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

181–190 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#181

Post by muyuu »

chime wrote: post #63

I don't want any more fluff "no direct access" emails. I just want these questions to be answered with a YES/NO: 1. Is there any way that someone outside of Google, can get a copy of an email I sent from my gmail to my own gmail, without a warrant that specifies my exact gmail address? 2. If I delete my Google search history, is there any way for anyone to access this history, with or without a warrant? 3. If I make…

Get a VPN anonymously, pay in Bitcoin and never expect third party companies to adhere to any policy they can potentially break.

Anything else involves trust.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#182

Post by sinnerswing »

sjs382 wrote: post #161
cheald wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We obviously stil have a lot to learn about PRISM... But with that said, I have some conflicting instincts & feelings about all of this and the company responses. On one hand, I would think a very-visible CEO of a major corp would keep their name off of a press release, if the press release was a lie that they were compelled to tell by the government. On the other hand, I feel like each company's response and their u…

This may not be PRISM, but wtf is this???

"A US government-mandated backdoor allowed China to hack into Gmail"

"In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#183

Post by weinzierl »

The last paragraph sound to me like: "Oh guys, we'd love to tell you what they force us to do, but we can't because we're under gag order.".

Especially the final sentence is explicit:

     But the level of secrecy around the current legal    
     procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish.
Am I reading this wrong?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#184

Post by brymaster »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #167
bitwize wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Larry Page wants to live. And he wants Google to keep functioning as a company, and not e.g., to have sudden tax issues crop up with the IRS. He has plenty of incentive to tell an out-and-out lie in this case.

Oh come on. Google is willing and able to push back on overly broad governmental requests. When the Department of Justice sent subpoenas to 34 companies in 2005 asking for months of user queries, Google was the only company I know of that fought back in court and won. I know because I wrote a declaration for that case. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/doj-sent-subpoenas-to-34-compa... ; and http://www.mattcutts.com/…

Matt, I know you really love Google but you need to do a bit more research:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#186

Post by jjh42 »

danso wrote: post #41
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…

OK, in an alternate reality, what would a clear, flat-out denial look like? I mean, how could we tell such a thing differently than what was in the OP? First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of…

It's a good start for a response, especially since it has the CEO's imprimatur on it.

However with all the shady definitions the NSA is using (e.g I can imagine some weasel claiming user data is only the content not the metadata) I would have liked an explicit example.

Something like, "For example, when one gmail user emails another gmail user the government is not, for the majority of users who are not the subject of a specific government order, made aware of this in any way including the contents of the email, metadata and even that an email was sent. Obviously, we have no control over emails, sent outside our network."

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#187

Post by themgt »

necubi wrote: post #48

For all those complaining about the language of this and other denials, what could possibly satisfy you? This seems as blanket as possible. "Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process." "We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exi…

Obama confirmed in a press conference that PRISM exists, so concluding the program is imaginary would seem to require a fair lack of critical thinking.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#188

Post by rachelbythebay »

It just occurred to me: the "data liberation" thing they have which lets you download your own data... would be terribly useful for such requests. What better way to scrape the entirety of the various storage systems than to have a team who does nothing but that?

The team itself wouldn't even need to know about it. Just keep them funded and let them stay current on supporting the latest doodad, and it stays useful to the nefarious spy work as well.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#189

Post by SilasX »

ttrreeww wrote: post #140
mullingitover wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are cases in which you can't even confirm the existence of a gag order. I can not believe it's constitutional... but they do it.

What about the strategy you hear about of getting around this? Where they say "we're not under a gag order" (or whatever) each day until they are, until they go under a gag order, at which point it reveals they are.

Now, I'm not so naive to think that if someone tried this, the government and courts would just say "Herp, derp, you sure outfoxed us there!" But has that strategy ever been tested in court?

Post reply on HN