Is it just me or did the personal statements by Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg have similar format and language?
[deleted]
Larry Page addresses PRISM
431–440 of 482 posts
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, you might be the only person here to suggest Matt Cutts is ever unwelcome on any HN thread.
Heh, did you get out of the wrong side of bed today? I don't spend all day reading HN comments - sorry if my knowledge of responses to Matt Cutts' posts isn't as comprehensive and magnificent as your own. When I posted this, nobody else had said anything.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#433Several of the largest telephone carriers in the United States knowingly and voluntarily assisted the National Security Agency in illegally spying, the online companies I feel have more too lose if they took that kind of mindless attitude. Online companies monetize user data so consumers may lose faith in the companies ability to protect their data from government if they have "direct access". Online firms adopted a aggressive, pro-privacy legal theories. The problem isn't about direct access, the friendly benefits the intelligence community gets with current structuring of federal law is what needs to be changed for more respect to privacy in our society.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#434Missing from this cynical legal response, is the outrage towards the government for spying on all our private communications [ both legally and illegally ]
Google could have used their platform to campaign for better laws : a 'free speech + question mark' logo on their home page outlining their concerns would have been consistent with 'Dont be Evil'.. but they didn't even do that.
A not-just-non-evil-but-actively-good Google should have said to the Government : "No, you may not have any access to our customers data - you need to physically raid our buildings with a warrant to prise that from our stewardship. You need to hold us as a company in contempt of court."
How much better is the US than China ? : how can there be a democracy without both free speech and a right to private conversation ?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Hi Matt - Thanks for answering. I genuinely appreciate your earnest communication. To answer your question, I sincerely believe Larry should do the right thing irregardless of the law, which means telling the American public the truth.
What Sergey (and Google) bravely did in China gave Google years of priceless respectability. This is one of those situations where civil disobedience is best. I realize you can't just "pull out of the United States", yet Google is looking like liars, and that just doesn't work.
For what it's worth, if Larry summoned the courage to speak his conscience completely, he will not go to jail. Far from it ... Google will be the true statesman, showing courage and leadership.
Indeed, I believe it may help Google the most, by catalyzing people's courage to do what's right. It's simply wrong to associate yourself with this.
It must come from Google first, Google is the strongest. Please consider the honor in doing this. Done genuinely, the public will rally behind Google, just like SOPA/PIPA. And don't forget, you have the world's largest bully pulpit.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#436Earlier 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…
>This was Congress legalizing warrantless wiretapping ala AT&T, but limiting it by requiring it to be targeted at non U.S. persons But how would you determine on the internet that an account holder was a US person or not ? If I claim to be the person X who is a US person by registering for an account in their name, am I then a US person and therefore supposedly exempt from monitoring? Even IP-based clues are not enou…
> But how would you determine on the internet that an account holder was a US person or not?
That's why they only have to check a box saying they a reasonably sure that there is at least a 51% chance.
Vague laws are invariably wildcards that can and will be abused.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#437"Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#438Earlier 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…
Or you just follow standard operating procedures for foreign intelligence collection.
You hire a foreign national, working for a foreign division of Google to be your spy. Unless every US citizens mail server is domestic, lotta a loopholes to be found.
People should also not assume the credit card statement from their bank is a batch job run on US servers by their bank. I've been told this stuff is outsourced, probably to the lowest bidder. Which if I were an intelligence service, I would be more than happy to subsidize.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider the sheer volume of data we're talking about here. Unless you think these companies would miss a fiber optic trunk running out the back door of their data centers, does that make any sense?
How much data is leaving? There could be a lot less data leaving than you think.
[deleted]
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#440[deleted]