Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#81

Post by benevol »

nl wrote: post #47

The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.

> The biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories.

Because what Snowden revealed IS a plot against the citizen.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#82

Post by colordrops »

MichaelGG wrote: post #77
colordrops wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. . Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification. Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?

You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed.

You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#83

Post by nl »

colordrops wrote: post #63
nl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative interpretation is that the #DNCLeaks don't seem very interesting. I don't know why Twitter removed it (assuming that did happen), but to me it looks like most of the same people tweeting about are also tweeting about #Munich and or Tim Kaine, both of which are trending. If I was building a trends algorithm I'd try to aim for diversity of sources of trends. I have no idea about Reddit. The first search…

DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting? Are you saying that politicians and political parties do not wield power and influence and do nothing to influence the media? The main purpose of politics is to wield power and influence, and the media is core to this. Are you saying that media is unbiased despite the fact that they are on record contributing to particu…

Edit: I'm being downvoted pretty heavily on this, but I'm not entirely sure why. I didn't even mention Trump's wife.

DNC Leaked emails are not interesting, but a plagiarized paragraph by Trump's wife is interesting?

Hu? The DNC email leaks are much more interesting than the plagiarized paragraph in Melania Trump. Neither are particularly interesting in the scheme of things though.

The plagiarized paragraph shows that the Trump campaign isn't very well organized. I think most knew that.

The DNC emails show that the DNC favored Hillary as a candidate. We knew that too - they did in 2008 when Obama beat her.

Are you saying that politicians and political parties do not wield power and influence and do nothing to influence the media? The main purpose of politics is to wield power and influence, and the media is core to this. Are you saying that media is unbiased despite the fact that they are on record contributing to particular candidates' campaigns, e.g. Time Warner (CNN) being one of Clinton's top contributors?

No I'm not(!!)

I'm saying that reading the malware listing of Wikileaks by Google as some kind of Democratic party conspiracy is wrong.

I'm saying I don't know much about Reddit.

I'm saying that in my professional opinion (I work in area) there are multiple possible explanations for the Twitter hashtag thing.

I'm also (now) saying that the three things are unrelated. It is extremely temping to conflate multiple independent things and see things that aren't there.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#84

Post by nym »

colordrops wrote: post #74
nl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Work with government" means lots of things. The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". There are other things where Google does work with the US and other governments. I believe they pass Flu Trends data to the CDC for example.... And which government branch do you think that Google is working with here? The #DNCLeaks thing is a anti-Hi…

> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. . Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

From what I understand they had front door access, but the NSA wiretapped between datacenters.

Google engineers issue 'fuck you' to NSA over surveillance scandal http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-i...

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#85

Post by nl »

vectorpush wrote: post #80
nl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative interpretation is that the #DNCLeaks don't seem very interesting. I don't know why Twitter removed it (assuming that did happen), but to me it looks like most of the same people tweeting about are also tweeting about #Munich and or Tim Kaine, both of which are trending. If I was building a trends algorithm I'd try to aim for diversity of sources of trends. I have no idea about Reddit. The first search…

> The alternative interpretation is that the #DNCLeaks don't seem very interesting. The e-mails contain details of strategic political planning on the part of the DNC, and although there doesn't seem to be much in the way of nefarious behavior described within, there is frank discussion of political strategy in dry terms that will damage the DNC's (and thus Hillary's) image even though this is how all political organ…

I agree with this, and I think it's a pretty fair assessment.

I'm not sure if that means that it should or shouldn't be a trending hashtag on Twitter.

I do know that I'm a somewhat wonkish follower of politics and didn't really find them that interesting. I would imagine that "interesting" should be something that trending hashtags should optimize for? I complete concede this is a personal opinion though.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#86

Post by cLeEOGPw »

HN is a liberal safe space. Of course any article that reflects badly on liberal ideas will be removed. that political-story "gravity" is the same thing as reddit's "modified algorithm" to hide /r/The_Donald. There is an enormous push of a certain agenda from all major corporations in US, neither HN, nor reddit or google is an exception.

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#87

Post by SixSigma »

peteretep wrote: post #79
SixSigma wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is a $0.5-$1m donator to the Clinton Foundation http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...

So a tiny one, by either organisation's standard

Yep, outdonating those under the desk arms deals is hard work

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#89

Post by colordrops »

colordrops wrote: post #82
MichaelGG wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification. Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?

You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed. You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."

Anyone care to elaborate why I'm being downvoted?

Re: Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site

#90

Post by nl »

colordrops wrote: post #74
nl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Work with government" means lots of things. The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". There are other things where Google does work with the US and other governments. I believe they pass Flu Trends data to the CDC for example.... And which government branch do you think that Google is working with here? The #DNCLeaks thing is a anti-Hi…

> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. . Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

So I think that the story around PRISM specifically is a bit confused. PRISM was initially reported as mass collection of data by the NSA, and Google has repeatedly denied that they took part in that. They do co-operate with targeted national security letter investigations, and with police with warrants, but they are known to challenge both. Quoting the page you linked to:

Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Here is some details about the hack the NSA did on Google's infrastructure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-i...

You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

Wow! This made me laugh. We fund (and sometimes work on ourselves!) research on things like contagious disease prediction, and things like trying to understand mass social actions like elections. Yes, it is national security related, but not exactly that kind of national security! Sometimes the same agencies are involved though - for example, the same agency provides disease alert advice to government as provides political instability advice. So I guess maybe that makes me untrustworthy or something?

I can talk to you at great depth about Dengue Fever modelling and possible ways to try to derive parameters for mosquito breeding models if you like - it's pretty interesting, and maybe that would help some?

Post reply on HN