Meh, most people talk about UBI as a way to provide the basics for people that are or have become unemployable. The experience from pretty much every other benefit program is that people tend to become less employable that way, not more. If you wanted more student, you could do that today much simpler through better student benefits.
Yes, UBI will be essentially Welfare 2.0 for the masses, but you failed to realize that UBI is meant to supplement the unemployable, not the "less employable". Unemployable is what most humans on this planet will eventually be classified as automation and AI continue to develop in the next 30 - 50 years.
And when I say 30 - 50 years, it's probably going to be more like 15 - 20. Greed will ensure that all it takes is "good enough" AI to replace humans as quickly as possible.
Also, becoming a student (or making more of them) is going to become more and more pointless. If you're unemployable, what exactly are you studying and why? Although it would be nice, I highly doubt those who are funding UBI through taxation are going to chip in a few trillion more for just-for-fun education.
"This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint -- and stop -- destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that's never been done before...."
I'm assuming you're building the worlds largest Bullshit Detector, because that's about the only thing that's going to keep one-sided politics from influencing and controlling whatever the fuck you plan on doing with satellites.
The problem isn't finding evidence that we humans are doing plenty to fuck up our atmosphere and environment. The problem is convincing enough of the greedy fucks in charge to give up their precious money in order to do something about it. For the worlds largest polluters, revenue is all that matters, side effects be damned.
Launch all the "damn" satellites you want. Until you fix the political problem, any results will continue to fall on deaf ears.
The real problem we have here is that companies have been allowed to use any old molecular structure in their products they wish without proving anything about the health impacts it may or may not impart.
No, actually the real problem is we have 100+ million taxpayers who are funding an organization who is supposed to analyze and prevent this kind of shit from poisoning our Food and Drug supply.
Greed says Fuck Safety. It's only important that our technology is first to market. Whether or not rushing to market will ultimately kill people does not matter. Greed will also regurgitate annual traffic death statistics as a justification to push forward as quickly as possible with this technology, security and integrity be damned.
Oh well. It's not like we haven't seen infrastructure tech millions rely on get rushed to market with little or no concern for safety or security (cough, IoT, cough)
Let's hope there won't be another Takata-grade airbag recall in our autonomous future...might be the only thing that saves your ass when the inevitable happens.
Is Edge really faster/better/cheaper? Or is that statement fake propaganda?
The real question is, are claims like this legally binding.
Probably faster to go after Microsoft for false statements like this to curb bullshit featurecreep rather than try and go the anti-trust route (again)...
Chrome does the same thing when you open IE/Edge and navigate to google.com.
No, Google the search engine gives you an ad for their product when you search for a competitor. I have no problem with Bing doing that either.
The operating system itself giving you an ad for a competing product when you try to install something, however, is a different animal entirely.
Speaking of different animal entirely, your mistake was confusing Windows 10 for an operating system.
In reality, pushing Edge is nothing more than the vendor pushing an ad for their product. The entire neutered "OS" has turned into little more than a marketing tool.
We know you've given up and have no spine. That doesn't mean the rest of us will give in so easy.
People like you are what I can "yea men"
Whatever the industry throws at you it's "yea man, that's how it has to be"
Fuck off.
And you think you're going to change the world.
You might as well go fuck off to the world of FOSS, and enjoy all the "freedom" you demand, because your voice (or mine) sure as shit isn't going to change what greed demands. I never said I disagreed with the concept of consumers having total control, I merely said you are delusional in thinking you've really got control over anything you own, or that you would change the winds of capitalism at this point.
As I said before, there's always FOSS. Don't like insecure solutions? Go roll your own.
Fool. The user is always supposed to have ultimate control over the device. Fuck off with your scare-mongering as an excuse for sloth and apathy. If a user refuses to learn, they deserve what they get. Dont bust out the golden shackles and try to tell me its jewelry.
There are a LOT more users that don't give a shit about having "ultimate control" than you assume. What you call golden shackles the average user calls blissful ignorance; and they're quite happy not knowing or being responsible for their hardware.
In fact, most of the shit you own and operate today you don't have "ultimate control" over, so I'm not really sure where your delusional demands are stemming from here.
"I think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector..."
Monopolies exist everywhere (not just the tech sector), but what has truly killed innovation is the patent system.
When companies amass tens of thousands of patents they'll never actually use in huge patent "war chests", it only serves one purpose; to allow Greed to stifle and control innovation.
Innovation reform is pointless without patent reform. You can't throw a stick 10 feet without hitting something that is patented 746 ways, to include throwing a stick 10 feet. When the world is controlled at that level, any attempt to innovate becomes more and more pointless and frustrating.
Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more.
Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.
Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "Doesn't happen to me, sucks to be you."
Yes, I hate unethical business practices as much as you do, but your own statement tends to confirm why everyone should wise up, because ethics in business sure as hell isn't going to change anytime soon.
Fine print does exist everywhere.Intelligent people understand this, and do not get swindled. Telling people to wise up and learn to read their contracts is nothing more than dictating common sense. If they refuse to listen, then Experience will be their teacher in life. Yes, it does "suck" to be unteachable, but I don't enjoy wasting legal resources (and/or taxpayer money) defending the moron who was shocked and appalled to find his Adjustable Rate Mortgage is adjustable. Or a limited time offer, is limited.
Intelligent people also do not appreciate having to pay for mass stupidity via price increases either, which is exactly how every company pays for shit like this.
TL; DR - If PT Barnum were alive today, he wouldn't be considered a criminal. He would be the richest man on the planet.
Yes, we all hate fine print, but we pretty much all know that fine print exists in every contract. No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.
One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.
I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory prices are advertised, they must clearly include the term and the subsequent service price.
They are including those details. In the fine print.
What this lawsuit really seeks is to determine just how many consumers are too stupid and ignorant to actually read their contract and understand their obligations. Since the concept of "fine print" is pretty much universally known and recognized by now (as is "introductory pricing", it's rather hard to claim you're a victim, and likely a rather easy defense for the perpetrators.
Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more. Part of me wants to let these consumers swing in the wind because the hard was is the only way you teach stupid people to wise up.
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Even Google is not claiming they can protect against this. Google's end goal here is rudimentary, because that is really all it takes to be fairly effective for 99% of their customers. (It's also rudimentary because as you stated Problem #1 exists when it doesn't have to)
As far as misleading consumers, deadbolts are advertised and sold as a device that prevents theft, and yet 90% of them can be defeated with lock picking or bump keys. Millions are sold every year, and yet there's not a single label on any package that warns the consumer of this vulnerability. This is also an example of rudimentary protection being good enough for the overwhelming majority of consumers. If you were to ask a person if a skilled locksmith could defeat their deadbolt they would say "yes, most likely". If you asked a consumer if a skilled hacker could defeat "Confidential" mode they would probably say the exact same thing. Between this reality and the fine print above, it's hard to label this as deception.
Google also used the lowest form of data classification used by the US Government. If they advertised this as "Top Secret" mode, then it would probably come across as far more deceptive. "Confidential" tends to imply rudimentary or basic protections.
Just because they are able to get away with using fine print to disclaim any and all responsibility, and just because the general public is too stupid/lazy to care about security and will just accept "good enough" rammed down their throats, that doesn't make Google's claims any less deceptive. You consider this acceptable, and THAT is the real "Problem #1".
If you and every other consumer actually sat and read every line of every EULA you've ever been presented, you might have a point about deception. There's a reason every organization buries this kind of shit in the fine print. Again, it's hard to label someone guilty of this kind of "deception" when no one is innocent.
Go ahead. Read the fine print. From anything. I can assure you that you will feel deceived in some way.
And the real Problem #1 in society is the level of ignorance and stupidity among the lazy masses, which also defines the root cause.. If everyone was intelligent enough to question Googles claims here, Google would backtrack this crap faster than you could say "liar". As it stands, the 1% questioning their security tactics are nothing more than acceptable noise. We are irrelevant. The stupid masses are what is important to capitalism. No, that's not acceptable, but making our voices louder isn't going to solve this problem of mass ignorance.
A shitty attitude doesn't have to "beat" the system. It has to save you the effort of chasing after or pursuing jobs that you either would not get or are not seriously being advertised.
I can think of one interview where doing things politely didn't "beat" the system either - I showed up, interviewed, and then got told the person who got the job was a cousin of the hiring manager. If I'd ghosted, I would have been much better off.
I completely agree that the tactic of advertising jobs publicly when the company fully intends to hire internally is total bullshit. I wish there were laws preventing this instead of forcing companies to advertise jobs that are not really possible to obtain. That feeds the negativity with this entire environment.
And really, the only thing your example shows is that it's more important than ever to know someone at an organization when seeking a job opportunity.
Favoritism can also work in your favor.
At the end of the day, simply being polite and respectful can land you a job and probably with the right people who recognize and value politeness and respect. We both know your chances of landing any job are slim to none if you're rude.
You're conflating two completely separate deficiencies with Gmail's "Confidential" service.
End-to-end encryption prevents eavesdropping. Many systems do that. Gmail's apparently doesn't, though it certainly could. That is Problem #1.
The screenshot / behavior that OP mentioned is about what the end user (for whom the message is decrypted at the endpoint) can do with the data. Gmail's service can only stop the most rudimentary forms of data preservation - and, you're right, no system in the world can stop screenshots and even screen photos. If the user can see it, the user can persist it.
The point is that *systems should not promise what they cannot deliver*. Gmail's system suggests a form of protection that it does not and cannot offer. That is Problem #2.
Problem #3: The fine print:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Even Google is not claiming they can protect against this. Google's end goal here is rudimentary, because that is really all it takes to be fairly effective for 99% of their customers. (It's also rudimentary because as you stated Problem #1 exists when it doesn't have to)
As far as misleading consumers, deadbolts are advertised and sold as a device that prevents theft, and yet 90% of them can be defeated with lock picking or bump keys. Millions are sold every year, and yet there's not a single label on any package that warns the consumer of this vulnerability. This is also an example of rudimentary protection being good enough for the overwhelming majority of consumers. If you were to ask a person if a skilled locksmith could defeat their deadbolt they would say "yes, most likely". If you asked a consumer if a skilled hacker could defeat "Confidential" mode they would probably say the exact same thing. Between this reality and the fine print above, it's hard to label this as deception.
Google also used the lowest form of data classification used by the US Government. If they advertised this as "Top Secret" mode, then it would probably come across as far more deceptive. "Confidential" tends to imply rudimentary or basic protections.
Before calling people morons and telling them to read and comprehend, you might first try to read and comprehend what you are writing. Your exact words were
it's rather difficult to classify this as mere "theater" without slapping that label on every other form of email encryption.
If you meant to say "every other form of self destructing email" or something along those lines, then you are absolutely correct. Every single service that offers a self destructing email is also theater. However, that is NOT the words you chose to use. The words you chose made it appear you couldn't comprehend the difference between ordinary encryption (which is a valid feature which generally performs as advertised) and this stupid self-destructing email.
First of all, here is actually what Google claims on this specific vulnerability, confirming they're not really claiming to protect against it either:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
As far as the verbiage, I should have obviously clarified further to avoid the nitpicking. In reality, it doesn't really matter what service we're talking about. Macrovision, CSS, end-to-end encryption (PGP, etc.), self-destructing solutions (Snapchat, Gmail, etc.), they are ALL vulnerable to screen captures from another device.
My point stands. It's rather silly to try and call someone guilty when no one is innocent.
Regardless of the blunder, my point still stands. Here is the fine print regarding this specific vulnerability, which tends to confirm they're not really claiming they can protect against this.
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Every other service doesn't claim to not be protecting against it.
That's why this service, which explicitly has the selling point of "recipients won't be able to read the shit you send them" is security theater.
Here's an idea: don't send people you don't trust important data.
Problem solved.
Here's another idea. Actually read what Google says about this. You'll find they're really not claiming it either.
""Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
You're being stupid lol. Google is the one claiming it's possible, and it IS theater obviously because there's no real way to stop people from capturing something sent to them. To compare it to general end/end encryption is just obtuse.
End/End encryption works as advertised for its role, is not theater. You can admit you misspoke or made a dumb comparison or you can't admit it. I don't care, it's dumb either way, but you have an opportunity for self-correction...
As someone else has already pointed out, this is actually what Google states on this:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Google is not stupid. The average Google user may be, but Google knew damn well they would get flak from this, hence the above discliaimer.
And yes, every other type of similar service (end-to-end or anything like it) is vulnerable to this. Every one. It's rather stupid to label someone as guilty of this when no one is innocent.
Why do you think the service disables the ability to copy/paste when using this feature?
It doesn't seem at all pointless to point out that google seems to be trying to implement a feature that we all agree is clearly impossible. Why are they doing this? To mislead their customers, I guess?
A deadbolt disables the ability to enter a secured space. 90% of consumer grade deadbolts are vulnerable to lock picking or bumping, and yet not a single manufacturer warns the consumer of this on the package. Why are they doing this? To mislead their customers, I guess?
Truth in Advertising is probably the biggest lie we've ever been sold. At the end of the day Google doesn't care about the "we" here, because we represent the 1% who care about this. The other 99% of their customers don't care, mainly because real security requires actual effort beyond some default configuration, and consumers are obscenely lazy. I'm struggling to understand why Google even felt the need to implement this.
End-to-end email encryption is not "theater". Its security assurances do not include prevention of any use by the intended recipient though.
So any claim to be able to control the intended recipient is a big fat lie ("theater"), but most people creating end-to-end email encryption do not make this claim in the first place.
Allow me to clarify. The vulnerability identified (taking pictures or recording video of the screen from another device) is a weakness that exists in every security solution today, so it becomes rather pointless to identify it as a weakness in this solution.
Yes, Googles implementation is half-assed shit for multiple reasons, but if you were to exclusively count screen capturing from another device (which the parent did), then every security solution is half-assed shit. That was my point here. It's pointless to label them guilty of this when no one is innocent.
Confidential mode is not about securing the email from third party eyes, as with encryption, but securing it's content's usage from the indended recipient's control, as such comparing it's benefits and shortcomings to encryption is erroneous and irrelevant.
As is identifying taking pictures of a screen with another device, which was my entire point.
That specific vulnerability exists in every security solution today, so it's pointless to label it as a weakness here. Even Google trying to prevent forwarding or printing of content is defeated by this rather simple tactic, just as Macrovision, DVD/Blu-Ray encryption, and many other types of security measures designed to prevent dissemination have been defeated in the past by recording the playback with a different device.
Actually? The reason she "got away with it" (wasn't prosecuted) was because hundreds and in fact thousands of other similarly positioned officials also did, including Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, and...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Rules for using a personal email server are well-established, as are the rules for sending classified data.
She got away with it because she destroyed evidence of the latter, which should have been plenty to prosecute.
Also, let's be realistic. She got away with it because Bill "Tarmac" Clinton stepped in.
Wrong. Other forms of encryption only offer to keep you email private in transit from you to the recipient. I'm not aware of any others that suggest they can make the email disappear from existence.
I was referring to the specific vulnerability identified, which was taking pictures of a screen, which is irregardless of the purpose of the security (end-to-end or "confidential" mode).
My point was it's difficult to label THAT as a weakness or "theater" in this solution because every service is vulnerable to it.
And yes, Snapchat tends to advertise their "disappearing" act when it comes to private messages and videos, and yes, even they are vulnerable to this.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't really have a plan for any really big states calling his bluff on that.
Rather pathetic that a representative for a democracy didn't plan on democracy happening.
Meh, most people talk about UBI as a way to provide the basics for people that are or have become unemployable. The experience from pretty much every other benefit program is that people tend to become less employable that way, not more. If you wanted more student, you could do that today much simpler through better student benefits.
Yes, UBI will be essentially Welfare 2.0 for the masses, but you failed to realize that UBI is meant to supplement the unemployable, not the "less employable". Unemployable is what most humans on this planet will eventually be classified as automation and AI continue to develop in the next 30 - 50 years.
And when I say 30 - 50 years, it's probably going to be more like 15 - 20. Greed will ensure that all it takes is "good enough" AI to replace humans as quickly as possible.
Also, becoming a student (or making more of them) is going to become more and more pointless. If you're unemployable, what exactly are you studying and why? Although it would be nice, I highly doubt those who are funding UBI through taxation are going to chip in a few trillion more for just-for-fun education.
"This groundbreaking initiative will help governments, businesses and landowners pinpoint -- and stop -- destructive emissions with unprecedented precision, on a scale that's never been done before...."
I'm assuming you're building the worlds largest Bullshit Detector, because that's about the only thing that's going to keep one-sided politics from influencing and controlling whatever the fuck you plan on doing with satellites.
The problem isn't finding evidence that we humans are doing plenty to fuck up our atmosphere and environment. The problem is convincing enough of the greedy fucks in charge to give up their precious money in order to do something about it. For the worlds largest polluters, revenue is all that matters, side effects be damned.
Launch all the "damn" satellites you want. Until you fix the political problem, any results will continue to fall on deaf ears.
The real problem we have here is that companies have been allowed to use any old molecular structure in their products they wish without proving anything about the health impacts it may or may not impart.
No, actually the real problem is we have 100+ million taxpayers who are funding an organization who is supposed to analyze and prevent this kind of shit from poisoning our Food and Drug supply.
As usual, the real problem is politics.
Greed says Fuck Safety. It's only important that our technology is first to market. Whether or not rushing to market will ultimately kill people does not matter. Greed will also regurgitate annual traffic death statistics as a justification to push forward as quickly as possible with this technology, security and integrity be damned.
Oh well. It's not like we haven't seen infrastructure tech millions rely on get rushed to market with little or no concern for safety or security (cough, IoT, cough)
Let's hope there won't be another Takata-grade airbag recall in our autonomous future...might be the only thing that saves your ass when the inevitable happens.
Is Edge really faster/better/cheaper? Or is that statement fake propaganda?
The real question is, are claims like this legally binding.
Probably faster to go after Microsoft for false statements like this to curb bullshit featurecreep rather than try and go the anti-trust route (again)...
Chrome does the same thing when you open IE/Edge and navigate to google.com.
No, Google the search engine gives you an ad for their product when you search for a competitor. I have no problem with Bing doing that either.
The operating system itself giving you an ad for a competing product when you try to install something, however, is a different animal entirely.
Speaking of different animal entirely, your mistake was confusing Windows 10 for an operating system.
In reality, pushing Edge is nothing more than the vendor pushing an ad for their product. The entire neutered "OS" has turned into little more than a marketing tool.
We know you've given up and have no spine. That doesn't mean the rest of us will give in so easy.
People like you are what I can "yea men"
Whatever the industry throws at you it's "yea man, that's how it has to be"
Fuck off.
And you think you're going to change the world.
You might as well go fuck off to the world of FOSS, and enjoy all the "freedom" you demand, because your voice (or mine) sure as shit isn't going to change what greed demands. I never said I disagreed with the concept of consumers having total control, I merely said you are delusional in thinking you've really got control over anything you own, or that you would change the winds of capitalism at this point.
As I said before, there's always FOSS. Don't like insecure solutions? Go roll your own.
Fool. The user is always supposed to have ultimate control over the device. Fuck off with your scare-mongering as an excuse for sloth and apathy. If a user refuses to learn, they deserve what they get. Dont bust out the golden shackles and try to tell me its jewelry.
There are a LOT more users that don't give a shit about having "ultimate control" than you assume. What you call golden shackles the average user calls blissful ignorance; and they're quite happy not knowing or being responsible for their hardware.
In fact, most of the shit you own and operate today you don't have "ultimate control" over, so I'm not really sure where your delusional demands are stemming from here.
"I think everyone's steering way away from the monopolies, and I think it's hurting innovation in the tech sector..."
Monopolies exist everywhere (not just the tech sector), but what has truly killed innovation is the patent system.
When companies amass tens of thousands of patents they'll never actually use in huge patent "war chests", it only serves one purpose; to allow Greed to stifle and control innovation.
Innovation reform is pointless without patent reform. You can't throw a stick 10 feet without hitting something that is patented 746 ways, to include throwing a stick 10 feet. When the world is controlled at that level, any attempt to innovate becomes more and more pointless and frustrating.
Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.
Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "Doesn't happen to me, sucks to be you."
Yes, I hate unethical business practices as much as you do, but your own statement tends to confirm why everyone should wise up, because ethics in business sure as hell isn't going to change anytime soon.
Fine print does exist everywhere. Intelligent people understand this, and do not get swindled. Telling people to wise up and learn to read their contracts is nothing more than dictating common sense. If they refuse to listen, then Experience will be their teacher in life. Yes, it does "suck" to be unteachable, but I don't enjoy wasting legal resources (and/or taxpayer money) defending the moron who was shocked and appalled to find his Adjustable Rate Mortgage is adjustable. Or a limited time offer, is limited.
Intelligent people also do not appreciate having to pay for mass stupidity via price increases either, which is exactly how every company pays for shit like this.
TL; DR - If PT Barnum were alive today, he wouldn't be considered a criminal. He would be the richest man on the planet.
Yes, we all hate fine print, but we pretty much all know that fine print exists in every contract. No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.
One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.
I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory prices are advertised, they must clearly include the term and the subsequent service price.
They are including those details. In the fine print.
What this lawsuit really seeks is to determine just how many consumers are too stupid and ignorant to actually read their contract and understand their obligations. Since the concept of "fine print" is pretty much universally known and recognized by now (as is "introductory pricing", it's rather hard to claim you're a victim, and likely a rather easy defense for the perpetrators.
Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more. Part of me wants to let these consumers swing in the wind because the hard was is the only way you teach stupid people to wise up.
Problem #3: The fine print:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Even Google is not claiming they can protect against this. Google's end goal here is rudimentary, because that is really all it takes to be fairly effective for 99% of their customers. (It's also rudimentary because as you stated Problem #1 exists when it doesn't have to)
As far as misleading consumers, deadbolts are advertised and sold as a device that prevents theft, and yet 90% of them can be defeated with lock picking or bump keys. Millions are sold every year, and yet there's not a single label on any package that warns the consumer of this vulnerability. This is also an example of rudimentary protection being good enough for the overwhelming majority of consumers. If you were to ask a person if a skilled locksmith could defeat their deadbolt they would say "yes, most likely". If you asked a consumer if a skilled hacker could defeat "Confidential" mode they would probably say the exact same thing. Between this reality and the fine print above, it's hard to label this as deception.
Google also used the lowest form of data classification used by the US Government. If they advertised this as "Top Secret" mode, then it would probably come across as far more deceptive. "Confidential" tends to imply rudimentary or basic protections.
Just because they are able to get away with using fine print to disclaim any and all responsibility, and just because the general public is too stupid/lazy to care about security and will just accept "good enough" rammed down their throats, that doesn't make Google's claims any less deceptive. You consider this acceptable, and THAT is the real "Problem #1".
If you and every other consumer actually sat and read every line of every EULA you've ever been presented, you might have a point about deception. There's a reason every organization buries this kind of shit in the fine print. Again, it's hard to label someone guilty of this kind of "deception" when no one is innocent.
Go ahead. Read the fine print. From anything. I can assure you that you will feel deceived in some way.
And the real Problem #1 in society is the level of ignorance and stupidity among the lazy masses, which also defines the root cause.. If everyone was intelligent enough to question Googles claims here, Google would backtrack this crap faster than you could say "liar". As it stands, the 1% questioning their security tactics are nothing more than acceptable noise. We are irrelevant. The stupid masses are what is important to capitalism. No, that's not acceptable, but making our voices louder isn't going to solve this problem of mass ignorance.
A shitty attitude doesn't have to "beat" the system. It has to save you the effort of chasing after or pursuing jobs that you either would not get or are not seriously being advertised.
I can think of one interview where doing things politely didn't "beat" the system either - I showed up, interviewed, and then got told the person who got the job was a cousin of the hiring manager. If I'd ghosted, I would have been much better off.
I completely agree that the tactic of advertising jobs publicly when the company fully intends to hire internally is total bullshit. I wish there were laws preventing this instead of forcing companies to advertise jobs that are not really possible to obtain. That feeds the negativity with this entire environment.
And really, the only thing your example shows is that it's more important than ever to know someone at an organization when seeking a job opportunity. Favoritism can also work in your favor.
At the end of the day, simply being polite and respectful can land you a job and probably with the right people who recognize and value politeness and respect. We both know your chances of landing any job are slim to none if you're rude.
You're conflating two completely separate deficiencies with Gmail's "Confidential" service.
End-to-end encryption prevents eavesdropping. Many systems do that. Gmail's apparently doesn't, though it certainly could. That is Problem #1.
The screenshot / behavior that OP mentioned is about what the end user (for whom the message is decrypted at the endpoint) can do with the data. Gmail's service can only stop the most rudimentary forms of data preservation - and, you're right, no system in the world can stop screenshots and even screen photos. If the user can see it, the user can persist it.
The point is that *systems should not promise what they cannot deliver*. Gmail's system suggests a form of protection that it does not and cannot offer. That is Problem #2.
Problem #3: The fine print:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Even Google is not claiming they can protect against this. Google's end goal here is rudimentary, because that is really all it takes to be fairly effective for 99% of their customers. (It's also rudimentary because as you stated Problem #1 exists when it doesn't have to)
As far as misleading consumers, deadbolts are advertised and sold as a device that prevents theft, and yet 90% of them can be defeated with lock picking or bump keys. Millions are sold every year, and yet there's not a single label on any package that warns the consumer of this vulnerability. This is also an example of rudimentary protection being good enough for the overwhelming majority of consumers. If you were to ask a person if a skilled locksmith could defeat their deadbolt they would say "yes, most likely". If you asked a consumer if a skilled hacker could defeat "Confidential" mode they would probably say the exact same thing. Between this reality and the fine print above, it's hard to label this as deception.
Google also used the lowest form of data classification used by the US Government. If they advertised this as "Top Secret" mode, then it would probably come across as far more deceptive. "Confidential" tends to imply rudimentary or basic protections.
Before calling people morons and telling them to read and comprehend, you might first try to read and comprehend what you are writing. Your exact words were
it's rather difficult to classify this as mere "theater" without slapping that label on every other form of email encryption.
If you meant to say "every other form of self destructing email" or something along those lines, then you are absolutely correct. Every single service that offers a self destructing email is also theater. However, that is NOT the words you chose to use. The words you chose made it appear you couldn't comprehend the difference between ordinary encryption (which is a valid feature which generally performs as advertised) and this stupid self-destructing email.
First of all, here is actually what Google claims on this specific vulnerability, confirming they're not really claiming to protect against it either:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
As far as the verbiage, I should have obviously clarified further to avoid the nitpicking. In reality, it doesn't really matter what service we're talking about. Macrovision, CSS, end-to-end encryption (PGP, etc.), self-destructing solutions (Snapchat, Gmail, etc.), they are ALL vulnerable to screen captures from another device.
My point stands. It's rather silly to try and call someone guilty when no one is innocent.
Irregardless isn't a word. It's a blunder.
Regardless of the blunder, my point still stands. Here is the fine print regarding this specific vulnerability, which tends to confirm they're not really claiming they can protect against this.
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Every other service doesn't claim to not be protecting against it. That's why this service, which explicitly has the selling point of "recipients won't be able to read the shit you send them" is security theater. Here's an idea: don't send people you don't trust important data. Problem solved.
Here's another idea. Actually read what Google says about this. You'll find they're really not claiming it either.
""Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
You're being stupid lol. Google is the one claiming it's possible, and it IS theater obviously because there's no real way to stop people from capturing something sent to them. To compare it to general end/end encryption is just obtuse. End/End encryption works as advertised for its role, is not theater. You can admit you misspoke or made a dumb comparison or you can't admit it. I don't care, it's dumb either way, but you have an opportunity for self-correction...
As someone else has already pointed out, this is actually what Google states on this:
"Although confidential mode helps prevent the recipients from accidentally sharing your email, it doesn't prevent recipients from taking screenshots or photos of your messages or attachments..."
Google is not stupid. The average Google user may be, but Google knew damn well they would get flak from this, hence the above discliaimer.
And yes, every other type of similar service (end-to-end or anything like it) is vulnerable to this. Every one. It's rather stupid to label someone as guilty of this when no one is innocent.
Why do you think the service disables the ability to copy/paste when using this feature?
It doesn't seem at all pointless to point out that google seems to be trying to implement a feature that we all agree is clearly impossible. Why are they doing this? To mislead their customers, I guess?
A deadbolt disables the ability to enter a secured space. 90% of consumer grade deadbolts are vulnerable to lock picking or bumping, and yet not a single manufacturer warns the consumer of this on the package. Why are they doing this? To mislead their customers, I guess?
Truth in Advertising is probably the biggest lie we've ever been sold. At the end of the day Google doesn't care about the "we" here, because we represent the 1% who care about this. The other 99% of their customers don't care, mainly because real security requires actual effort beyond some default configuration, and consumers are obscenely lazy. I'm struggling to understand why Google even felt the need to implement this.
End-to-end email encryption is not "theater". Its security assurances do not include prevention of any use by the intended recipient though. So any claim to be able to control the intended recipient is a big fat lie ("theater"), but most people creating end-to-end email encryption do not make this claim in the first place.
Allow me to clarify. The vulnerability identified (taking pictures or recording video of the screen from another device) is a weakness that exists in every security solution today, so it becomes rather pointless to identify it as a weakness in this solution.
Yes, Googles implementation is half-assed shit for multiple reasons, but if you were to exclusively count screen capturing from another device (which the parent did), then every security solution is half-assed shit. That was my point here. It's pointless to label them guilty of this when no one is innocent.
Confidential mode is not about securing the email from third party eyes, as with encryption, but securing it's content's usage from the indended recipient's control, as such comparing it's benefits and shortcomings to encryption is erroneous and irrelevant.
As is identifying taking pictures of a screen with another device, which was my entire point.
That specific vulnerability exists in every security solution today, so it's pointless to label it as a weakness here. Even Google trying to prevent forwarding or printing of content is defeated by this rather simple tactic, just as Macrovision, DVD/Blu-Ray encryption, and many other types of security measures designed to prevent dissemination have been defeated in the past by recording the playback with a different device.
Actually? The reason she "got away with it" (wasn't prosecuted) was because hundreds and in fact thousands of other similarly positioned officials also did, including Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, and... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Rules for using a personal email server are well-established, as are the rules for sending classified data.
She got away with it because she destroyed evidence of the latter, which should have been plenty to prosecute.
Also, let's be realistic. She got away with it because Bill "Tarmac" Clinton stepped in.
Wrong. Other forms of encryption only offer to keep you email private in transit from you to the recipient. I'm not aware of any others that suggest they can make the email disappear from existence.
I was referring to the specific vulnerability identified, which was taking pictures of a screen, which is irregardless of the purpose of the security (end-to-end or "confidential" mode).
My point was it's difficult to label THAT as a weakness or "theater" in this solution because every service is vulnerable to it.
And yes, Snapchat tends to advertise their "disappearing" act when it comes to private messages and videos, and yes, even they are vulnerable to this.