As much as I generally distrust google with privacy when it comes to actually handing over data, in this case it's an open protocol that has just been drafted by google; anyone can run a server or make their own implementation. It also never touches private keys, only public. If you want a public key to have limited distribution, you don't put it on a keyserver, and instead only exchange it with the people you would like to in person or over some other verified and secure channel.
It does have a somewhat anti-privacy feature in that if I understand it correctly, it keeps a record of messages between participants (in the sense of a record existing that a message was exchanged although not the content), but that level of data is already accessible to NSA/GCHQ anyway.
Google would not give up the ability to see email content... maybe they would analyze them locally on your phone instead of on a remote server (that might even save them from buying a few server too)
If you can see your emails on your Android device and Google is admin on your device, why do you say that it is impossible for them to read your emails? I don't mean that they could read them in the cloud but if they can read them locally on your Android device and for example they could send a message back to Google saying "I think this guy should get ads for a new router".... but of course they could do much worst (they could send whole messages back for example).
Android was designed to leak as much information about the user as possible all the time, even to third parties. Spy satellites have less invasive software.
You think google can write a proposal like this without the NSA getting involved ? The fact that they are preserving metadata is revealing and meaningful. Its another PR stunt.
Google can never never be trusted again. They publicly lied about PRISM, and they got caught. These people have no business making security protocols for us.
More to the point, what is the truth? Google leadership post 9/11 knew what "certifying" their communication systems meant and took the money to do it. Whether they knew that the program was named Prism is irrelevant, in my opinion.
Google responds to legal requests for information. The whole PRISM scandal was indicating that the NSA had some kind of direct link into the databases themselves. This assertion is what Google denied, and still denies.
There's been a bit of a wandering definition for PRISM, from "they have NSA software with root access to all machines!" to "they receive LEO requests for information, which they review, and sometimes fulfill." The former is untrue, and the latter is true.
Go look at the slides. The NSA isn't lying in its own internal documents. Of course google is in on it. Do you get how huge this infrastructure is ? Its a massive engineering effort to manage that kind of information flow.
What has happened here is google has got scared. Because without trusting users all their business models fall apart. So they are lying. Its that simple.
I wasn't implying any trust in google on my part (I didn't trust them even before PRISM, but that shut the door on the chance of my ever trusting them again), and chances are this will never progress beyond a draft spec, but there isn't any real way to implement something like this without doing so. the NSA would find the block chain of this helpful, yes, but it isn't data they don't already have unless it is somehow extended to non-email messaging as well.
Thats how google works. Piecemeal. You think loon was about internet for the poor and oppressed ? Thats just how they get their foot in the door. Im sure google just wanted to write a draft spec for the fun of it.
Google is a front for US intelligence. We should give no quarter. Shun them.
At the risk of sounding like a fanboy apologist, I must say you're making a lot of serious accusations against a one of the most benevolent company in the history of mankind. Some serious evidence should follow.
Picking on Project Loon... come on, is there anything Google could do that you wouldn't immediately label as evil forefront of US intelligence?
The do no evil line is bullshit. This is not a benevolent company by any standard. The services are not free, you are just paying in a different currency.
Here is more on loon and look further up for links to the PRISM slides and documentation showing the companies involved including google were compensated financially by the NSA. The evidence is damning.
> The do no evil line is bullshit. This is not a benevolent company by any standard.
From the linked Slashdot article - Google patented Loon-related technology, describing it "as just the ticket for those well-to-do enough to pay a tiered-pricing premium to get faster internet access while attending concerts, conferences, air shows, music festivals, and sporting events where a facility's overtaxed Wi-Fi simply won't do."
Picking on this is like saying that Elon Musk is an evil liar, because if he really cared about good of humanity and electric transport for the masses he surely wouldn't start with an superexpensive car for ultra rich, and then move to expensive car for moderatly-rich. Obviously, the whole argument about "Roadster bankrolling Model S bankrolling $35k Sedan" is just a bunch of lies trying to hide how evil he is.
That's basically what I'm reading from your argument.
You know, altruism involves money, and quite often the best way to do something good is to make it profitable.
> Look the bottom line here is these guys betrayed us. They are traitors, and we need to cut them out of our future.
If so, then long, long before Google you need to get rid of GoDaddy, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, BMW, General Motors, General Electric, Coca Cola, Nestle, Walmart, every other mom and pop store and pretty much 90% of other companies who betrayed us in many more ways, heavily documented and not alleged. Seriously, saying that Google Is Bad is nothing but a signalling game around here.
Yes, the fact that they're doing nothing bad to their customers today is an evil conspiracy to hide the fact that they want to do something bad to their customers. Makes sense.
> It's all about data collection to spew more adverts at people.
The way they do this is the single most ethical way of doing advertisements. Non-intrusive and trying to predict what you actually need. They're pursuing the ultimate goal of good advertising, i.e. connecting your needs to the best way to satisfy them, but hell, they're evil.
We can discuss side effects and externalities of their data collection, but that's a completely different thing than assuming malice.
Data collection isn't for advertising exclusively. It builds profiles that can be sold to third parties who will use that information to redline demographics. For instance health insurance companies and banks.
It does have a somewhat anti-privacy feature in that if I understand it correctly, it keeps a record of messages between participants (in the sense of a record existing that a message was exchanged although not the content), but that level of data is already accessible to NSA/GCHQ anyway.