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

Larry Page addresses PRISM

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#101

Post by boi_v2 »

Dove wrote: post #34
chrisacky wrote: post #4

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…

Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. I'm not sure how much more strongly you'd like t…

Well, I guess he will have to find a proper way to prove it, because if you are satisfied with just a blog post maybe you should think again.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

guelo wrote: post #22

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…

> BTW, if you run a company outside of America you'd be crazy to rely on Google since the US could be reading your emails for corporate espionage purposes.

The US could be spying on activities, including email transmissions, that happen wholly outside of the US, as well.

The only reason PRISM, et al., are newsworthy is that there are expectations and widely-perceived legal/constitutional limitations of US government domestic surveillance that don't exist for foreign surveillance.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#103

Post by ISL »

Okay, HN, how can Google provide a compelling denial that they're not participating in PRISM as described in the leak?

If we're to be a country where innocence is presumed and guilt is proven, we must consider what Larry Page would write in the case that Google is not supplying any sort of un-warranted feed to NSA. Would it be any different?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#104

Post by [deleted] »

saraid216 wrote: post #97
chrisacky wrote: post #4

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…

> It just smells of being rehearsed, and carefully coordinated to select such language. Next time, hopefully they'll make it less clear so that you have to translate the company-specific jargon and feel better that it's spontaneous and careless.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#105

Post by deelowe »

andyl wrote: post #9

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...

Or as if they are addressing the media talking points from yesterday... It was all over the news. Every channel was saying "direct access" and then throwing names like "Google," "Apple," and "Iphone" around.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#106

Post by rollo_tommasi »

General Clapper point-blank lied - or provided a legally-truthful answer so contorted it may as well have been a lie - to Representative Wyden when questioned about NSA phone-data collection just a few months ago. You can't take any statement by any authority figure on these types of programs at face value.

Obviously this opens the door to all kinds of unfalsifiable, paranoid conspiracy madness, but that is a direct consequence of the government's unrelenting commitment to maximum secrecy.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#107

Post by cheald »

mullingitover wrote: post #98
Dove wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. I'm not sure how much more strongly you'd like t…

It's exactly the kind of denial you'd expect them to issue if they were legally required to deny any involvement.

I agree, but what could Page say to convince us otherwise?

Either the government is coercing them, and they have to issue lies as denials, or they are participating voluntarily and are voluntarily lying, or they are not participating. The second option seems unlikely to me.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#108

Post by chris_mahan »

uptown wrote: post #81

Watch this: http://youtu.be/oYNXVgYhPOc 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.

Ireland?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#109

Post by rasterizer »

mullingitover wrote: post #98
Dove wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. I'm not sure how much more strongly you'd like t…

It's exactly the kind of denial you'd expect them to issue if they were legally required to deny any involvement.

That's not true, in Verizon's case they just said that they are under a gag-order: http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/from-the-desk-of-...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#110

Post by aniket_ray »

Disclaimer: I don't know the truth about anything that's going on.

First, I'm not a US citizen. So, it seems I just have to assume that NSA is certainly tracking me.

Now to the topic of spying on US citizens, considering how no one seems to have ever heard about PRISM, the breaking of this story based on flimsy evidence seems to me like an attempt to side track from the real and confirmed story of NSA accessing Call Data Records from Verizon of millions of citizens (The industry calls it CDRs, why have we started calling it "Metadata" since yesterday).

I wouldn't be surprised (though I have no evidence at all) that the PRISM story was planted to change the public discourse.

Post reply on HN