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

351–360 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#351

Post by mortehu »

HoochTHX wrote: post #321
ralfd wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet this still misses more important issues. While it is fantastic that Google does not give the USG a free pass to the whole enchilada, Google still collects and stores this data, and gives it when compelled, if they truly had the users best interests in mind they would reduce the data collected to only what they MUST have to do what they do, and not use Vacuum cleaner like methods to get and keep everything the…

https://www.google.com/dashboard provides an overview over your data at Google. Most/all of these services have permanent delete buttons.

It is possible to permanently erase or disable your search history from here: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54067?hl=en

You can opt out of Google Analytics using this add-on: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#352

Post by lifeguard »

rayiner wrote: post #339
lifeguard wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read about Roe v. Wade, rayiner

Roe v. Wade was a pure exercise in legislating from the bench, and even many of its supporters will admit that. O'Connor got it right in Casey when she distanced the right to abortion from the right to privacy: "That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law." From Roe: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line…

So you understand there is more to our rights that just a document. They have to exist in a framework of judges and the executive branch.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#353

Post by djim »

gibsonf1 wrote: post #329
Dove wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The key issue here is that Google and the other companies may have no idea this is going on. My read is that the NSA has managed to gain access to the data centers either through inside help, spy craft, hardware/router back doors, or some other means we have no idea about.

possible the timeline on the slide is when NSA successfully began making sense of the raw data they could be collecting at internet backbones? also possible that the document purposefully threw the public off track by implicating these players, thus limiting the legitimacy of the claim if it ever came to light?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#354

Post by kllrnohj »

xenophanes wrote: post #330
Dove wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course it's weaseling. Maybe they disclosed such information on a slightly lesser scale. That passage doesn't say. They all said stuff about "direct access", without discussing what would and wouldn't qualify as "indirect". They didn't deny doing all kinds of different access that could be called indirect in some way.

Of course they don't deny indirect because that would be a lie. Everyone provides data indirectly via a thing called "warrants". Google publishes how many indirect requests they comply with right here: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#355

Post by Steko »

xenophanes wrote: post #330
Dove wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course it's weaseling. Maybe they disclosed such information on a slightly lesser scale. That passage doesn't say. They all said stuff about "direct access", without discussing what would and wouldn't qualify as "indirect". They didn't deny doing all kinds of different access that could be called indirect in some way.

WaPost backtracks on claim tech companies ‘participate knowingly’ in PRISM data collection

http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/wapost-backtracks-on-cla...;

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#356

Post by teawithcarl »

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...

Matt - Many of us believe that many of the people at Google are doing their best, however in this instance you're not doing the right thing.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#357

Post by stevewillows »

While I enjoy my tinfoil hat, it seems that they're being open about the access given. This being said, if I didn't trust Google I wouldn't use them. I accept that I am trading certain information about me (interests, usage etc) for the bevvy of free services they provide.

What sort of information about me would the NSA be interested in?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#358

Post by davros »

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...

The problem is that Obama himself has acknowledged the program both exists and is very active, the only limitation being 'Internet monitoring is only for those outside United States'- no comfort for Google users like myself outside the US[1].

I don't mind targeted surveillance against genuine suspected terrorists. What frightens me is broader intelligence collection especially commercial intelligence. Over time programs broaden and if we're not really, really careful we'll find gmail being read by intelligence analysts who can brief our US competitors.

If non-Americans can't trust Google with their information that is an existential risk to its future. I think the Google leadership needs to do a lot more than this one short post!

[1] From Obama's comments: Now, with respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States. And again, in this instance, not only is Congress fully apprised of it, but what is also true is that the FISA Court has to authorize it.

So in summary, what you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress.

That seems pretty clear - there is a congress-approved spying on non-US citizens Internet and email.

EDIT: added Obama quote

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#359

Post by rayiner »

lifeguard wrote: post #352
rayiner wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roe v. Wade was a pure exercise in legislating from the bench, and even many of its supporters will admit that. O'Connor got it right in Casey when she distanced the right to abortion from the right to privacy: "That is because the liberty of the woman is at stake in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law." From Roe: "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line…

So you understand there is more to our rights that just a document. They have to exist in a framework of judges and the executive branch.

I'm not saying otherwise. But flaming the government for acting Unconstitutionally for activity that is not contrary to the text of the document is lame and misleading.

If you think there should be a right to privacy of electronic communications, then convince people of it. Get an amendment passe. Don't twist the Constitution to say what you wish it said.

Post reply on HN