“The government does not have access to Google servers” • Hacker News Board

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#11

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:18 AM UTC

gasull wrote: post #9

dylangs1030 wrote: post #7

I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…

> Lay down your pitchforks and direct your anger and incredulity to your government, who ordered this It's also important to raise the awareness that our data isn't safe in Google's hands.

[deleted]

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#12

Post by jmillikin » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:25 AM UTC

signed0 wrote: post #6

jmillikin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...

Weird, somehow extra characters are being added to the end of that url. Removing the trailing / fixes it. http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...

a'a

Thanks, fixed. Looks like HN is over-escaping some values -- click the 'link' link to this post and see how the first line is over-escaped in the title bar?

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#13

Post by IvyMike » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:27 AM UTC

Wild speculation, but what about TLS key misappropriation? In other words, NSA has access not through official channels but somehow got private keys through hook and crook?

(I have to admit I do not fully understand PFS and the implications here.)

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#14

Post by zobzu » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:29 AM UTC

"cause the servers belong to the NSA,not Google!" ;)

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#15

Post by smtddr » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:29 AM UTC

gasull wrote: post #9

dylangs1030 wrote: post #7

I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…

> Lay down your pitchforks and direct your anger and incredulity to your government, who ordered this It's also important to raise the awareness that our data isn't safe in Google's hands.

If you're going to say your data not safe in Google's hands, then your data just isn't safe on the internet which I think is a needlessly extreme position to take. The OP is right, just focus your dissatisfaction on the government. It's not about is your data safe with Google; it's about your data safe with the government. If you can't trust your government, it doesn't matter where/who/what has your data. Yesterday it was Yahoo & myspace, today Google & Facebook, tomorrow who knows... the only constant is an abusive government. Fix that, then it won't matter what currently trendy company has your data.

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#16

Post by kahirsch » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:30 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #5

Even if it did, imagine how awfully damaging that would be for Google's image worldwide . So I could see why their immediate knee jerk reaction about it is to hide it as much as possible. If he is telling the truth, at least about this very specific thing (not having access to "Google's servers"), then it's still possible they are giving them easy access in some other way, such as copying the data to other servers th…

> Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics.

No, the best case scenario is he's telling the truth and Google only gives specific data in response to specific court orders that have been reviewed by their lawyers.

Normally I love reading the comments on HN, but I've just despaired over the last couple of days. People are assuming that out-of-context fragments from a Powerpoint presentation are 100% correct and when every single company gives a flat-out denial, then the companies must be lying or misleading or slippery.

The law does not require these companies to issue denials.

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#17

Post by adventured » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:30 AM UTC

The government would never need access to Google's servers; it would never need a back door. A front door API would work just fine.

Some people have correctly pointed out that if Prism is considered 'law' (falling under any number of national security laws), then all Google is doing is complying with the law.

And in that case, what Drummond just said in no way actually denies participation in Prism or a similar program.

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#18

Post by zobzu » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:31 AM UTC

signed0 wrote: post #3

The problem with all the denials is that journalists say "Google is doing X" and Google responds "We aren't doing Y" and everyone debates whether Y = X, Y is a subset of X, or Y is something completely different. I feel as if so much could be cleared up if they would simply respond line by line to the stories by the NYTimes and Washington Post.

They just have to say "the governement does not have any kind of access to the data we host, in any other way than through a court order".

but i doubt they'd say that. they already seem to say they get very regular requests (which could be 10 or 100 000 or more) that are just "hey please give us that we need it".

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#19

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:31 AM UTC

dylangs1030 wrote: post #7

I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing. [1] It would be most appropriate…

[deleted]

Re: “The government does not have access to Google servers”

#20

Post by invisible » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 7:35 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #17

The government would never need access to Google's servers; it would never need a back door. A front door API would work just fine. Some people have correctly pointed out that if Prism is considered 'law' (falling under any number of national security laws), then all Google is doing is complying with the law. And in that case, what Drummond just said in no way actually denies participation in Prism or a similar progr…

Except that he straight out said that they have received no bulk requests at all? Seriously...