Google Chief Architect: we only respond to specific orders about individuals • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by cpleppert » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:42 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #11

fchollet wrote: 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…

>> 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".

I'm not sure where you getting that from the slides. They don't explain how an analyst uses the system.

>>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.

Other media reports from insiders (not information on the leaked slides) make it sound like PRISM is more of an NSA internal thing that aggregates data and presents it to analysts. Based on the description of the slides it sounds like the NSA has some integration with the on site premises of the target company.

So it could be as simple as PRISM is just a way of automating the whole process of getting data from a valid warrant which would be consistent with the denials made tech companies. They don't have any contact with 'PRISM' per se; they have just set up their systems to spit out data when they get a valid warrant.

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

#22

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:45 AM UTC

It sounds like this employee was not even aware that Google's "Transparency Report" specifically does not include the number of FISA orders that they have received:

"Update 2013-06-07: at the time that we wrote this post, we asked Google whether its Transparency Report included data about secret FISA court orders that would send data to the NSA. The response we received was extremely vague, but seemed to possibly be "no". In the wake of yesterday's revelations that the NSA was harvesting data from Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, AOL, PalTalk, Skype, Youtube and Apple, Google has now clearly confirmed that the numbers in its Transparency Report do not include the number of orders or targets for NSA surveillance."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/new-statistics-about-n...

This is especially interesting, because it means Google has acknowledged the distinction between NSLs, which include a gag order, and some other even more secret directive, which services NSA surveillance.

It's also worth noting that if Google was willingly supplying anything PRISM-like, this employee would not be allowed to know without a Top Secret clearance. Any Google employees who do have such clearance face the threat of prison if they tell him or anyone else.

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

#23

Post by rieter » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:54 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #22

It sounds like this employee was not even aware that Google's "Transparency Report" specifically does not include the number of FISA orders that they have received: "Update 2013-06-07: at the time that we wrote this post, we asked Google whether its Transparency Report included data about secret FISA court orders that would send data to the NSA. The response we received was extremely vague, but seemed to possibly be…

He said "as much as possible".

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

#24

Post by saraid216 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

msabalau wrote: post #6

packetslave wrote: post #4

For clarity, he's currently chief architect for Social/Google+ not Google as a whole, but he's still a very senior, longtime engineer.

Good clarification. Only so many words that would fit into the headline...

One more character would have been sufficient...

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

#25

Post by danso » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:01 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #22

It sounds like this employee was not even aware that Google's "Transparency Report" specifically does not include the number of FISA orders that they have received: "Update 2013-06-07: at the time that we wrote this post, we asked Google whether its Transparency Report included data about secret FISA court orders that would send data to the NSA. The response we received was extremely vague, but seemed to possibly be…

> It sounds like this employee was not even aware that Google's "Transparency Report" specifically does not include the number of FISA orders that they have received

Are you concluding that from this statement?

> "I'm not sure what the details of this PRISM program are, but I can tell you that the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals -- things like search warrants. And we continue to stand firm against any attempts to do so broadly or without genuine, individualized suspicion, and publicize the results as much as possible in our Transparency Report."

He may be ignorant of that fact...however, that last statement, "as much as possible", would cover that. However, his assertion that "the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals" would still cover FISA, because FISA, as far as we know, is specifically for the targeted surveillance of individuals.

Moreover, FISA, as it applies to Americans, requires a court-approved warrant for that surveillance. So again, what the OP is claiming is non-contradictory, because FISA requests are both legal actions that target individuals that go through an approval process.

This is entirely different than what PRISM is alleged to be, which, well, we don't know exactly what it is, but involves the warrantless surveillance of Internet usage with the collaboration of Internet companies...currently, Google is outright denying being a part of that.

Some relevant links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellige...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/obama-fisa-warrantl...

Also worth noting, national security letters, which Google does oppose, are controversial because, among other things, they do not require a warrant. This is not the case with FISA and American citizens.

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

#26

Post by lawnchair_larry » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:02 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #11

fchollet wrote: 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…

> Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM.

They have denied knowledge of the use of the word "PRISM" to describe anything that they are participating in. So, they've denied nothing in that regard. It just means PRISM is the NSA codename.

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

#27

Post by danso » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:06 AM UTC

cpleppert wrote: post #21

danso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> 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". I'm not sure where you getting that from the slides. They don't explain how an analyst uses the system. >>Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM. The way you phrased this statement mak…

I was quoting and disagreeing with the grandparent comment...which I interpreted as implying that Google is a part of PRISM (which may actually be true, but that would be begging the question in this argument)...

But I do agree with the grandparent that PRISM, as described in the original Washington Post report and in the excerpted slides, do seem to allude to "an interface in which a NSA agent can access a subject's data at will"

Here's the Washington Post:

> There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...

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

#28

Post by danso » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:10 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #26

danso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM. They have denied knowledge of the use of the word "PRISM" to describe anything that they are participating in. So, they've denied nothing in that regard. It just means PRISM is the NSA codename.

Which statement are you referring to? I'm referring to the one that Larry Page issued this afternoon:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html

> First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

Is "any program" not broad enough?

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

#29

Post by jmillikin » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:11 AM UTC

BCM43 wrote: post #13

mayanksinghal wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/victory-google-surrend...

http://mashable.com/2011/10/19/google-to-support-pseudonyms&...;

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

#30

Post by icambron » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:12 AM UTC

This denial is a lot stronger than Page's, which was full of weasel words. Unless Zunger is just lying, which somehow seems unlikely (forgive my naiveté), it'll be interesting to know how PRISM actually works. But I will say that his faith in his company sounds misplaced, since Google's more official denials are so weak.

edit: clarity