> What logic is this?
I have already explained it. If you can't understand it I don't think I can
explain it any better. You should really try to look beyond your own computer
and understand that communication involves other hosts too and that changing
your mail server is not enough as a measure to ensure privacy of
communication.
> Almost any provider is less abusive than Google.
These are generalizations. Just like saying that Mozilla respects your
privacy better than Google.
> At least choose one that promises you privacy and has to breach their
promise to abuse you.
I already have that. And "at least" it is from a provider who understands
security down to the chip. I am completely against the large scale mischief
of Google but it would be unfair to disregard the excellent technical
expertise of people who work there. Let's not forget who announced the
Spectre and Meltdown (hint: it wasn't FSF). And before you jump at me with
another "Gnullelujah, you will rot in hell as a sinner" - I am not
recommending anything here. I am just saying what I do in a time of searching
for better alternative, not that you should do the same (especially when you
don't know what you are doing, as it seems).
> Meanwhile you are so worried about what happens in ring-3? Again, where is
the logic?
Again: how many times? It is no different from running Windows, installing
LibreOffice on it and feeling relaxed that in this way your computer won't
leak data through your office package.
> My house can be broken into with a sledgehammer so I should get rid of the
door?
That is not a correct metaphor. Nobody is destroying your computer. A correct
metaphor would be: who cares about the super lock of your door when your key
can be accessed by someone else at any time without you even knowing about
it? You don't seem to understand that something like Intel ME has full access
to every single bit of data (including every key stroke) and can modify and
transmit it while you are running your favorite Trisquel and Tor, using
non-US based mail service with E2E encryption and thinking that you are safe
in that setup. It can even do that while your system is shut down as long as
the power cable is plugged in.
> As you yourself show, you are not serious in your approach to privacy.
What is your approach? To simply tell others that their approach is wrong?
You didn't even know what a protection ring is before it was mentioned, yet
you tell another that he doesn't understand, you speak about PhD's and what
not. Does that make you serious? Or the fact that you object to anything
which you fail to even look at?
