Leaving aside the issues of concern to the Westminster Village”, for which Guido Fawkes is one of the prime on-line gossips, there is an overdue need for more realistic and informed debate on whether the Internet is, or should be, a vehicle for confidential communication.
By submitting your email address, you agree to receive emails regarding relevant topic offers from TechTarget and its partners. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Contact TechTarget at 275 Grove Street, Newton, MA.
A consequence of publicity for “leaked” e-mails is security paranoia. But that very paranoia, including demands for on-line traffic to be retained in case it may be needed by any of over 500 agencies and regulators with investigatory powers, compounds the problem.
The Internet has long had “more bottlenecks that a brewery”. We can now see that it has “more leaks than Thames Water”. The points of potential access are proliferating, from Trojans on personal computers and mobiles, through network and cloud back-up services, to traffic retained under a wide range of legislations (not just the UK and/or RIPA). So too are those with the ability for trawl for that of interest to advertisers, investigative journalists, fraudsters, regulators, law enforcement or those engaged in industrial, patriotic or political espionage.
The range and variety of those who might have passed e-mails to Guido Fawkes is surprisngly wide: from whistleblowers to those (domestic or overseas) wishing to see “regime change”.
Should you be similarly concerned about those who might pass your e-mails and web searches to who-over is willing to pay? And is a cheap or even “free” service worth the price?