Self-destructing email is not implementable, unless you have full control over the receiver. Yes, that means they get searched for cameras before they are allowed to read email. But the idea is pervasive in bad spy movies and hence lots of stupid people keep asking for it. That is likely why Google implemented this fake security measure.
In addition, you can make screenshots on OS level, and you may even be able to do a direct copy on browser-level, depending on the browser. Browsers are not able to secure things they display. They can just make copying minimally harder.
Sure. But encryption gives you some things and others is does not. In particular, there is no way using encryption to prevent the intended recipient from doing whatever they like with an email. Making that claim is just a shameless lie. What they can see and read, they can copy, store, print, forward, etc.
What end-to-end encryption does give you is confidentiality against 3rd parties and authenticity of the sender and these are both critical to have.
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.
Indeed. The idea of a message that destroys itself is ages old. It cannot be implemented securely though. I have gone so far as making physical screenshots with a digital camera to get around it on a device not under my control. (It was a complicated error message, with no regular way to copy it.) This whole thing is a combination of a rather shameless marketing lie and the stupidity of the customer.
You always find lots of true believers for the most demented ideologies. Add a few sadists (also readily available) and you can organize any type of slaughter desired.
They compete with it using monopolist tactics. Remember that "terrorism" originally means a form of government that controls the population by using fear.
Simple: They cannot. But they think that whatever the government wants trumps whatever residual rights citizens may have. This is simply a step in the process of making any rights citizens have optional and to be done away with when any government official says so. Sure, they are not there yet, but the direction is amply clear.
This is an act of establishing fascism, where ultimately the citizens have no rights and the government can do whatever it likes to them. The time to for a decisive "no" to the authoritarian scum making laws like this would be now, but the citizens are deeply asleep.
They need them and they are, in this case, not easy to replace? You completely misconstrue the situation. Typical submissive personality. Not everyone is like that, fortunately.
Smart crooks at least make sure the numbers are somewhat plausible. They probably started small and found that nobody actually noticed. Then they just kept inflating the numbers, completely unaware that there is a hard upper bound. It really does not get much more stupid than this.
I would tell you your data is flawed, but you are thoroughly caught in your filter-bubble, so that is just a waste of time. You are _incapable_ of seeing what is.
Even easier: Put that breakable crypto on top of non-breakable crypto and you have the signature in place. There are no effective countermeasures for this and the only way to detect it is to break the breakable crypto. As that still needs to require real effort, it is not a viable option.
It is actually completely trivial to do so: Just layer things, i.e. put a layer of "breakable" over a layer of unbreakable and only breaking the breakable layer will tell you what is really there. More complex schemes exist, but there are hard proofs that breaking the breakable layer is necessary to find out what is underneath it as long as the breakable layer still offers some real protection. No other possibility unless you make the breakable layer so weak that basically anybody can get in. That is clearly not an option though.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems some people have more sane friends than you. I never had that problem. Of course, I am not a public figure in any way, and that helps.
Self-destructing email is not implementable, unless you have full control over the receiver. Yes, that means they get searched for cameras before they are allowed to read email. But the idea is pervasive in bad spy movies and hence lots of stupid people keep asking for it. That is likely why Google implemented this fake security measure.
I have been doing that forever. Also prevents creeps from reading my email (well, on my side at least) and putting ads in it.
In addition, you can make screenshots on OS level, and you may even be able to do a direct copy on browser-level, depending on the browser. Browsers are not able to secure things they display. They can just make copying minimally harder.
Google thinks they are the world...
Sure. But encryption gives you some things and others is does not. In particular, there is no way using encryption to prevent the intended recipient from doing whatever they like with an email. Making that claim is just a shameless lie. What they can see and read, they can copy, store, print, forward, etc.
What end-to-end encryption does give you is confidentiality against 3rd parties and authenticity of the sender and these are both critical to have.
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.
That as well. But even if you use Gmail, you can do the same with a bit more effort.
Indeed. The idea of a message that destroys itself is ages old. It cannot be implemented securely though. I have gone so far as making physical screenshots with a digital camera to get around it on a device not under my control. (It was a complicated error message, with no regular way to copy it.) This whole thing is a combination of a rather shameless marketing lie and the stupidity of the customer.
You always find lots of true believers for the most demented ideologies. Add a few sadists (also readily available) and you can organize any type of slaughter desired.
They compete with it using monopolist tactics. Remember that "terrorism" originally means a form of government that controls the population by using fear.
Well, you basically say human society always goes for fascism. I do not see things that bleak, but you could be right, unfortunately.
Simple: They cannot. But they think that whatever the government wants trumps whatever residual rights citizens may have. This is simply a step in the process of making any rights citizens have optional and to be done away with when any government official says so. Sure, they are not there yet, but the direction is amply clear.
This is an act of establishing fascism, where ultimately the citizens have no rights and the government can do whatever it likes to them. The time to for a decisive "no" to the authoritarian scum making laws like this would be now, but the citizens are deeply asleep.
They need them and they are, in this case, not easy to replace? You completely misconstrue the situation. Typical submissive personality. Not everyone is like that, fortunately.
Smart crooks at least make sure the numbers are somewhat plausible. They probably started small and found that nobody actually noticed. Then they just kept inflating the numbers, completely unaware that there is a hard upper bound. It really does not get much more stupid than this.
Probably Cisco. They are thoroughly compromised, both from no skill and from no integrity.
But of course, that is not the reason to do something like that at all. Honest!
I would tell you your data is flawed, but you are thoroughly caught in your filter-bubble, so that is just a waste of time. You are _incapable_ of seeing what is.
Even easier: Put that breakable crypto on top of non-breakable crypto and you have the signature in place. There are no effective countermeasures for this and the only way to detect it is to break the breakable crypto. As that still needs to require real effort, it is not a viable option.
It is actually completely trivial to do so: Just layer things, i.e. put a layer of "breakable" over a layer of unbreakable and only breaking the breakable layer will tell you what is really there. More complex schemes exist, but there are hard proofs that breaking the breakable layer is necessary to find out what is underneath it as long as the breakable layer still offers some real protection. No other possibility unless you make the breakable layer so weak that basically anybody can get in. That is clearly not an option though.
Have a look into the research literature before you claim complete nonsense, will you?
You seem to be the one in the movie...
Wrong. The only real way to identify crypto not in line with demented laws is to try and break it.
All this has, I don't know, been known for 5-10 years, maybe longer?