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

411–420 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#411

Post by declan »

kahirsch wrote: post #327
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…

> Verizon was given a Patriot Act order for business records, metadata; no names; no content, but all citizens or foreigner. No, it was a FISA order: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri...

Both of you are correct. The Patriot Act Section 215 amended the FISA statutes.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#412

Post by myko »

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 top couple of posts on Hacker News are about PRISM right now. On each post the first comment is about how similar the responses of each company are. It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to be conspiracy nuts on Hacker News.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#413

Post by Matt_Cutts »

abraham wrote: post #234
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me personally? I do. I still want Google to up the number of key bits on our SSL connections, plus explore how to make the connection even more secure though. But yes, I'm quite confident.

It looks like the security team is currently working on upping the SSL bits. http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2013/05/changes-to-...

2048 bits! Woohoo!

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#414

Post by declan »

bigiain wrote: post #393
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey teawithcarl, I appreciate that. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the right thing is. I suspect that we're actually in agreement on most points. If there's something you think we should be doing differently (and I agree with you :), I'm more than happy to lobby for that within Google. I do think Google is working hard to protect our users from unwarranted government requests. Just speaking for me person…

Hey Matt. While I honestly think _you_ believe Google is doing "the right thing" - there's a nagging suspicion that there's some NSL-style legal (or possibly extra-legal) compulsion being used at the very top levels. Even if I believe that Larry is 100% "on my side" against the government - I'm also under no doubt that Larry and Google are effectively powerless against the pressure the various US government agencies…

When AT&T was asked politely by the NSA to open its networks under the warrantless surveillance program, the company refused to confirm or deny. They actually offered arguments like this one from an AT&T attorney:

http://news.cnet.com/Legal-loophole-emerges-in-NSA-spy-progr... Federal law may "authorize and in some cases require telecommunications companies to furnish information" to the executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was associate White House counsel when President Bush authorized the NSA surveillance program in late 2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm in Washington, D.C. Far from being complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander."

And a sealed AT&T document I obtained tried to offer benign reasons why there would be a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center that would be designed to monitor Internet and telephone traffic: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077353.html

What Google and Facebook are doing today is precisely the opposite of what AT&T did.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#415

Post by ashleyblackmore »

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...

Thought twice about posting this, but am I the only one who feels really queasy about someone like Matt Cutts jumping directly into conversations about their own company on HN (especially when it could be connoted as being part of damage control)? He's hardly rank-and-file. I think it is plain old creepy, YMMV.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#416

Post by pyre »

A1kmm wrote: post #401
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…

I think there are a lot of possibilities that could be consistent with Page's statement that also involve the NSA spying on Google users. For example, perhaps the NSA asked Google to disclose their SSL private keys; then, if they are willing to do an active attack with their own infrastructure, they could transparently perform a MITM attack on all requests to gmail, and it would be virtually undetectable. Another pos…

  | they are compelled not to tell their managers
  | about what they did for the NSA.
This seems problematic. What if another employee discovers what was done? What if it goes all the way up the chain? When they ask the employee why the created a backdoor, is the employee then obligated to lie? Get fired for the lie? Go to prison while maintaining it's not a NSA secret program?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#417

Post by aiiane »

ig1 wrote: post #323
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 term direct access was first used by the Guardian in their original story: "but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers." - most of the early denials (where the companies presumably hadn't read the article) didn't include the phrase but the later ones did. So it's reasonable to suppose that the article was the source of that phrase.

Yeah, this is really the most straightforward explanation.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#418

Post by anigbrowl »

adestefan wrote: post #362
rayiner wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

To follow up even the Supreme Court ruled in 1928 that a wiretap did not constitute a search under the 4th Amendment so there was no need for a warrant. Wiretaps themselves became illegal and the information from them inadmissible under the 1934 Communications Act. This didn't really stop wiretaps. Instead they were used as a method of intelligence gathering to go and find stuff that was admissible. Note that this wa…

Katz is not the whole story. Yet again, I suggest reading Smith v. Maryland.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#419

Post by aiiane »

eduardordm wrote: post #343
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #123

Personally, I'm really glad that Google published such a clear, plain-spoken post to tackle this issue head on. This whole issue makes me want to donate a bunch of money to the EFF. If anyone else feels the same way, you can donate to the EFF here: https://supporters.eff.org/donate and I believe a lot of employers will match contributions.

I'm sorry, but google's response was demagogical at best (what does 'direct access' even means!??!). In many countries the judiciary would already be in the case and the head of those companies (which didn't provide 'direct access' but there is obviously something happening) would have a lot of explanation to do.

"Direct access" was the wording used in the original article that started this entire debate. All they're doing is responding to the same language they were presented with.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#420

Post by infographic- »

bigiain wrote: post #380
macchina wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard for me to believe they could access to the data centers without Google's knowledge. Isn't it more plausible that they're intercepting data flowing in and out of Google servers?

Hmmm… We haven't seen posts from the CEOs of Cisco/Juniper/Dell/HP or other manufacturers of datacenter grade network equipment. Who needs Google/Facebook's "knowledge" if you've got root on all the border network gear (and SSL termination hardware)? I know here in .au, Huawei have been excluded from the government-deployed National Broadband Network due to suspicions that the Chinese government has too much control/…

Huawei's exclusion was based purely on FUD. There was no evidence to suggest such a thing.
Post reply on HN