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

281–290 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#281

Post by w3pm »

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…

Does it matter? What are the odds these guys are telling the truth when the President himself has lied about it? Maybe it's a concern of national security?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#282

Post by rayiner »

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…

> Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very careful interpretation of the words on the page.

There is no "careful parsing" of the Constitution going on. Just people who never read the document very carefully other than what they thought the teacher said in 8th grade.

This is the entirety of the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If any "parsing" is going on, it's creative parsing to make the argument that information you freely handed over to Google and AT&T, or indeed information that was never even in your possession but was generated by AT&T (e.g. call data records, web server logs) is somehow your "papers or effects." Tell me how that is anything other than creative parsing? How is a document that you never even had in your possession somehow your private information?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#283

Post by onecommentonly »

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...

Verizon said what they could: we have to comply with the orders when we get them. Nothing weaselly, maybe because we read the judge's order.

Why should we trust the safety of any information on our searches, emails, location data, chats etc stored by Google? Stop storing it

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#284

Post by Dove »

rsingel wrote: post #266
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…

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 o…

I don't buy it. What I quoted above doesn't say anything about US persons or non-US persons, about content or metadata, about this law or that one. It just says,

    Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information 
    about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale 
    is completely false.
Now, Page may well be lying, but he definitely isn't weaseling. I'm pretty sure that denial covers both of the possibilities you're referring to.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#287

Post by white_devil »

Dove wrote: post #211
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.

That's moving the goalposts, though. The initial assertion -- that this is a cleverly-worded non-denial -- doesn't hold up with the text. Page is clearly and unambiguously denying that Google supplies any information to the government on a millions-of-users scale. Saying that denial is a lie . . . is a completely different charge.

> Page is clearly and unambiguously denying that Google supplies any information to the government on a millions-of-users scale.

Kind of like Mariano Rajoy insisted that Spain didn't need a bailout?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#288

Post by redwood »

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 point is, they don't need to provide anything direct... the problem is the gov monitors the pipes and sees all, period. The problem is at the telcos, fundamentally. Even then it's not the telco's fault since they were forced and given immunity. The problem is our elected government, plain and simple. We've known about this since 2007. Happy to see it finally discussed in the mainstream.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#289

Post by white_devil »

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…

> 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?

But when their impossible-to-verify assertion is that they've done nothing wrong, you'll accept that just fine?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#290

Post by ralfd »

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.

Larry Page links to a Google "transparency report" in his blog post which gives a rough figure:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US

Post reply on HN