?

 

First, disavow yourself of the concept of a secure email server. They do not, can not nor will not exist.

You have to use email securely. Here are some suggestions.

• Change your password frequently.
• Do not use simple passwords (I use a lengthy pass phrase and use the first letter, in leet-speak, of each word).
• Do not send any personal information in an unencrypted email (some services offer encrypted email for a small additional fee).
• Do not send info in an email that you don't want everyone to know
• Do not click on links in emails, without knowing where they link to (use the hover technique hover the cursor over the link and the full link will display)
• If you get an unusual email from your boss, ignore it until you can ask him/her if they sent it
• Don't assume that if an email has fancy logos and company addresses, that it comes from that company. Check the links...

These are a few critical signs and tasks you need to follow, to use email securely. For those in a corporate setting, there are training sessions available for you. You might need this for compliance in your industry. Bring it up and I can help.

 

He's right. There is no such thing as, "secure" email. You have to take 100% responsibility for security.
Our government routinely copies everything on the Internet and will spend millions to un-encrypt a Christmas card to your mother.
If you want secure communication, get your own encryption program and use it.
Read this:
http://www.technocracy.news/index.p...-can-beat-government-and-hacker-surveillance/

 

Personally I use Outlook rather than Gmail. I think Microsoft has better privacy than Google (apart from Cortana in Windows 10, which can be disabled), but they're not as secure as what it sounds like you're looking for.

 

gmx.com

 

gmx.com

I had gmx.com email for a while. It was worth every cent I paid. Oh wait, it was free.

 

https://www.gmx.com/company/privacypolicy/#.1559512-footer-nav1-2

 

I found this article???
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hollies...mail-system-the-nsa-cant-access/#4c948f0d55ed

how do you know that it is not set up by the nsa so they can collect information from people who are highly sensitive to their emails being sniffed? it is more likely to find the kind of individuals the nsa is interested to find among such folks, after all.

the whole discussion is paradoxical:

1) you cannot rely on a privacy statement to assess privacy;
2) the more secure a connection is, the more interest there is to make it transparent and the more likely it is no longer secure.

two potential solutions if you care about security:
1) don't use public email - if you cannot secure every point in the connection, you cannot secure the email.
2) use the most popular (open) email service - you hope to hide in the noise.

 

May I assume you are aware of the Tor network?

 

I would rather make it hard for someone to discover my endeavors, plus when they have to try harder it is easier I would think to catch them red handed.

to an unbiased observer (nsa), that kind of behaviors is exactly what they are looking for, which makes you a prime target for their targeting algorithm.

"hide in plain sight" seems to be a much better strategy. fortunately, not many people understand that.

 

try this.

https://ipleak.net/

Can it find you?

 

I've been using PIA, a vpn service for over 4 yrs. now. Best thing I ever did. I think it's about 36 bucks a yr. Can't recall....I just let it renew itself. I can have 5 concurrent logins on 5 devices.

 

I've been using PIA, a vpn service for over 4 yrs.

But can you be sure that any vpn service isn't passing on your data to a security service?

 

In my opinion I think if they feared the people they would not be so bold preforming data mining.

I am not so sure.

law enforcement is a nasty business - you basically have to find a few bad guys among a vast pool of good people. the fact that bad guys don't walk around with "criminal" stamped over their foreheads means the law folks have to be suspicious of anyone, including the vast number of good guys.

so it is unhelpful to you for you to approach this in an adversarial kind of way.

 

Supposedly.....that's what I'm paying for. Not to log. There are servers all over the states and world to choose from. No servers will be found in logging law countries.

 

by definition someone cannot be a suspect without somethings like a previous criminal history associated with the nature of a crime committed

I don't think so. everyone has his "first time".

or there would have to be evidence and/or a witness in order for a person to be a suspect of a crime.

yeah. probable cause, which unfortunately sometimes can turn out to be wrong.

A few people who do wrong ruin it for everyone it seems

yeah. victim-less crime is an oxymoron.

 

Like for example probability would then give law enforcement the right to treat all black males as if they were criminals, however I think most of us know that this would be unjust. Innocent until proven guilty; there is a reason we do not allow the enforcers to judge guilty or innocent.

Here's one profile .... to establish intent.

People use their own profiling. How many times have you seen other people cross the street to not cross paths with someone? They were establishing their own "safe zone."

 

Based on profiling I have avoided harmful situation myself.

because profiling is science.

 

Like for example probability would then give law enforcement the right to treat all black males as if they were criminals, however I think most of us know that this would be unjust.

What makes you so sure they don't do this for the most part?

 

Probable cause ... Police typically react to events.