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

261–270 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#261

Post by declan »

throwaway420 wrote: post #215
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…

The most interesting thing about Google's repeated use of the phrase 'direct access' is that there are so many nerds that don't comprehend how much wiggle room that phrase implies. My bet is that Google is under order of some kind of National Security Letter and has to deny involvement here.

AT&T didn't deny involvement during EFF's NSA wiretapping lawsuit. They didn't confirm or deny.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#262

Post by darkarmani »

defen wrote: post #199
DannyBee wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't say "we don't provide access", because depending on the law, they are forced to. They say "we do not provide direct access", because as explained, any access goes through proper legal channels. I'm not sure what you'd call it? Remember language matters, and these are actionable public communications.

Sure, but the statement as worded does not rule out the possibility that a third party contractor (Palantir) has access, and feeds it to the government. So Google has the motive (some theoretical secret law they need to abide) and they haven't denied a potential means (third party mediation). That's enough for people to convict in this situation.

I think that would fall under this denial:

> First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.

You would be hard pressed to argue that "direct" access proxied through a gov't contractor isn't the same as direct access. I don't think they'd cut the truth that close unless they were under oath. The court of public opinion is less caring of technicalities.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#263

Post by Avenger42 »

Nelson69 wrote: post #238
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…

What's become very clear is that there is a lot of careful parsing going on. Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very careful interpretation of the words on the page. Does Google give anyone, any company, any entity, anyone at all direct access to their data? They've specifically excluded NSA. Does NSA subcontract that to Booz Allen Hamilton? Google claims that no government has…

I also wanted to point out this:

> Honestly though, I think they could make much much stronger statements about this stuff.

They can't really, though - they do cooperate with the government on a ton of properly-filed, fully-legal subpoenas. And that's fine, that's what they have to do, and it's what every other company in the world would do - though we should all push our government(s) to be more transparent about what they're requesting and why.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#264

Post by mullingitover »

Dove wrote: post #230
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.

I don't think so. Those usually sound like, "We cannot confirm or deny the existence of such a program," or "It is not our policy to comment on national security topics" or "No comment." or even "We'll wait for the results of the investigation." I don't think the government generally asks civilians to lie so enthusiastically, because . . . well, as a rule, they just aren't good at it. No, I think it's most likely tha…

It's also possible that Larry is concerned about his share price, and what would happen to it if Google was revealed to be completely in bed with the NSA (My guess is it would fall quite a bit). He has real money at stake in limiting the damage that comes from this revelation.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#265

Post by doctorpangloss »

danso wrote: post #166
mullingitover wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We would never do this, not because the government hasn't asked us to, but because it's morally abhorrent. It goes against everything we personally believe in and stand for. Even if we were legally required to cooperate, we would resist and suffer incarceration if necessary. We believe in freedom more strongly than we fear the consequences of not cooperating with an oppressive government." That kind of thing.

So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy? So, basically, what politicians put into their speeches? Read over your statement again. There's very little of substance in there. For example, what does "this" in "We would never do 'this'" mean? And I'm not being pedantic, beca…

threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom

I would feel better if Google put its brand at stake a little more, yeah.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#266

Post by rsingel »

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…

There's 2 different things going on, under different legal authorities and Google is confusing them.

Verizon was given a Patriot Act order for business records, metadata; no names; no content, but all citizens or foreigner.

Google and other tech companies are said to have gotten orders under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. That allows the government to compel communications companies to furnish lots of metadata and CONTENT on NON-U.S. persons. This was Congress legalizing warrantless wiretapping ala AT&T, but limiting it by requiring it to be targeted at non U.S. persons.

Compliance is mandatory, under contempt of court and companies must provide facilities and help. They also get reimbursed.

So it's likely Google never got an order like Verizon did, they likely got one that involves content, but is supposed to exclude intentional targeting of Americans.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#267

Post by dragonwriter »

guelo wrote: post #200
dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If my company is outside the US I can try to use infrastructure that at least makes it harder for the US to gain access. If, for example, the US is spying on European allies' infrastructure it would be a diplomatically damaging revelation and the European governments would try to fight it off. If I use a Silicon Valley service I know for a fact that the US can read my data at will without any recourse on my part. It…

> If my company is outside the US I can try to use infrastructure that at least makes it harder for the US to gain access.

Which is great, if you have a decent idea of the NSA's (and the US intelligence establishment in general) capabilities. If not, you're essentially fumbling around in the dark trying to make that kind of infrastructure selection. (And, of course, the US intelligence community isn't the only threat, China -- through whom much traffic that neither originates in nor terminates in China is routed -- has to be a consideration, particularly, but they aren't the only other threat, either.)

If you don't have a system where you have strong theoretical guarantees of end-to-end security and integrity with the data sent over untrusted infrastructure, its security against any of the major threats really relies more than anything on them just not caring about it, and if you think that you are meaningfully buying security by choosing between Google or one of their competitors for basic services, you are probably deluding yourself.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#268

Post by pbreit »

aiiane wrote: post #224
pbreit wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but those statements are hardly unambiguous. It's the "press reports" that are called false. Close-ended could pretty much be just as broad. The second sentence is hedged with "on such a scale". What is "information about our users' Internet activity"? Does that preclude sharing the actual internet activity? Also, Page keeps referring to "orders" but the press reports suggest som…

Of course it's hedged with a limitation of scale. Obviously Google, like any other company, is going to provide information on much smaller scales (e.g. a user or a handful of users) for investigation based on specific court-issued warrants. It would be lying to state that Google never provides information about any user activity at all. What would you prefer Google to say?

My reply was specifically to do with the contention that the sentences were "straightforward and unambiguous".

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#269

Post by aiiane »

AJ007 wrote: post #254
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…

First, we have heard no denials from government officials that these programs exist. Indeed, US Senators & Obama have acknowledged they exist. Second, we have no denials of the document's authenticity. Third, we would assume through logical deduction that someone who does deny the program's existence is either lying, being misleading, or has been mislead themselves. Finally, if this program does not actually exist, w…

Program existing != program being exactly as described by the media.

> The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#270

Post by ajross »

mullingitover wrote: post #192
danso wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy? So, basically, what politicians put into their speeches? Read over your statement again. There's very little of substance in there. For example, what does "this" in "We would never do 'this'" mean? And I'm not being pedantic, beca…

> "So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?" If Google was actually taking a moral/ethical stance that being an accessory to unconstitutional warrantless searches is something that they find to be morally wrong, yes, I would be more comfortable. My reading of this was La…

What does any of that have to do with your original assertion that it was a carefully worded non-denial denial? Your point now seems to be "I don't like Google, and this doesn't convince me otherwise." That's fine, but hardly relevant.
Post reply on HN