Larry Page addresses PRISM • Hacker News Board

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#291

Post by greyman » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:05 PM UTC

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…

I agree, the wording "direct access" is indeed very suspicious, and I tend to believe Arrington might be into something: http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/06/triangulating-on-truth-the-...;

I re-read the Larry's response carefully, and he did NOT refute the claim, that they are giving data to some 3rd party (who then forwards it to the government). He just says that government do not have direct access to it. But the issue that someone else can have the access is avoided, and it is exactly the same as the Zuck's response.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#292

Post by Nelson69 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

ralfd wrote: post #248

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…

Did you read Larry's blog post? He didn't rule out the NSA, he did rule out the USgovernment period. Quote: > Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.

I did read it, with the dozens of other articles and such it's blurred together. He did rule out the US Government, does that rule out contractors? Does that rule out Verizon? What if Google has data in someone else' datacenter? That's specifically what they said the US government doesn't have direct access to.

Do they give carte blanch access to their data to ANYONE? Regardless of the datacenter. If they don't they can say that.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#293

Post by EGreg » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

Is it just me or did the personal statements by Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg have similar format and language?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#294

Post by hotpockets » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:07 PM UTC

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.

Google could be searching email for certain series of characters, like "xxxx obama" and handing that over. Perhaps NSA supplies google a list of phrases to look for.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#295

Post by jervisfm » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:08 PM UTC

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…

>This was Congress legalizing warrantless wiretapping ala AT&T, but limiting it by requiring it to be targeted at non U.S. persons

But how would you determine on the internet that an account holder was a US person or not ?

If I claim to be the person X who is a US person by registering for an account in their name, am I then a US person and therefore supposedly exempt from monitoring? Even IP-based clues are not enough as those are not full-proof.

I suspect that both US persons can be just as susceptible to tracking from the Government.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#296

Post by 7952 » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:08 PM UTC

Couldn't a huge amount of metadata be gleaned by just monitoring the size, disposition, and timing of encrypted traffic. That sort of information would only be useful to government and would give them the ability to deny everything.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#297

Post by jamesjporter » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:08 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #284

rsingel wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I 100% agree; I don't see how anyone can ask for a more blatant and firm statement than that.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#298

Post by downandout » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

declan wrote: post #258

downandout wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for Google, the Director of National Intelligence himself has confirmed the program and publicly called its disclosure "reprehensible". However, Google and the rest of these companies are in an awkward position. This program is still technically Top Secret, even though everyone now knows about it. Because of the obligation to secrecy that comes with having received classified information through the pro…

That is untrue. See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-... ; James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a statement last night saying the Guardian and Post articles about PRISM "contain numerous inaccuracies." Clapper's statement didn't confirm or deny any NSA activity. He said only that the articles "refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Fo…

So, you are suggesting that the slides detailing their participation were simply made up?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#299

Post by cracell » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #284

rsingel wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if they were give similar court order terms as under the Verizon court order wouldn't he legally have to lie or violate the court order? Or just not give a comment, but no comment on this would implies guilt to a lot of people so lying could seem like the correct path.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#300

Post by greyman » Fri, Jun 07, 2013, 10:12 PM UTC

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.

No, the quote is still vague and I agree with Nelson69. He could easily say that "we don't provide any access to gov, nor to their subcontractors nor to any other entity,..." - if that would be true.