81–90 of 95 posts
Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers." Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers" AOL: "nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers." Paltalk: "Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers" Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our serve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they didn't say that, everyone on HN would be whining about why they didn't deny "direct access" when that was the headline accusation. Can't win with you guys.
It's not the phrase "direct access" (which they could reasonably use given it was used in the original leak story), but rather the construction of the whole sentence. There are millions of ways you could phrase the response (Dropbox and Microsoft used completely different language), the chance that these five came up with the phrasing used independently seems fairly low. Especially as the statements weren't all given…
Amdocs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs) provides billing services and customer support for most of the major phone companies so it has access to all of the transactional data on your billing statement. If a government agency had access to the Amdocs data, it would have access to the phone data through an indirect channel.
Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers." Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers" AOL: "nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers." Paltalk: "Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers" Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our serve…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the source on the SSL keys? Arguably a lot of metadata could be gleaned without even decrypting the data. If an IP is tied to an identity, timing of traffic alone would be very revealing.
My guess? They worked with the CEO to discuss the issue. Then recommended hiring some consulting company that specializes in key management. The consultant says something like, you need to keep a copy of the keys in an offsite vault for disaster recover purposes. The NSA now has the keys. It is also possible they just got the keys from spies. In my company, anyone with sudo access to front end machines can get the ke…
[1] http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ssl-perfect-forward-se...
http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...;
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but what about companies who store sensitive data and emails on Google Apps for business, especially non US companies ? What about non US citizens who seems to have less protection and spyable at mercy ? Should we the ( whatever your country or citizenship ) avoid by all means US internet corps. If the American gov wanted to kill the cloud, then good job ! I want to clarify that I do not trust my own gov neither…
Nobody should store sensitive data and e-mails on a system where they're sitting there in plain text accessible to god knows how many people at Google and their data centers. That's insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody should store sensitive data and e-mails on a system where they're sitting there in plain text accessible to god knows how many people at Google and their data centers. That's insane.
And nobody should live in a house, sitting there in plain clothes accessible to god knows how many people in their neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the phrase "direct access" (which they could reasonably use given it was used in the original leak story), but rather the construction of the whole sentence. There are millions of ways you could phrase the response (Dropbox and Microsoft used completely different language), the chance that these five came up with the phrasing used independently seems fairly low. Especially as the statements weren't all given…
There are millions of ways to deny things. This is the most clear and direct way I accused you of doing X You could say "you know, my brother and I, we once, 30 years ago blah blah blah blah blah blah but X, X never happened". Most people, however, will just say "No, i don't do X". They were accused, point blank, of providing direct access to their servers. They said "we do not provide direct access to their servers"…
For example why do they all use the word "provide" there are hundreds of synonyms that work just as well ("given", "enabled", "allowed", "have", etc.). They weren't accused of "providing" the access, it's a word they've chosen to use.
The specific accusation was about the NSA, why are the denials using "government agencies" or synonyms rather than NSA. There might be perfectly valid reasons, but the chance that they'd all make the same decision to use it independently ?
Why are they all in current tense rather than "we have never x" ?
If there were on or two similarities it might be coincidence, but we're talking about dozens of grammatically and phrasing choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are millions of ways to deny things. This is the most clear and direct way I accused you of doing X You could say "you know, my brother and I, we once, 30 years ago blah blah blah blah blah blah but X, X never happened". Most people, however, will just say "No, i don't do X". They were accused, point blank, of providing direct access to their servers. They said "we do not provide direct access to their servers"…
No it isn't. You can run it through plagiarism software which is specifically designed to take into account scenarios like your suggest and it'll be flagged. For example why do they all use the word "provide" there are hundreds of synonyms that work just as well ("given", "enabled", "allowed", "have", etc.). They weren't accused of "providing" the access, it's a word they've chosen to use. The specific accusation was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess? They worked with the CEO to discuss the issue. Then recommended hiring some consulting company that specializes in key management. The consultant says something like, you need to keep a copy of the keys in an offsite vault for disaster recover purposes. The NSA now has the keys. It is also possible they just got the keys from spies. In my company, anyone with sudo access to front end machines can get the ke…
You should look into how perfect forward secrecy works in TLS before you make these kinds of claims. [1] http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ssl-perfect-forward-se...