Re: I' not buying the Groklaw arguments - see the evidence..
Okay, great - e-mail for the groklaw.net domain is hosted with Google (at least at the time you looked at those records).
That's a fact, based on the DNS information you have presented. But, to get from:
"E-mail for 'groklaw.net' is hosted with Google"
"Pamela Jones is dishonest and full of shit"
requires two very large assumptions: that Pamela Jones and the Groklaw team used the easily identifiable (you found the details) 'groklaw.net' domain for all confidential e-mail - and that they did so without the use of any security in their e-mail client(s). As opposed to, say, just using the main e-mail for day-to-day stuff and preliminary communications and then using one or more other e-mail addresses (which she doesn't publicly advertise) with one or more secure providers for the important, sensitive communications. For really sensitive e-mails she might even have setup specific, disposable addresses.
Now, not knowing Pamela or the full details of the Groklaw operation, I can't say that this is the way they did things but the point is that you can't say that it isn't.
Essentially, there are three facts:
1. Pamela Jones has cited e-mail privacy/security concerns as the reason for closing down Groklaw.
2. E-mail for the (publically advertised) groklaw.net domain is currently hosted with Google.
3. Google has said that there should be no expectation of privacy with their services.
From those facts, there are several possible conclusions one might draw:
>> That Ms Jones and the Groklaw team are honest about their focus on privacy but not technically savvy enough to understand the problem presented by hosting e-mail with Google.
>> That Ms Jones and the Groklaw team are technically savvy enough to understand the problem but are dishonest when it comes to their professed concern for privacy.
>>That Ms Jones and the Groklaw team are honest about their concern for privacy and technically savvy enough to not only understand the problem with conducting confidential communications via Google e-mail but also actually do something about it and use a secure e-mail client and/or use other, more secure e-mail accounts that aren't publically advertised.
Given the fantastic, publically-minded service that the Groklaw team has provided, I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to their integrity and honesty.
Regarding their technical ability, remember also, that Groklaw is not just Ms Jones working off her laptop at home, it is a collection of people with various backgrounds including journalism, law and IT. Also, unless you missed it, the site deals with IT, specifically Linux and other open source endeavours. Given the focus of the site and the spread of people working on it, I find it vanishingly unlikely that they didn't employ a whole range of technical protections to keep e-mail as secure as reasonably possible.
Even without the IT focus, many in the team are journalists. Now, not all journalists are technical wizards, but I get the distinct impression that any journalist dealing with sensitive information and confidential sources has the resources to call on to mitigate at least some of the risks of modern communication.
FURTHER, as it is a TEAM, and not just PJ, you are assuming that ALL the people working at Groklaw used the groklaw.net e-mail domain and not their own, privately setup ones.
I suppose you think that Glenn Greenwald exclusively uses (something like) email@example.com for all his communications with Edward Snowden.
And, even if the journalists themselves didn't do this, the people they are communicating with are often IT insiders who have their own share of technical nous and would likely insist on secure communications.
Even assuming the ridiculously unlikely proposition that everyone involved in Groklaw exclusively used @groklaw.net for all communications, PJ specifically mentioned in her post the following:
"If it's encrypted, they keep it for five years, presumably in the hopes of tech advancing to be able to decrypt it against your will and without your knowledge."
That you have decided to choose the explanation that assumes the worst about the conduct and motives of Pamela and her team says far more about you than it does about her.
Sorry for the TL;DR but when I tell someone they have been a nasty, narrow-minded git, I don't tend to do it lightly.