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

271–280 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#271

Post by outside1234 »

Avenger42 wrote: post #252
Nelson69 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The quote is: Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. He doesn't say "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information directly to the government ..." As such, I think you can either take it as "we don't disclose anything to anyone , or you can say that the sentence isn't true.

what does "on such a scale" mean? i mean it could be 40% of what we think it is and its still scary.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#272

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

> Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law.

Great! So if the law - namely the Patriot Act - states the Government has the authority to spy on all your users emails, your legal team reviews it, says it's ok according to the law and you cooperate. Is that how it works?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#273

Post by camus »

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…

they are required, by the law, to deny any involvment with the NSA anyway or they can go straight in jail.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#274

Post by Avenger42 »

mullingitover wrote: post #264
Dove wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fallout in such a case has to be smaller than it would be if it comes out later that, not only were they in bed with the NSA, they (and the other companies in this situation) blatantly lied about it with their statements today.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#275

Post by defen »

DannyBee wrote: post #241
defen wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. The statement does not rule out the possibility that aliens are using advanced technology to watch the bits on optical lines without affecting the photos either.

True. However, the prior probability of that statement being true is exceedingly remote, so a non-denial of that still leaves me relatively certain that I don't have to worry about aliens conspiring with the federal government to spy on me.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#276

Post by Avenger42 »

outside1234 wrote: post #271
Avenger42 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote is: Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. He doesn't say "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information directly to the government ..." As such, I think you can either take it as "we don't disclose anything to anyone , or you can say that the sentence isn't true.

what does "on such a scale" mean? i mean it could be 40% of what we think it is and its still scary.

Based on the sentence two lines before it, it likely means "millions of users":

> 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. [...] Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#277

Post by [deleted] »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #153
riotingpscifis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider the NSA having MITM capabilities before the data reaches google: 1) This is exactly what you would need to do, to consider it realtime 2) None of the denials cover this

They'd have to MITM SSL traffic largely. Also, that's what they were doing for more traditional wiretaps and you should be sure that they have access to siphon off live traffic for analysis if they want.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#279

Post by drsintoma »

necubi wrote: post #237
drsintoma wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Could you quote/link to Obama's confirmation that Prism exists I'll give you gizmodo because it has specifically the quotes http://gizmodo.com/president-obamas-prism-response-wont-make...

None of those seem to have anything to do with PRISM. This is a confusing situation, because two secret surveillance programs were leaked on subsequent days. These seem to be related to the first leaked program, which involves collection of Verizon's call metadata. That seems pretty clear-cut. Verizon has issued a non-denial, it's in line with what we've known about the NSA's conduct since 9/11, and various members o…

I stand corrected

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#280

Post by ynniv »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #257
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.

Really? You don't see any difference between the denial posted by Google's CEO vs. the way that (say) Verizon responded? Here's Verizon's response: http://www.businessinsider.com/verizons-memo-to-workers-abou...

A better carefully worded response is still a carefully worded response. Google is in a difficult place because we all expected this to be happening, there are now documents suggesting that it has been happening, and no one takes at face value anything that sounds like a lawyer wrote it.

EDIT: I mean: (a) No one cares if they have heard about a program called "PRISM" when the point of that program is to aggregate data from other programs. (b) Anyone who is actually innocent in this needs to stop mentioning "direct access to servers": no one expects this program to be directly accessing servers. (c) We also don't care whether actions were "in accordance with the law", as the constitutionality of the surrounding laws is part of the debate.

I will say that "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." is a good statement to make. It sounds broad in a good way and doesn't appear to have many weasel words, other than specifying "Internet activity" and not email or general activity. Are Google searches even "Internet activity", or is he referring to Google Analytics / Google +1 / 8.8.8.8 DNS?

Post reply on HN