IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by sliverstorm on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @06:48PM (#5528743)

Maybe I'm expressing myself in too cryptic of a fashion. I'm simply asserting that while privacy and authentication sometimes overlap, they are not the same thing.

From the parent of my original comment:

Almost every SMTP server out there today requires authentication ... That is the very definition of trying to keep things private.

Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by maratd on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @09:46PM (#5529424)

Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy.

If I am using them to communicate with a 3rd party, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy between myself and that 3rd party. You would most certainly need a warrant to turn around and try to get access to a message stored on their servers.

On top of that, quite a bit of email today doesn't even touch SMTP. If I'm sending an email from one GMail user to another GMail user, I'm pretty sure it is just shuffled around on Google's internal servers. And, of course, I'm connecting to Google using SSL, an encrypted connection.

How does that not scream private?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by sliverstorm on Thursday April 11, 2013 @12:51AM (#5530045)

Hey, hey, what's with the "..." and cutting out the relevant parts? I explicitly mention SSL and TLS. Those are encryption standards that are designed exclusively for privacy.

I cut out the SSL and TLS because I don't disagree; SSL and TLS certainly says "privacy". I wanted to specifically address the notion that "authentication =~ privacy"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by eruditely on Thursday April 11, 2013 @12:40AM (#5530019)

While you are making your point, you're being overly pedantic, and the point is irrelevant. Email should not be able to be accessed by a third party without warrant period. Whether or not the analogies line up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by sliverstorm on Thursday April 11, 2013 @01:16AM (#5530111)

It may seem like pedantry, and it may not be directly applicable to the article, but it is a common security fallacy I wanted to call out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @08:34PM (#5529159)

>Do you believe that SMTP authentication contributes to privacy and not authenticity?

Why can't it be both?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant by delluminatus on Wednesday April 10, 2013 @11:49PM (#5529881)

Well, authentication simply doesn't provide any privacy. It just doesn't. However, SSL/TLS do, which are widely used -- but not authentication.

[ Parent | on HN ]