51–60 of 417 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the amount of access they have to the White House: why would you assume that they haven't ?
The white house is above the NSA and FBI, so wouldn't access to their bosses preclude them being coerced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most damning part of this story is that Mayer decided to comply without telling her chief security officer. That really does make it look like Yahoo rolled over without a fight.
Since it had a gag order, she likely wouldn't have been allowed to tell him. The government doesn't care about the security implications of these backdoors, they just want the data. Also, Yahoo spent many years fighting similar requests (I think before anyone else did) and won nothing. She also was obviously being advised by Ron Bell, the GC. If she didn't tell Stamos, it was probably based on the guidance of Mr. Bel…
Lets take it a different way: You're knowingly sending your data to a 3rd party. You're not encrypting. It's not through the USPS (special protections). It seems bloody evident that, of course, your email provider can read your emails! Unless you're encrypting with GPG, then they can (and they can still read the signing keys). Yahoo, Google, and friends all scan, dedup, and all sorts of tricks to determine marketing…
I've upvoted you, despite disagreeing with you, because I believe it's worth us all discussing the reasoning behind our opinions. What you've just said is the email equivalent to "she deserved to be raped, because she was dressed like a slut". Yes, we should take precautions to protect ourselves. But that in no way justifies the privacy intrusions that happened here.
My underlying thoughts are as follows. Yahoo is the target in this story, so I'll use Yahoo as the placeholder for any company that deals with user data in that capacity.
When you send an email, it shows up at a destination. You send it from your mail provider, "magic happens", and it shows up at the destination. By definition, the text that you send it what is received.
By sending your text with who you want it to go to, you are relinquishing control over your data. Now, Yahoo can read it. And any mailserver in between. And the destination mailserver can as well. You also give up a form of copyright- because the basis of this transmission means that the same message may appear multiple places.
With the USPS, we pay postage to send data and packages. And there are stringent safeguards in place for the USPS. We have no such data safeguard laws in the US. European Union is different (I don't know the laws there). But whatever data I send to some private org, can be used and reused in whatever ways that are bound by their privacy policy (which they write), and whatever contracts they abide by (PCI DSS, HIPAA, FERPA, etc).
Even though this part isn't logical, whenever I don't pay for a service, I automatically assume that I'm paying with my data. I guess when you're cash-poor, it's a good trade-off.
I find this hilarious since the only thing I use my yahoo address for is retailer sign-ups and things I know will land me a boat load of junk mail. It is my email landfill.
So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter
Now gotta wonder if Google has succumbed to government pressure to do the same. I'm really hoping and trusting they haven't.
At this point, it's save to assume that NSA/FBI/CIA/Pentagon has front door access to Google. That cheap-oil-for-your-private-planes deal with Pentagon is one small evidence [1]. The other is Matt Cutts working for (on a temporary basis) the Defense Department's branch of USDS [2] [1]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238646045790697... [2]: http://fedscoop.com/former-google-spam-chief-heads-to-usds As fo…
a perk they apparently shouldn't have been getting and was cut off by the pentagon is evidence the pentagon has front door access to Google?
> The other is Matt Cutts working for (on a temporary basis) the Defense Department's branch of USDS
What, do you think he really needed a job so the web search spam guy gave access to user accounts in exchange for getting to work in government contracting?
Really need to work on your circumstantial evidence.
I think the attitude here that most tech companies are rolling over and just complying without a single ethical consideration is misplaced. The government has been doing an excellent job of basically extorting these companies into compliance. They threaten the full weight of the US government's wraith and then tie every order up with classifications and gag orders. You aren't legally allowed to talk to other companie…
The most damning part of this story is that Mayer decided to comply without telling her chief security officer. That really does make it look like Yahoo rolled over without a fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like she was a pretty terrible CEO all-around. But as a user, I would never use a service run by Marissa Mayer again. She lost that trust for good.
> But as a user, I would never use a service run by Marissa Mayer again. She lost that trust for good. Realistically, this is every American company. Why trust anyone?
Convenience trumps privacy, every time.
The lesson from this is to not trust corporations with out privacy. Sadly, it seems many of us are not learning it.