If you think you can set up mail infrastructure with on premise everything that is available to your not on premise workers safer than Microsoft, you will be spending a huge amount of money to do so.
It just turns out that the US has become a rogue state that alligns with the type of war criminals and dictators that the ICC wants to prosecute. I really don’t think anyone would have predicted this 10 to 15 years ago when this mail choice was made.
Literally every university here has on prem, externally accessible email service that has basically 100% uptime and works perfectly fine with pgp and stuff.
But also Microsoft infrastructure is inherently insecure so thats a low bar to surpass.
If you think security of infrastructure has anything to do with PGP you’re misunderstanding what I mean. Self hosting mail for an organisation like the ICC would require multiple FTE’s. In the same vein that the current US administration is retaliating against them other rogue nations are constantly specifically targeting them. It’s already hard to deal with this without being specifically targeted and a couple times being targeted usually causes you to be compromised, dealing with it full time is almost impossible. Unless your team is monstrously big and securing your groupware is one of your core activities.
I’ve literally had jobs like this, and the idea that the average university that self hosts is more secure than Exchange Online is just plain wrong. I’m sure you can point to a couple of them that are safer of course, but they 'll be the exception.
If you think you can set up mail infrastructure with on premise everything that is available to your not on premise workers safer than Microsoft, you will be spending a huge amount of money to do so.
Even if they prefer not to self-host, there are plenty of providers out there that are more trustworthy than Microsoft. In fact, I would say that a medium-sized established company that derives most of its revenue from providing email and related services is likely to secure them better than an oversized tech giant that just does email on the side—they have more incentive.
I would agree that right now there are more choices. I don’t entirely agree they’re inherently safer. Nor that this choice would have been available as a choice when the original decision was made. (At a time when the US was at the very least considered to be an ally to Europe)
My mans was using Hotmail?
Kind of appalling that the ICC isnt using self hosted email with proper E2EE. Or is this just his private email?
If you think you can set up mail infrastructure with on premise everything that is available to your not on premise workers safer than Microsoft, you will be spending a huge amount of money to do so.
It just turns out that the US has become a rogue state that alligns with the type of war criminals and dictators that the ICC wants to prosecute. I really don’t think anyone would have predicted this 10 to 15 years ago when this mail choice was made.
Literally every university here has on prem, externally accessible email service that has basically 100% uptime and works perfectly fine with pgp and stuff.
But also Microsoft infrastructure is inherently insecure so thats a low bar to surpass.
If you think security of infrastructure has anything to do with PGP you’re misunderstanding what I mean. Self hosting mail for an organisation like the ICC would require multiple FTE’s. In the same vein that the current US administration is retaliating against them other rogue nations are constantly specifically targeting them. It’s already hard to deal with this without being specifically targeted and a couple times being targeted usually causes you to be compromised, dealing with it full time is almost impossible. Unless your team is monstrously big and securing your groupware is one of your core activities.
I’ve literally had jobs like this, and the idea that the average university that self hosts is more secure than Exchange Online is just plain wrong. I’m sure you can point to a couple of them that are safer of course, but they 'll be the exception.
Even if they prefer not to self-host, there are plenty of providers out there that are more trustworthy than Microsoft. In fact, I would say that a medium-sized established company that derives most of its revenue from providing email and related services is likely to secure them better than an oversized tech giant that just does email on the side—they have more incentive.
I would agree that right now there are more choices. I don’t entirely agree they’re inherently safer. Nor that this choice would have been available as a choice when the original decision was made. (At a time when the US was at the very least considered to be an ally to Europe)
Yes. But nobody gets fired for hiring Microsoft. (until now, I guess? XD) It’s really as simple as that.
It can’t have worse uptime.
Hotmail was discontinued 10 to 15 years ago. They had to have got on Hotmail awhile before that.
the USA has been a war criminal country for at least a century now, maybe longer
Which is why I specifically phrased the part you didn’t quote in that specific way.