There is no mention of Threema/Telegram for Jeff Bezos They had accessed his text messages.

Telegram's secret chats and Threema are actually end to end encrypted. (Threema is paid while Telegram is free. If you wish to find more about it, PM me). I'll be happy to guide you.

Email security is individual dependent. I am not working for Fastmail but when the Aussies passed this law, I was also concerned about the direction it took. I chose to wait and watch.

I would never know what goes in the background.

My use case scenario is totally different from yours and hence I don't want to generalise. Therefore, I'll leave it at that. Secure email is a misnomer and phishing emails don't always get caught up in the spam folders (since they are sent from probably "legitimate domains").

Fastmail incidentally had this service which relied on verified domains. That was another step in the safety and protection for its users.

What I meant was it doesn't matter much what service Jeff Bezos was using if the person at the other end shares the messages with friends and family, or someone leaves their phone unlocked. I am frequently surprised how many people I see with no phone lock, leave their computers running all the time completely unlocked, don't use strong passwords, and don't using 2FA. Yes, phishing emails can look legitimate, but somehow Gmail detects almost all of them and they never reach my Inbox.

Good for you!

I agree with the general lackadaisical attitude towards privacy. It's cavalier. Hence there are breaches.

Threema works on the basis of anonymity- only your ID will be displayed (alphanumeric), if anyone takes a screenshot. Telegram also has usernames.

I haven't used Gmail in 7 years (been on Polarismmail and then back to Fastmail). I haven't found any reason to shift away from them. I am pretty happy with Fastmail too.

Wow, this is really bad. I think I might look for a provider with end-to-end crypto. Protonmail is far too expensive for my needs, though. I have lots of custom domains, and it adds up fast. But I'm willing to pay a fair bit more than I do at Fastmail for real secure email.

Sadly you will have to sacrifice lots of features to get end to end encryption and it is possible for the tech boys to read those emails.

A few years ago they said digital phone conversation would be totally private, but you can now buy radio equipment here to listen in to any call with in range.

The Government decided to put some of the police radio frequencies through a scrambler device, but once again you can now buy a descrambler for about $1000 AU.

So really nothing is 100% private any more.

Yeah, I was actually thinking of something similar to protonmail, where the mail is encrypted on their side. I want it to be so secure that if I lose the password, the mail can't be recovered. :)

On the other hand, I'm very satisfied with Fastmail. There's nothing like it out there. I used some time tonight to check out the real secure ones, but while secure, they were severely lacking.

For reference, I checked out these: Hushmail, Protonmail, CounterMail, ​Tutanota, Posteo and Mailfence. They may be secure, but they do not have the features I need. Protonmail came closest, but it would cost € 30.00 / month to get a marginally usable feature set.

So I'll stick with Fastmail for now. :)

I love all the features but the current UI is lacking behind....no colour and all the settings are stuck in one corner...I wish they would put a few of the main settings like calendar in the top space bar.

The back end is excellent.

Sorry getting off topic now....:D

Check mailbox.org and/or hosted.mailcow.de

Repeating myself, but I think it is worth repeating. For the vast majority of us there is very little of value in our actual email messages, rendering encryption rather pointless. What the typical hacker is after is just your username and password so they can use them to breach your bank accounts. Most of us are not really worried about state-level actors reading our emails for some political purpose, and most of us don't have lives that would be of any interest to some tabloid. Most ordinary users of Fastmail would never notice any difference in their lives except for inconvenience and less features if they moved to encrypted email. If you need encryption, go for it, but for most people it just makes email worse.

How so? In what way is Fastmail's ability to read every customers emails, beneficial to the customers?

Infinitely better search, phishing protection, spam protection just to name a few reasons.

Sigh. As this is indeed a prevailing perspective/attitude -- and no disrespect intended -- we are setting ourselves up as a society for some major challenges in the future if we don't hold our privacy as a fundamental human right. That should be the basis of these laws, but unfortunately, it's a secondary consideration at best. We are opening the door to repeating very big mistakes of the past. The "I don't have anything to hide so what does it matter?" philosophy is what informs all the bad legislation out there.

The baseline has shifted, the Facebook and Instagram generation has won. We're just on a slowly descending slope to frankly surrendering some of our basic human rights... where a desire for privacy itself is already going to be labeled as suspicious. It's going to be a very rough time in the next couple of decades IMO, and I feel bad for my son and the world we're giving him.

When we look at China or even Russia, with a recent law (as a small example) that just passed that bans disrespect of government -- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47488267 -- where do you think this is all headed in Western democracies? What kind of philosophical foundation do we want to base our laws on? If we surrender our basic human right to privacy so easily, where does it go from there? It doesn't matter that what is in our email is 99.999% uninteresting or not valuable. What matters is the core principle of how we can expect our personal information to be treated. What matters is related to the core principle of freedom of speech as well, which is eroded one grain at a time with these kinds of laws (and attitudes), until there won't be a foundation left.

Yesterday, I read a long piece by Mark Zuckerberg on the direction he wants Facebook to go in, and I was quite surprised to see the word privacy mentioned ~30 times. I'll believe the changes he describes when I see them, but it does sound like the culture inside Facebook with regards to user privacy is slowly changing.

A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking
https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-...6700570096634/

Heh... Zuckerberg has always said one thing and done another. From the way he founded the company till today, he's shown his true colors.

I know, and like I said, I'll believe it when I see it, but at least the man is not denying the fact that Facebook's products have never had the users' privacy in mind: