> Just as important as what we do do is what we don’t. For example, we don’t do full message encryption (e.g. PGP) in the browser. In theory it means you “don’t have to trust us”. However in reality, every time you open your email you would be trusting the code delivered to your browser. If the server were compromised, it could easily be made to return code that intercepted and sent back your password next time you logged in; it could even just do this for specific users. It is very unlikely that a user would notice.
I don't agree.
I don't want full message encryption because I'm afraid that my email provider is reading my messages, but because I'm storing years worth of emails in my mailbox. With a provider such as ProtonMail that encrypts incoming messages with my personal key I know that if someone manages to get unauthorized access to my mailbox that person would only be able to read new emails, but none of my already archived mails. Of course it's possible that the intruder also manages to change the JS code returned to the client, but that's not the case for all of the possible scenarios where someone gets access to my mailbox. Full message encryption does not provide perfect security, but is able to significantly raise the provided level of security.
I don't agree.
I don't want full message encryption because I'm afraid that my email provider is reading my messages, but because I'm storing years worth of emails in my mailbox. With a provider such as ProtonMail that encrypts incoming messages with my personal key I know that if someone manages to get unauthorized access to my mailbox that person would only be able to read new emails, but none of my already archived mails. Of course it's possible that the intruder also manages to change the JS code returned to the client, but that's not the case for all of the possible scenarios where someone gets access to my mailbox. Full message encryption does not provide perfect security, but is able to significantly raise the provided level of security.