If you receive an email with a subject line that says “Encryption,” you can be almost certain that it’s non-encrypting correspondence. Such messages are sent from the sender to not only the recipient, but also to email providers and state organizations who have one of two purposes: to either be able to read your message or identify you as a sender.
Encryption is a way of protecting information from being read by unintended recipients, as well as ensuring that only the sender and recipient have access to it. When encryption is used properly, all communications and documents are regarded as confidential, keeping them away from prying eyes. End-to-end encryption is the preferred form of encryption for emails because it encrypts data both in transit and at rest, making it much more difficult to read the contents of emails.
End-to-end encryption is a form of data encryption where only the sender and recipient can decrypt the data. This ensures that only these parties have access to the information being transmitted. The most common way end-to-end encryption is used today is in messaging applications such as iMessage, WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger. These apps ensure that your messages and files are encrypted while they are being sent from one device to another (in transit), but also when they are stored in servers or backed up on devices (at rest).
The reason for this is because once you send an email, it gets stored somewhere on a server which anyone with access to that server can potentially read. This is why end-to-end encryption is important, because it ensures that only the intended recipient can read the message.
The problem with end-to-end encryption in messaging apps is that your messages are often stored on servers for a long period of time (even if you delete them from your device). This makes them vulnerable to hackers and other threats.
Another problem with end-to-end encryption is that it’s not always easy to use. It requires both parties in a conversation to be using services which support end-to-end encryption, otherwise your messages will not be encrypted at all. And even if both parties are using these services, there’s still the risk of metadata leakage .
For example, if someone sends an end-to-end encrypted message to someone else, the metadata of that message is still visible. This means that if you send a message from your device to Gmail’s servers (to be stored on the server), and then someone sends you a reply, this reply will be visible in the metadata.
So what can we do about this? Well, there are some things you can do as an individual to protect yourself: use end-to-end encryption whenever possible; use strong passwords; don’t reuse the same password for multiple accounts; enable two factor authentication where possible; and avoid sending sensitive information over unencrypted channels.
But if we want to make real changes in how our data is handled by these companies, it’s not enough to just protect ourselves. We need to start pushing for systemic changes that will affect how these companies handle our data.
We can start by demanding that companies publish transparency reports detailing the number of requests they receive from government agencies around the world, and how many accounts have been affected by these requests. This is something both Google and Twitter have committed themselves to doing . It’s not a perfect solution (as it doesn’t cover non-government requests) but it’s definitely a step in the right direction.
Another thing we can do is demand that companies be more transparent about what kind of data they collect, and what they do with it. As I mentioned earlier, Facebook gives users very little information about what information is collected when you visit a profile , and what is done with it.
If we demand more transparency from these companies, they will have to give us better information about what happens to our data when we use their services. This may force them to make some changes in the way they operate, but it’s for the good of everyone involved.
In addition, Facebook has also committed itself to a transparency report , which will provide users with more details about the kind of requests that are being made by governments around the world. I think this is a great step forward, and I hope other companies follow suit.
Finally, people need to stand up for their privacy rights . We need informed individuals who know how to deal with government requests for data. For example: if you don’t want the government reading your email, don’t put it in an email.
If you’re not willing to put up a fight for your privacy rights, then they will be taken away from you. If you value your privacy, now is the time to make that clear.
The first is that Facebook did not have to pay compensation to the users that sued them. The court ruled that they didn’t have to because it was a “reasonable” request for information from the company and therefore did not violate European law regarding privacy rights. However, I do think that if this decision had gone against Facebook then they would have been forced to pay compensation as well as change their policy going forward.
This means that in future cases regarding requests for personal data by Facebook or other companies, all it will take is for one judge in one country who disagrees with his colleagues on the panel and you could lose your right to be compensated for handing over your data!
The bottom line: This is a huge victory for people who believe in online transparency and freedom of information. The courts have shown that they will support users’ rights over those of companies or governments when push comes to shove. I’m very happy with this ruling and I’m looking forward to seeing how Facebook uses this new power going forward. There are a couple of small issues with this ruling, however.