this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
555 points (91.7% liked)

Privacy

9224 readers
839 users here now

A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy

Rules:

  1. Be civil
  2. No spam posting
  3. Keep posts on-topic
  4. No trolling

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sveltecider@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 day ago (4 children)

…email will inherently be a lot less secure than messaging, no matter what you do.

If you truly want to be private about something, don’t email it lol

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 3 points 12 hours ago

People like Jeffrey Epstein running one of the biggest blackmail networks in the planet and at the same time blatantly emailing each other about it from gmail really amazes me. Either they are that stupid or powerful enough that they just don't care.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

no matter what you do.

Even PGP?

...TBF, getting your counterparty to also use PGP is the heavy lift there.

[–] TechLich@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Security yes, privacy not especially.

PGP lets you encrypt the messages and sign them to digitally prove you sent them.

It doesn't help with the problem here which is that the metadata of who you are (the IP used to log into the webmail and the email address of the sender) and who you're talking to (the email of the recipient) and when (timestamps etc.) were able to be leaked.

In fact, depending on the implementation, PGP could be considered slightly worse for privacy because you'd have the added identity proof of the message having a signature that only you could create with your private key (although that's encrypted, it's a stronger identity proof than the sender email address). It also generally leaks the recipients' key IDs too (although that's configurable) PGP is great for accountability, message confidentiality and non-repudiation. Not so much for privacy. For that you'd need other systems.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

Good point re: metadata. Keeping that private is an underrated aspect of security.

[–] Kacarott@aussie.zone 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Is it really so hard to make it secure? If both parties are using some kind of secure email client, couldn't the clients just encrypt and decrypt the subject/content?

[–] sveltecider@lemmy.ca 4 points 16 hours ago

The main issue is that in reality, 95%+ of people aren’t using an encrypted service. So it’s proton to Gmail usually

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Or go talk to the other person out in the middle of a field somewhere without your phones. And I'm not even 100% sure anymore that that would work. Like, maybe the lanternflies are bugged (pun intended).

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Well I'd suggest a forest instead but anyway depends how you get there :

  • look up online how? there might be now a path on a server to your target destination
  • disconnect phone in a pattern that's usually not how you use it? more surveillance
  • public transport tracking, plate tracking until you leave the city
  • rough estimation on your direction then follow up with drones tracking you, if it's 100m high it's hard to notice

... anyway, ending the paranoia comment ;)

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Don't forget facial recognition! Then just in case you decided to wear a mask, gait recognition!

[–] qaeta@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

Membership in the Ministry of Silly Walks about to pay off!

[–] johnyreeferseed@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The bird surveillance system is always watching. Remember birds aren't real!

Flying tape recorders.