Live data from Hacker News

Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

plus.google.com

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#11
post #7

> "the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals -- things like search warrants." Things like search warrants? What has been described in the PRISM slides is an interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will, in a few clicks and an affirmation that "yes, this person is a terrorist". Also the US government has confirmed th…

> Things like search warrants? What has been described in the PRISM slides is a interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will, in a few clicks and an affirmation that "yes, this person is a terrorist".

Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM. The way you phrased this statement makes it sound like the OP is sneakily leaving out the PRISM implementation, which would be sneaky if Google were a part of PRISM.

(this doesn't mean that Google's isn't flat-out lying about everything...but you seem to be alleging a contradiction where there is none, at least in the OP)

> "Also the US government has confirmed that systematic collection of user data was indeed happening for non-US citizens. What of that? Are they users of lesser rights in the eyes of Google, etc?"

NSA's mandate since its inception is to conduct surveillance of foreign communications suspected to be a threat to America...So while it's still worth arguing whether the surveillance they conduct is unethical or unproductive, it's not going to be worthwhile arguing whether they do it at all.

edit: removed sarcasting phrasing that was too assholish for a Friday after work.

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#13
post #8

Since the Chief Architect is so supportive of privacy rights - I'd like to participate in G+ using a pseudonym. How about it Google??

Something like this? https://plus.google.com/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbMmV

No, that says you can't use a pseudonym without proving to Google that it is one a lot of people know you by.

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#15
post #11
post #7

> "the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals -- things like search warrants." Things like search warrants? What has been described in the PRISM slides is an interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will, in a few clicks and an affirmation that "yes, this person is a terrorist". Also the US government has confirmed th…

> Things like search warrants? What has been described in the PRISM slides is a interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will, in a few clicks and an affirmation that "yes, this person is a terrorist". Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM. The way you phrased this statement makes it sound like the OP is sneakily leaving out the PRISM implementation, which would be sneaky if Google w…

This is not about what the NSA does, this is about whether Google and co are handing out foreign users' data to the NSA. It appears they are.

I hope every non-american netizen realizes that their private communications are being systematically collected by US intelligence. It is now impossible to trust an american company.

Before the Internet, the ECHELON program was shown to have been used for private industrial espionage on foreign compagnies [1]. I assume this is happening on another scale entirely now, with the cooperation of Google, Apple, FB and MSFT.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#16
What I don't get is:

from US government, we got confirmations - half-ass confirmations, but still confirmations - that PRISM is real, we maybe have some information wrong and we should stop asking and talking about it, but it's real.

While the companies and its architects all oppose the claims in a way that's very convincing.

I don't know what to believe anymore.

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#17
>> the fact that we do stand up for individual users' privacy and protection, for their right to have a personal life which is not ever shared with other people without their consent, even when governments come knocking at our door with guns, is one of the two most important reasons that I am at this company

The indisputable fact is that your company gathers a lot of private info online about its users for profit, make that for extra, extra profit. Best case scenario, it makes NSA's job super easy, all they have to do is ask for it. Worst case scenario, the government knows all our thoughts as we type on Google search and everything else we do on Google. I do not trust that such info will stay private. Not anymore.

>> the national security apparatus has convinced itself and the rest of the government that the only way it can do its job is to know everything about everyone. That's not how you protect a country. We didn't fight the Cold War just so we could rebuild the Stasi ourselves.

Yeah, WTF do they think they are, Google or Facebook?????

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#18
post #7

> "the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals -- things like search warrants." Things like search warrants? What has been described in the PRISM slides is an interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will, in a few clicks and an affirmation that "yes, this person is a terrorist". Also the US government has confirmed th…

Google operates in other countries as well and has to respect their laws, I imagine not everyone calls it "a search warrant".

Also, National Security Letters.

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#19

To be clear, this is the chief architect of Google+, not Google as a whole. Would he necessarily know?

He actually responded to just this question in the comments (and he's a very senior 10-year engineer, so it's plausible).

"I have various reasons to believe that the odds that I would have known about it are higher than those for most employees -- but it still wouldn't be a certainty. That said, the odds are good enough that I would be fairly surprised, and rather furious, to find out that such a thing had been happening without my knowledge."

Re: Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals

#20
What might have happened is this: 1. NSA bribed someone to obtain Google's SSL certificate private keys 2. NSA installed wiretaps outside of all Google datacenters 3. NSA hired someone to write software that would reconstruct Gmail inboxes, login activity, etc. based on the decrypted traffic

If Facebook, Google, etc. are indeed innocent they should change SSL certificates immediately, store the new ones in secure cryptographic hardware, stop offering non-HTTPS access, and start inspecting network equipment for the wiretaps.

Post reply on HN