Maybe the larger point is that they don't need permission
Larry Page addresses PRISM
441–450 of 482 posts
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#442I 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…
Voted up for an astute observation
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
The last couple lines of his blog post seemed to convey, at least to me, that he was posting truth but perhaps not as much as he'd like. "We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible... ...we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedure…
In the transparency report, Google can only report wide ranges of numbers, not actual numbers (i.e. 1000-4999). They have always said they wished they could provide the actual numbers of requests as well as copies of the requests themselves, so this is consistent with that.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that Obama himself has acknowledged the program both exists and is very active, the only limitation being 'Internet monitoring is only for those outside United States'- no comfort for Google users like myself outside the US[1]. I don't mind targeted surveillance against genuine suspected terrorists. What frightens me is broader intelligence collection especially commercial intelligence. Over time progr…
I find it fascinating that Matt Cutts didn't bother to address any of this in his defense of Google. Obama and James Clapper have both admitted to what is obviously Prism, a large scale spying program targeting Internet users and their data. It rather makes it clear that Google is participating in espionage programs for the NSA. Supposedly, maybe, it isn't directed at Americans (har har).
I don't think they are. I think ISP's allow government equipment on their networks to capture traffic as they see fit. If every ISP participates, then they have Google data, Facebook data, Yahoo data, and on and on.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You don't think of information in your Gmail or Google Drive as personal "papers or effects"? Would you be fine with a Google employee reading through your email or your spreadsheets in order to figure out whether you were working on a product that might compete with one of Google's, or maybe because they ran across your profile on a dating site and wanted to check up on you? If so, I think you're unusual. In…
> Would you be fine with a Google employee reading through your email or your spreadsheets in order to figure out whether you were working on a product that might compete with one of Google's, or maybe because they ran across your profile on a dating site and wanted to check up on you? Wouldn't I be pretty stupid if I had a problem with these things, yet still uploaded these documents in clear text to Google's server…
Please stop spreading misinformation.
* Google scans email, not other documents in Drive: http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762
* Just as the NSA claims that collecting data doesn't count until a person reads it, Google affirms that humans do not read user data without permission.
* Documents are are encrypted in transit, not uploaded in clear text.
Google Drive is very much like a safe deposit box in a bank, in terms of user expectation of privacy, and vendor promises.
If my secretary holds my briefcase, is the government allowed to seize it without any warrant or judicial approval?
Email is slightly more complicated, due to automated ads scanning.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#446Earlier 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…
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…
It is literally impossible for you to know for certain if Larry Page is telling the truth or lying about PRISM. So, now what?
Are you asking Larry to violate the law on National Security Letters, by publicly posting their content?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You demand answers from Google leaders. A Google leader gives you answers. This upsets you?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fallout in such a case has to be smaller than it would be if it comes out later that, not only were they in bed with the NSA, they (and the other companies in this situation) blatantly lied about it with their statements today.
I guess keeping an eye out for Larry (et al) cashing out shares over the next few weeks/months might be a good indicator of the likelyhood of exactly that "coming out later".
For obvious reasons, it is illegal for CEOs to sell stock on short notice.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
We obviously stil have a lot to learn about PRISM... But with that said, I have some conflicting instincts & feelings about all of this and the company responses. On one hand, I would think a very-visible CEO of a major corp would keep their name off of a press release, if the press release was a lie that they were compelled to tell by the government. On the other hand, I feel like each company's response and their u…
This may not be PRISM, but wtf is this??? "A US government-mandated backdoor allowed China to hack into Gmail" "In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access." http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...
Schneier is a smart guy, but he provides no evidence, links, or conjecture of what this backdoor may be.
Maybe those hackers just used the regular tech support "back door", as in "SELECT * FROM gmail where email = 'target@gmail.com'
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#450Ok, let's read this closely. It doesn't seem to me like Larry and David are really denying much of anything.
"Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers."
Sure, that's fine. But the fact that the initial PPT gives a specific date on which Google cooperation began already suggests that Google may be handing over data, not that the gov't is sucking it all down automatically.
Also, they say "data centers" in particular. Data travels over lots of other pipes.
"We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."
Not surprising the NSA wouldn't tell them the secret code name of the project in their discussions.
"we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process."
This is an enormous loophole. "in accordance to the law" could mean anything, and with automated review systems the volume of data passing through could be massive.
"Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period."
Not providing "open-ended acces" does not mean not providing any access.
"We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist."
But not surprised to learn that other not-so-broad orders exist. How broad is too broad?
"Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
Not "on such a scale", but on a slightly smaller scale, sure.
"there needs to be a more transparent approach"
In other words, we wish we could tell you about everything we're doing with the NSA, but we aren't allowed to.
Really this doesn't read like any sort of denial at all.