I find the "organizations don't want to outsource the storage of their private data" an interesting one.
Do they think they can secure their email servers better than Google can?
Are they going to refuse to hand over data if requested by authorities?
As far as I know Google doesnt do anything more than say a spam filtering service like MessageLabs would do - i.e. index some text to see if it should be classified as spam / malware etc.
You can read their policies on this here
http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6...
Do you know what the word "trusted" means in the context of security?
> Do they think they can secure their email servers better than Google can?
Just because someone secures their servers better than you can doesn't mean you automatically have to trust them with your data.
Let's assume for a moment that I have the safest vault in the world. According to your reasoning, the logical thing to do would be to put your valuables in my vault? Gosh ..
And even if you do trust Google with your sensitive data, do you also trust all their employees that might have access to it? http://gawker.com/5638874/david-barksdale-wasnt-googles-firs... And Google is a rather big corporation, if anything were to go wrong, they are notoriously hard to hold accountable.
> Are they going to refuse to hand over data if requested by authorities?
Well, they do not necessarily answer to the same authorities as Google does, so in some cases, yes, absolutely.
> Just because someone secures their servers better than you can doesn't mean you automatically have to trust them with your data.
When coupled with credibility of course it does.
> Let's assume for a moment that I have the safest vault in the world. According to your reasoning, the logical thing to do would be to put your valuables in my vault? Gosh ..
No it wouldnt, silly argument really. You have less than zero rep.
