This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from this sort of surveillance is not a priority.
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.
[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...
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
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.
I was just trying this, I moved something to trash and then did a 'Delete Forever'. Nothing appeared in trash or all mail again.
Nobody is talking about sidestepping laws. You are not breaking laws, nor breaking the spirit of the law, if your users cannot store many years of their personal communications on your server. Encouraging people to delete mail would have the effect of limiting the government's surveillance power, in an entirely legal fashion.
"aren't the laws at fault here?"
It is not that simple. The relevant laws were written at a time when mail quotas were commonly measured in megabytes, when people had to delete their mail in order to stay under the limit. Back then, if a few personal messages happened to be on the server when a court order was received, it was not such a big deal; those messages probably pertained to very recent things anyway. Now, when a court order for "all of Joe's email" is received, that will very likely include messages dating back years, long before whatever crime Joe is suspected of was even committed. The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications.
"If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless."
Why not do both? Why should we suffer while we wait for the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn? Neither action excludes the other, you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books.
I wasn't suggesting that either. Sidestepping is avoidance not evasion.
> The laws have not been updated in light of these new privacy implications. ... the deliberately slow wheels of government to turn?
So change the law. And speed up your justice system. Don't elect individuals who slow down progress deliberately.
> you can both circumvent unjust laws and work to take those laws off the books.
And fight the laws and its usage, which is what Google does. It was also the entity that disclosed the original order in this particular case, so that the person in question can also take some action if possible. It also publishes transparency reports and it was the first one to do that, which gives you an idea about how frequent usage of the unjust laws are so that you, as a community, has more information about what your government is doing. If I am not wrong, there have been 2 elections since the FISA was passed and the voting population of US was aware of the broad surveillance since the first election (Obama based some of his campaign on it). If he hadn't acted on it, then it should have become a point of debate in the reelection. But it was celebrated on Hacker News as much as anywhere else, without a single mention of his inability of reducing the scope of such laws. So guess what? Overboard surveillance didn't seem to be a priority for most of the people here and Google has been more transparent and more vigilant about it since longer than the PRISM episode. The gist is that it is easy to transfer blame in this case, but the root cause it solely the astoundingly broad laws and the undoubted trust that voters put in the current government that used them instead of removing them as it had promised.
> "you can both circumvent unjust laws..."
and
> "aren't the laws at fault here?"
> list of reasons why the laws are at fault...
you have a point in there (work to fix laws while protecting yourself), but you're being weirdly (and ineffectually) contrarian in this thread.
As for the point of the laws being faulty, what I was saying was that the laws were designed with a particular communications model in mind. Google's system is designed very differently from that model, but despite Google's popularity and despite other services adopting a model similar to Google's the law has not changed. Just saying that the law is at fault is too simplistic; the laws may have good reasons behind them and may have made sense at the time they were passed (and had technology not changed, the laws might still make sense now).
Also Gmail is the only webmail that offers server-to-server encryption: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p...
And as mentioned in another comment you can delete messages over IMAP.
So in the future make sure you do some research as to avoid spreading false information.
Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful.
Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you.
My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications.
You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.
The 4th amendment includes this part:
"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.
It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".
That's reasonable. A blanket warrant impacting all emails since the beginning of time is not reasonable.
If the cant name a crime and give a date or dates then they shouldn't be asking for a warrant.
Google has a business model whose entire premise is to push the envelope on privacy and to collect as much as possible and hold it forever--to make a few extra pennies per user. Get off your high horse. Google (and FB) is /are a menace to us all, even if only because they gather so much private data about us.
No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
In this case, the problem is not investigators overreaching the law. The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages.
Except that people do not typically do that, and it is reasonable to expect that a filing cabinet will contain only important or current documents. With GMail, you typically see personal messages that date back years, probably long before whatever crime the person is suspected of.
"The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages."
I think for once, we might agree. The relevant laws were written with a very different model of communication in mind.
If H&R Block had Whitey Bulger's tax returns, would the warrant be required to describe those documents, or, would all of the small, baggable disk drives at their data center be subject to seizure?
Imperfect warrants are a problem for the state at trial. Outside of trial, any old warrant will do.
(Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)