On 20.08.2013 14:52, rysiek wrote:
Could you expand on «this is very, very bad for us»?
Well, if it's the developer-oriented GCS, not Google Drive, it's just a bit
less bad for us.
I have to admit I haven't even noticed what Google service was involved.
Still, what's «bad» about it?
Thing is, this encryption scheme (in which, from what I read, Google has
access to "master keys" and has the technical ability to decrypt data once
it's subpoenad) brings no additional safety to users.
But do they have the legal right not to hold those keys? Or this matter
is irrelevant to you?
It sounds great ("we
support encryption! and we're doing it with several keys! that has to be safe,
eh?"), but it does effectively nothing to actually protect users and their
data from PRISM and similar programmes.
But that's not what they are saying.
And that means it will be this harder for us to explain why this is a bad
scheme ("wait, you're saying encryption is evil? now I am confused!") and why
people should use other methods of protecting their privacy and their data.
Isn't it ironic? So Google SHOULD make things easier for you to tell
people to use other services? Sounds like the new anti–gay legislation
in Russia: making it easier for priests to preach homofobia.
