Mr. Mirror and Windows 8

Joseph Calderone wrote:

Also have you seen that google drive will no longer be free?
You can still retrieve data from the drive but not upload new data.

Haven't heard about that. Got an example article that you read
purporting this change? No blogs pretending to be a news source. Those
aren't news supported by sound journalistic practices. No predictions,
either. I wish I could get paid a dollar for every boob that has
announced their prediction of when Windows, any version, or Office, any
version, was going to get released and then failed that prediction. I'd
only lose a dollar only on one successful prediction while collecting
dollars on all the other failed predictions. I searched Bing and Google
and found no substantiation of your claim.

Google Drive (by me creating a Gmail account) comes with a free 15 GB
quote. Google has always had a pricing schedule if you want more
storage: $1.99/mo for 100 GB, $9.99/mo for 1 TB. This is very similar
to a lot of freeware you use: there is an upgrade path for a price to
the less crippled version grades. SyncBack Free mentioned already has a
price schedule to go to the SE and Pro versions. Quite often freeware
is a lure; however, it may have sufficient functionality for the needs
of a user (and with ads or spam that are tolerable to that user).

You sure you aren't thinking of Google Apps which Google yanked away the
free accounts? That happens over 2 years ago.

I had problems with OneDrive which might have been resolved by an
uninstall and reinstall. Alas, Microsoft ****ed up OneDrive's
installation regarding permissions on registry entries so that a
reinstall will fail with an error. It seems to install on the first
pass but then attempt to check for, download, and install and update
(although I've just downloaded the latest version) and it's the update
that fails but then it also removed most of OneDrive so I'm left with
nothing.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=onedriv...040ca0%20error

Tried lots of suggestions but none worked, and frankly I'm not
interested in fixing Microsoft's **** up. So I went to Google Drive.
OneDrive gave me a 25 GB quota (because I managed to login before they
downgraded all existing accounts to only 7 GB) and Google Drive only has
a 15 GB quota; however, I only end up using about 7-8 GB at most for the
1-week cycle of my backups. If I have to, I can use my free aDrive
account that comes with a 50 GB quota (but doesn't include the desktop
client so automatic backup, just a manual backup that I manually upload
to my aDrive account).

You have to understand that EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING Google is considered
experimental, even their Gmail service. I use Gmail, Google Voice, and
Google Drive but Google can yank those anytime them want. In fact, at
one point, Google was considered dropping Google Voice by some
replacement in Google Hangouts but now it looks like they will roll
Google Voice into Hangouts or link it in somehow. Anything that doesn't
generate them revenue (and of sufficient quantity to show a profit) can
end up on the chopping block. I don't know if Google makes any revenue
off of Gmail but they certainly do with their search engine.

That's what happens with free stuff: it can suddenly go away. I also
use Truecrypt and have continued using the fully functional version (not
that last version that was crippled to read only mode) even after all
its developers scurried away presumably after receiving a national
security letter from the DOJ on behalf of the CIA). The last and
crippled version was their warrant "canary" to let other know what
happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary). I'm using an
free NNTP client that was abandoned by its author back in 2005. Free
services can disappear quickly. Even paid services can go away.

Here's a list of all the Google services that have perished:
http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...rodu cts.html
(almost a year old but you get the point regarding lack of survivability
of Google services)

Microsoft deliberately damaged their OneDrive's usability when they
downgraded from 25 GB to 7 GB except for users that managed to read an
e-mail from Microsoft and log into their OneDrive account using their
webclient (not the local client) within something like 5 days of notice.
Of course, like Google, they have their price schedule. The free
service is a lure.

Even the free Usenet provider you use (Eternal-September) could
disappear. So far, it is a free service with its owner footing all the
costs so the rest of can leech on his dollars. Have you ever donated to
ES to help ensure it sticks around? I use Albasani and donated to them
with a reminder to re-donate each year while I continue using them.
Some freeware authors or service providers don't accept donations.
Those who do would appreciate their users helping to offset their costs
for a product or service they provide at their own cost. Note: I do no
donate to a freeware owner who uses their product as a lure or has
commercial offerings. Their freeware is an advertising method; i.e.,
it's a cost of doing business, plus they don't take donations, just
upgrade fees to their payware. All free stuff eventually goes away.
Donations helps it take longer to disappear.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:27:05 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

You have to understand that EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING Google is considered
experimental, even their Gmail service. ... Anything that doesn't
generate them revenue (and of sufficient quantity to show a profit) can
end up on the chopping block. I don't know if Google makes any revenue
off of Gmail but they certainly do with their search engine.

I would imagine that their email data mining activities are a gold mine for
targeted advertising. They don't hide the fact that they scan all email that
moves through their systems.

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

You have to understand that EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING Google is considered
experimental, even their Gmail service. ... Anything that doesn't
generate them revenue (and of sufficient quantity to show a profit) can
end up on the chopping block. I don't know if Google makes any revenue
off of Gmail but they certainly do with their search engine.

I would imagine that their email data mining activities are a gold mine for
targeted advertising. They don't hide the fact that they scan all email that
moves through their systems.

Those of us using local e-mail clients would never see any targeted
advertising in their web page; however, even when using their webmail
client, I don't see advertising. It seems all Google does with their
data mining is use keywords to help bias their marketing databases as to
what people are talking about. Besides, why even bother with e-mail
content to track people when people are so eager to share their personal
info on social sites. So worried about personal info via e-mail and yet
they go holler "See me, I'm here, look at me" at social sites. So
worried about their credit card info yet they dole their card to some
table jockey at a restaurant.

Of course, every e-mail provider can data mine whether they tell you or
not. After all, they couldn't provide anti-spam and anti-virus features
unless they can peek into your e-mails.

If you are so concerned about the privacy of you e-mails, and since ANY
e-mail provider or their employees can look at your messages, why aren't
you encrypting your messages? Any e-mail sent that isn't encrypted is
open for inspection by anyone. If concerned about the content of your
message then stop sending it in the clear. SSL/TLS to your e-mail
provider does NOT protect the content of your message at your e-mail
provider or thereafter. If you don't encrypt then don't whine about
e-mail privacy as you overtly chose not to protect your content. It's
up to you protect your info.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:48:46 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

If you are so concerned about the privacy of you e-mails,

Is that question directed to me? I didn't intentionally give any indication
regarding the level of my concern.

and since ANY
e-mail provider or their employees can look at your messages, why aren't
you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:05:49 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:48:46 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

If you are so concerned about the privacy of you e-mails,

Is that question directed to me? I didn't intentionally give any indication
regarding the level of my concern.

and since ANY
e-mail provider or their employees can look at your messages, why aren't
you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

There are people who I wish *would* encrypt their messages without
giving me a way to read them.

Not really - I have a pretty good idea whose e-mail I don't want to read
:-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:48:10 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:05:49 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:48:46 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

If you are so concerned about the privacy of you e-mails,

Is that question directed to me? I didn't intentionally give any indication
regarding the level of my concern.

and since ANY
e-mail provider or their employees can look at your messages, why aren't
you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

There are people who I wish *would* encrypt their messages without
giving me a way to read them.

Not really - I have a pretty good idea whose e-mail I don't want to read
:-)

I think we all have 'those' people in our lives. :-)

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

and since ANY e-mail provider or their employees can look at your
messages, why aren't you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

What e-mail client do you know of that doesn't support S-MIME which has
been defined since 1996? They may be some but those users choose to not
support encryption of their e-mails.

Also, encryption is by invite. You don't get to send encrypted e-mails
to someone unless they gave you their public key (so they can use their
private key that only they have to decrypt your message sent to them).
You send the other person a digitally signed e-mail which they can
choose whether or not to store as a contact so they have a copy of your
public key. If they never want to send encrypted e-mails to you, that's
their choice. They may not care about securing their messsage they send
to you. If they do want to send you encrypted e-mails, you first had to
invite them to do so by sending them your public key. Just because
someone wants to encrypt an e-mail doesn't mean the recipient wants it
that way.

The one wanting encrypted e-mail sends an invite to the other party.
The other party decides whether they store your public key or if they
will bother encrypting their e-mails sent to you. Each side gets a
choice. Like you alluded, it takes two to tango.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:35:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

and since ANY e-mail provider or their employees can look at your
messages, why aren't you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

What e-mail client do you know of that doesn't support S-MIME which has
been defined since 1996? They may be some but those users choose to not
support encryption of their e-mails.

By now, I hope I've helped you to understand at least one of the possible
financial aspects of Google's GMail; i.e., data mining for the purpose of
either selling the information or simply using it for targeted advertising.

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:35:15 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

and since ANY e-mail provider or their employees can look at your
messages, why aren't you encrypting your messages?

I'm guessing most people would give the obvious answer that it takes two to
tango. Sending people encrypted email isn't going to get you very far unless
they have a way to decrypt them.

What e-mail client do you know of that doesn't support S-MIME which has
been defined since 1996? They may be some but those users choose to not
support encryption of their e-mails.

By now, I hope I've helped you to understand at least one of the possible
financial aspects of Google's GMail; i.e., data mining for the purpose of
either selling the information or simply using it for targeted advertising.

Yep, already knew but thanks for pointing it out to others who might not
know.

I figure if my message must be protected from prying eyes whether they
be Google's or anyone else's that the message needs to be encrypted.
That's true for WHOEVER you use for your e-mail provider. Unencrypted
e-mail is not secured e-mail.

By now, I hope I've helped you to understand at least how to secure your
e-mails regardless of who is the e-mail service provider.