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

Project Shield

jigsaw.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Project Shield

#71

Post by Iv »

biot wrote: post #32
Iv wrote: post #25

"Safer from attacks on free speech" Good. Host a mirror of wikileaks and let's talk.

Is this something Wikileaks requested but Google turned them down? I'm wondering if there's some context to your comment or if you're just being dismissive.

I am just being dismissive. I just tend to be triggered by comments like "Most of the world lives in countries that censor the internet" that assume that USA does not do that. Wikileaks is the most blatant example, but sci-hub and Pirate Bay are other examples of US influences censoring the net.

Re: Project Shield

#72

Post by tamana »

allistar wrote: post #29

This isn't going to defend content that threatens the "national security", age of consent, and copyright laws of the States. So isn't it just a declaration that Google wants to be the imperialist content police of the internet, spun under a more benevolent-seeming light?

Jigsaw is run by a veteran of the US State Department

Re: Project Shield

#73

Post by miend »

tloble wrote: post #64

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda' Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. > 'End repressive censorship' The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majorit…

Looking at projects like this, it almost looks like Google is actively seeking to become some kind of additional branch or agency of the government -- one with powers to do what the Fed can't, so they sell their services to those same Feds. Furthermore, the revolving door around tech giants and the government atop the Snowden leaks and Google's complete dismissal of them make me think the only "transparency" Google works toward is transparency of the citizen, never the state. That kind of transparency, which we call the surveillance state, or the Panopticon to illustrate the psychological effect, produces an enormous power imbalance against whomever has less information (the citizenry). These aren't benevolent acts. They are state power plays, and Google plays along with them.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/eric-schmidt-go...

https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

Re: Project Shield

#74

Post by rudolf0 »

kevinSuttle wrote: post #68
tloble wrote: post #64

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda' Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. > 'End repressive censorship' The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majorit…

You had me nodding in agreement until the very last word. Don't ruin it.

That's the part I took least issue with.

>while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people.

Equating automated behavioral analysis or ad targeting with willful communications-spying, like NSA does, is retarded. Yes, Google has been guilty of many invasive tactics and holds too much power right now, but claims that they're doing that to "suppress dissent and unpopular opinion" or "spread propaganda" will need a lot of evidence.

>The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majority of news is meaningless bullshit stuffed with ads and promotions, and is already controlled by organizations like Google.

How is this Google's fault in any way? Google owns a lot of those ad networks, but beyond that they're not responsible for news quality.

>Google is one of these organizations that operate without scrutiny and transparency alongside organizations such as the NSA.

Aka every other private corporation in the US? You really seem to be grasping at straws trying to make them out to be as bad as intelligence agencies.

>If you think Google will help you with anonymity, free speech, or 'unfiltered' news, you are retarded.

They're dedicating their network resources to preventing independent news websites from being censored by oppressive governments or DDoS'd by hostile entities, pro bono, and it appears to be working quite well. You've cited no specific examples of them doing the opposite, while there are many examples of them doing as they say.

I am no Google fanboy. I hate advertising and ad networks and think (or at least hope) they'll mostly die within a decade or two. I use ad blockers on all my devices and have never put a single ad on any website I've operated due to the ethical concerns.

But come on.

Re: Project Shield

#75

Post by rudolf0 »

miend wrote: post #73
tloble wrote: post #64

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda' Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. > 'End repressive censorship' The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majorit…

Looking at projects like this, it almost looks like Google is actively seeking to become some kind of additional branch or agency of the government -- one with powers to do what the Fed can't, so they sell their services to those same Feds. Furthermore, the revolving door around tech giants and the government atop the Snowden leaks and Google's complete dismissal of them make me think the only "transparency" Google w…

Schmidt's behavior as described by Assange is extremely concerning and bordering on frightening, but, so far, no evidence has been produced that he's dedicated any of Google's resources to his personal goals. Just because the CEO of a company has an agenda (bordering on conflict of interest) doesn't necessarily mean Google itself shares that agenda.

Re: Project Shield

#76

Post by dublinben »

CraftThatBlock wrote: post #55
themihai wrote: post #37

> We’ve met news organizations around the world who suffer crippling digital attacks when they publish something controversial. Good...except Google doesn't protect you from such attacks once the US gov deems it illegal. We need a safe, anonymous protocol not the network of X corporation.

So... Tor?

A network like Freenet would be more appropriate for a situation like this. Its peer to peer nature is like bittorrent, so the more popular content is, the more it is replicated, and thus becomes easier to access.

It shouldn't be impossible to design a distributed network that has a positive feedback loop that makes a DDOS counterproductive, by actually boosting the targeted materials.

Re: Project Shield

#77

Post by kyledrake »

afsina wrote: post #48
nl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, in the context of a quote from the KerbsOnSecurity piece which prompted this post: John Gilmore, an American entrepreneur and civil libertarian, once famously quipped that “the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” This notion undoubtedly rings true for those who see national governments as the principal threats to free speech. However, events of the past week have convin…

At the end, if nation states are helpless on preventing this, and only being part of the problem, I say this - our benevolent feodal overlords - is the preferable solution.

That's what the "benevolent feudal overlords" want everyone to think. From all the defeatist DDoS comments I'd say they're doing a good job at it.

As Brian Krebs, myself and numerous other people have pointed out, Cloudflare could end almost all of the DDoS-for-hire attacks in an hour if they actually wanted to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577289

Re: Project Shield

#78

Post by miend »

kevinSuttle wrote: post #68
tloble wrote: post #64

> 'Disrupt online radicalization and propaganda' Well, it's cute that they only mention ISIS, but the same exact means can and are being used to suppress political dissent and unpopular opinion, while google is the master of spreading consumer propaganda and spying on people. > 'End repressive censorship' The commercialization of news is the best form of censorship. You don't need to censor much when the vast majorit…

You had me nodding in agreement until the very last word. Don't ruin it.

How is it so ruinous? It's a fairly bog standard way to say "naïve", "ill-advised", and so on. Hopefully you wouldn't let the rest of the content be overshadowed or dismissed by a particular pejorative. OP still makes points worthy of discussion.

Re: Project Shield

#79

Post by bipbopbipbop »

tamana wrote: post #72
allistar wrote: post #29

This isn't going to defend content that threatens the "national security", age of consent, and copyright laws of the States. So isn't it just a declaration that Google wants to be the imperialist content police of the internet, spun under a more benevolent-seeming light?

Jigsaw is run by a veteran of the US State Department

Jared Cohen, former advisor to Condoleezza Rice and later Hillary Clinton.

Re: Project Shield

#80

Post by shade23 »

What would be interesting if they handover this project to an organization like the ICIJ to oversee and run while they merely take care of the infrastructure.This sort of setup can work.Provided Google provides a transparent organisation which handles the daily workings. I do not have any issues if a any X corporation provides such opportunities.The kind of attack that Krebs faced, there is absolutely no possible scenario where a non-profit could cater to.

Every organization has a bunch of people who support the open web.This could be their voice from within Google. PS: I am not from google or a fan boy.Just that never judge a book by its cover.Let this unfurl before we pass the judgement.

Post reply on HN