81–90 of 482 posts
The key phrase is "in the United States" so they just replicate the data outside the United States and you've got yourself a data 'black site' outside the jurisdiction of US law. No direct access. No laws broken. Open access to the NSA.
In his remarks today Obama said "Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States." He's clearly stating that they do read non-American's emails. So how do they do it if they don't have access to Google's servers? BTW, if you run a company outside of America you'd be crazy to rely on Google since the US could be reading you…
So there's this protocol called SMTP...
I 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…
Larry 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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is relevant to what?
It's relevant because some of the things that are being suggested here on HN are clearly infeasible, from an infrastructure standpoint.
- What indirect access does Google provide to the government? - What lawful data does Google automatically provide to the government without any requests? - Can the government can ask Google for data once, and then Google is required to constantly supply data, periodically? If so, what is that data? - What data does Google provide to the government upon request?
When 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…
Larry 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...
It's not "direct" access, it's access through a one-way live xml feed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please throw out an estimate of how big you think a mirror of all Google's network traffic might be.
The NSA's Utah data center was designed to host more storage than existed on the entire planet at the time. Sheer volume of data is among the least of their concerns.
Remember when IBM announced they'd built the largest filesystem in history? That was only 120PB. A YB is 10 million times bigger than that.
Consider also that a YB is 1000x the entire storage industry output from 2012. So under your theory there is a parallel hard disk drive industry consisting of at least 99% of all hard disk production on Earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is relevant to what?
It's relevant because some of the things that are being suggested here on HN are clearly infeasible, from an infrastructure standpoint.