Larry Page addresses PRISM
googleblog.blogspot.com
Larry Page addresses PRISM
1–10 of 482 posts
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#2(At least) one party did not tell the truth - opinions?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#3I trust Google more than the U.S. Gov't.
Who's lying? Confused?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#4I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause.
- We do not provide direct access to our servers.
- We do not provide direct access nor is there a backdoor.
- O, but we do still pipe all of your data to external NSA servers.
Every company named (I'm not just picking on Google here) has come out with the same overarching statement. "We do not provide direct access". It just smells of being rehearsed, and carefully coordinated to select such language.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#5There's that "direct access to our servers" verbiage again. I love how these people apparently think that denying doing something that's not the thing that everyone is talking about is going to distract and mollify the public...
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#6When I worked IT for a medium sized university we were asked by the DOJ to install switches that copied all internet traffic directly to an unspecified government server. We were told all ISPs (anyone providing internet to more than 100 persons) were told to do this as well.
We refused to comply obviously as the request was absurd, but in the small print of the request we were told we were not allowed to speak of the request and were to deny any involvement if asked under some unknown penalty.
I wouldn't be surprised if special terms of Google's interaction with any government agencies has a similar clause.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#7If this entire PRISM thing is fabrication, then it is the best thing to have happened to personal liberties and Internet privacy since encryption. Until the recent shooting in CA, all the major networks were going on and on about PRISM. No amount of money could have bought the kind of attention PRISM is getting.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#8I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause. - We do not provide direct access to our servers. - We do not provide direct access nor is there a backdoor. - O, but we do still pipe all of your data to external NSA servers. Every company named (I'm not just picking on Google here) has come out with the same overarching statement. "We do…
Read the blog post. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period"
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#9Larry Page: "the U.S. government does not have direct access"
Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access"
Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access"
Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access"
Remarkably consistent - as if it was coordinated, or scripted by an attorney...
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#10> Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.
Which is what is in question, no? If being in accordance with the law means keeping secret the requests you do serve, even if broad, means you're still handing out the information. You just don't have to put it in your, "transparency report."
Can't really say any of this is even remotely surprising given what we, in the industry of software development, know about what kind of information can be gathered and how vast volumes of it can be processed and analyzed.