You pay the price. This is the price. And you better not complain.
You can either have one, or the other. But you can’t compromise one and keep the the other.
They are public servants, yes?
"To serve and to protect."
Because you might be talking to the mob boss about the weather. But the fact that you are talking to the mob boss is an extremely interesting data point. It pins you to the map in a way that you are immediately a POI and causes a file to be opened on you and your other contacts to further map your place in the network. Who talks to who is very powerful information.
"We kill people based on metadata." - General Michael Hayden, former director NSA and CIA
but if some baddies have logged into your server and sending messages as you, then DKIM can't save you
so say social media companies want a higher standard of proof that emails are coming from a particular institution, what mechanisms are available that doesn't involve onboarding every individual officer to the subtleties of public key crpyotgraphy?
but maybe you're right and this problem won't be solved because the person being harmed has no power and the institution in power sees no harm
I am wondering how they get the data back though, unless they demand it is faxed, or sent to another email address. (Or the person replying doesn't notice the different reply-to address.)
Urban legend says people have been fired after forged harassment emails were delivered this way.
Google claims this is a feature, and the sent “label” isn’t meant to mean that it came from your gmail account.
For instance, there could be a corporate service firehosing spam at coworkers on your behalf, and obviously you don’t want to notice that, so it puts it in the sent box.
There is, unfortunately, no way to get every police force on the globe to agree to some authentication scheme.
The basis of using a service is that you entrust them with the care of your necessity. That they make it unable by policy not to look at the contents of your mail is a nice feature, but nor necessary, as we firstly rely on the good faith we put on the service provdider. To go ahead and request that the security measures be extended to data necessary to route communications, is of a pathological paranoic nature.
The mailman needs to know the address.
Mailmen who don't require your address to deliver may appear as competitors, but they will always be a shady second choice, because mailmen need to know your address.
I believe the internet should be treated like the mail, but until the government actually steps in and takes ownership of it, they have no business having access to the metadata necessary to route packets, let alone the logs of those routings, and certainly not any additional Metadata that is not part of the routing function
Is this documented anywhere?
Network fax systems are more convenient to use than traditional, but still more secure than email because they’ve been designed to be so.
How is that different from techbros trying to claim a loophole for their illegal business, because it's on the internet/through an app/'is a gig job'/on a blockchain?
When legislature hasn't kept up with technology, the only way to fight that behaviour is through lawsuits. Lawsuits have made some headway in dealing with both private, and government malfeasance, here.