

Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin - gcb0
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/google-handed-over-years-of-e-mails-belonging-to-wikileaks-chatroom-admin/

======
ferdo
I've never owned a gmail account but have sent to plenty. Gmail is like the
21st century party landline but only a relative few people can listen in.

> Because I talked to Julian Assange, all information held by Google relating
> to my user account with them can be handed over to US prosecutors—not just
> the contents of my conversations with Julian.

There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest,
there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also.

~~~
superuser2
Have you considered the possibility that we hear about surveillance of GMail
accounts only because so many people happen to use GMail? Is there any
particular property of Google that makes it more likely to cooperate with
government than any other email provider?

Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your
ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does?

~~~
spc476
It depends on what you mean by "host your own email." Sure, a server at, say,
RackSpace, might be vulnerable to government intrusion without your knowledge,
but if you have a physical server at your home, then the best that the
government can do (without your knowledge) is to tap your upstream connection,
which does little for past emails.

~~~
superuser2
>the best that the government can do (without your knowledge) is to tap your
upstream connection, which does little for past emails.

Really only applies to emails before Room 641A. It might be easier to go after
email at the provider level, but NSA is capable of capturing all internet
traffic if it wants to.

------
Jabbles
What could Google have done better?

(Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders
like this, like they claim to do.)

~~~
betterunix
The way I see it, Google set up a system that is _easy_ to conduct
surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over
IMAP or POP3, and in various subtle ways GMail discourages the use of
encryption.

This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from
this sort of surveillance is _not_ a priority.

~~~
thrownaway2424
I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail
settings, which offers these choices:

When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP
folder:

* Archive the message (default)

* Move the message to the Trash

* Immediately delete the message forever

Ok then.

~~~
steveklabnik
You don't know that actually deletes anything, and defaults matter.

Also,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421)

~~~
chaz
If you don't believe that they delete it when you tell them to delete it, then
using Gmail is already a non-starter. Also, yes, defaults do matter: the
outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much
louder than those wanting instant deletion.

~~~
betterunix
"the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much
louder than those wanting instant deletion."

[citation needed]

Seriously, I have trouble believing that anyone would complain about "delete"
carrying any meaning other than "delete." I also find it hard to take such
people seriously, given the existence of a Trash folder as a first stop for
deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop (and what is the default for
deleting from All Mail? Having the message come right back to All Mail!
Brilliant...).

Thanks for the tip on how to fix this behavior. It is an easy option to
miss...

~~~
chaz
Using the default Gmail settings of (a) Enable IMAP and (b) Auto Expunge on, I
just deleted an email via Sparrow (IMAP). The email instantly went straight
into the Trash folder and is not visible in All Mail. I expect the email to be
auto-deleted in about 30 days. I agree that the behavior you're describing
would be weird, but I'm not seeing it. Can you please double check?

No, I don't have a citation, but is it so hard to believe that lots of people
want an undelete? I accidentally delete emails all the time and I go into the
trash and fish them out. Not giving users an undo seems ... unfriendly.

EDIT: I see, it applies to Custom Folders and delete only removes the label;
doesn't move it to the trash. Here's what Google has to say about it. Is this
a default IMAP behavior or Gmail-IMAP specific?
[https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/78755?hl=en)

~~~
betterunix
I just confirmed the behavior: I deleted a message from my Inbox, and my mail
client put it in my Trash folder. I deleted the message from Trash, and it was
still in All Mail. I deleted from All Mail, and when I refresh the folder it
is still there. I checked the network log, and the correct EXPUNGE commands
are being sent.

As for "undelete," I believe the purpose of the Trash folder is to support
that. I have yet to find the email client that does not, as a default, store
deleted messages in the Trash folder. I am not disputing that people _want_
that functionality, what I am saying is that I do not think people want the
behavior that I am seeing.

The fact that GMail treats "delete" as "remove labels" is _very_ problematic.
IMAP supports labels, including client-defined labels. Treating folders as
"labels" only breaks the abstraction IMAP presents. I suppose this was part of
Mark Crispin's gripes with GMail.

------
marekmroz
"Rouge" whistleblower group? Really Ars? As opposed to what, an NSA approved
whistleblower group?

------
ars
The title makes it seem like they did it for fun, rather than as the result of
a court order.

------
acgourley
Can someone clarify if Google had to reveal they had done this? The article
implies that they did not, and thus the reveal was a "not evil" gesture of
transparency. But I'm wondering if they may have known it would get out anyway
and they are just getting in front of it. Anyone have more information?

~~~
tensafefrogs
Your wording implies that you think Google has something to hide or to be
embarrassed about releasing the data, and that is not the case.

The government asks for people's data all the time, and Google is legally
obligated to provide the requested data. They then go the extra step and tell
the users as soon as they are allowed to.

There's nothing here to "get in front of."

~~~
acgourley
I could have chosen more fair words - that isn't what I meant to say.

Anyway sounds like it's generally a good guy move, just wanted to check what
others thought.

------
iSnow
Why for heaven's sake does anyone who does anything that might piss of a
government use GMail or any hosted mail provider?

This is far beyond me.

~~~
d4nt
The definition of "anyone who does anything that might piss off a government"
includes a lot of people. What if I become a political activist in 20 years
time, I might well piss of a future government, should I stop using gmail now
in case that happens?

~~~
iSnow
Not now, but exactly at that point in time.

------
wyck
The online "territory" will shift away from America eventually, especially for
non Americans who are still stuck under the USA's influence.

This is exactly the kind of thing, along with recent events, that will
eventually deal a major blow to US based tech.

------
rasterizer
Already thoroughly discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5920530](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5920530)
and here:
[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5921005](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5921005)

