceable html link in the email.
    3) Profit!

    Of course who would ever think to do such a thing?

  53. challenge accepted by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    > It says that the recipient won't be able to forward email content, copy and paste, download or print the email. maybe your grandma wont be able to. rofl.

  54. Is Google just a bunch of "UI experts" now? by nightfire-unique · · Score: 1

    Wtf Google. You used to be a company of engineers.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  55. Microsoft Outlook already does this by welshie · · Score: 1

    but it's not documented. Try to send an Usenet-style Expires: header in the past to someone who uses Outlook / Microsoft Exchange, and see what happens.

  56. Exactly by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I can read it, I can copy it. The only way to keep me from copying an email is to keep me from reading it.

    Yep. No matter what they do, there's always screen-capture, and if not at some point in the future with the OS (Windows and OSX and Linux can all do this at present), then with a camera; your phone or a DSLR or an HD video camera, etc.

    If it's ever readable, it's readable forever if anyone who can read it wants it to be. End of story.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  57. Embrace and extend by s0lar · · Score: 1

    We have seen this before - Microsoft called it "Embrace and exrend".

    Actually, I am having trouble forming an opinion on this feature:

    • It is a well-specified (i.e. with an RFC-like spec), forward-looking feature that has a chance of being adopted by the existing industry, or
    • An idiotic, Google-centric toy with zero interop because, well, my world is Google and everyone uses GMail.
  58. Stupidest shit ever by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I've never considered moving off of Gmail as seriously as when I heard about this new idiotic anti-feature.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  59. Almost thought there was a god by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    I misread the title at first glance. Some Freudian node in my addled old brain saw it as Google testing self-destructing Gmail.

    If Gmail were to suddenly vanish, I would have to re-think my atheism.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  60. Worthless feature due to prism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the title says. Just go with another provider.

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Google Vault and Self Destructing emails? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will this work with google vault and other email retention programs? If I am required to maintain copies of all emails received and sent, how can retention work?

  63. Why is everyone so worried? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After a few years of lacklustre adoption Google will shut it down.