Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by mdszy on Monday December 30, 2019 @02:59PM
(#21916156)
You can't prove a negative.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by nkrisc on Monday December 30, 2019 @03:28PM
(#21916397)
They said "prove" but really it's about trust. Google has lost many peoples' trust and it's on Google to restore that trust.
Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by fulldecent2 on Monday December 30, 2019 @09:55PM
(#21918617)
Sure you can. Apple does not run its image classification on your images using its cloud servers. You can test this by stepping inside a microwave or other cage and seeing that image classification and search still works on the iPhone.
---
On the other hand, what Apple does with your photos that you allow to be exfiltrated through iCloud... that's your own stupid fault.
Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by dredmorbius on Monday December 30, 2019 @09:05PM
(#21918423)
We're not talking about mathematical or scientific levels of proof, but assurance and trust.
The usual methods for achieving this are government regulation and oversight (free of capture), and independent third-party audits (likewise).
The good news is that there seems to be ... some, slight ... progress in this direction.
Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by rgbrgb on Monday December 30, 2019 @03:11PM
(#21916258)
You definitely can [0], but this one would probably be hard for google without significantly modifying the architecture of gmail in ways that would remove its revenue model. For example, they could open source a client that had audit-able end-to-end encryption, but then they couldn't optimize ad revenue by aggregating and mining large email datasets.
Re:ProtonMail takes aim at Google with an encrypted calendar
by mdszy on Monday December 30, 2019 @03:47PM
(#21916566)
> a proof demonstrating that a particular problem cannot be solved as described in the claim, or that a particular set of problems cannot be solved in general
did you even read the article you linked