21–30 of 64 posts
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]
Not only are their google+ profile very active, I am going to assume they are still using and most likely will be using google products (or products from other companies who has been implicated) months from now even if nothing changes.
The question is, lets say you are absolutely sure beyond any doubt that all these companies willfully (or unwillingly but now lying to you) shared data with the government. What do you do now?
Do you accept it as it is and carry on? Do you stop using their service? Or do you campaign to stop these companies and government from doing this (seems highly unlikely to be effective or verify)?
Every time NSA, FBI requests user's private info from google they'll [the government] be divulging the identity of a suspect or a potential suspect. This leads to potential leaks or potential reputation damage. Imagine if a congressman or famous CEO is under investigation. So the person/people inside google ought to have the same clearance OR google would need to give a back door access to the government. Which is why I don't believe google.
If google is sincere about their position, they should setup their systems so that no one but the user(owner) would ever be able to access their private data.
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.
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".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 i…
Google isn't the internet.
Dump gmail, FB and other spy holes. Use public key crypto. Take your own network back.
Or continue on as usual. Our choice.
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…
This means Google (and the other American companies, too) has a problem of loyalty now, and I'd say a huge one. It's only a matter of time before such services arrive, and I'd like to believe people will start quitting it in droves.
I see it much like with the ISP situation in US. People don't really have a choice of ISP's, but they've grown to hate them so much over the years, that as soon as a decent competitor is around, they'll be switching. I believe (and hope) the same will happen to the American companies, including Google - at least until this mess is fixed, and the Patriot Act repealed.
So I do believe the Patriot Act, and the uncovering of what it can really be done with it has caused irreparable damage to US companies. I received a Chrome update yesterday, and now I have to wonder "is it just a coincidence? Or is it to remove some tracking technology they had it until now, so people don't find out about it when all the spotlights are on them now?".
Could be a genuine question, or maybe I'm just too paranoid, but the point is these unveilings made me feel this way (the Google "privacy issues" never bothered me before, and I was actually waiting for Google Glass - not anymore obviously), and I don't think anything Google and others say in the future will make me feel otherwise, until there are concrete steps done, wide in the open, to stop this kind of surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
> 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. Google isn't the internet. Dump gmail, FB and other spy holes. Use public key crypto. Take your own network back. Or continue on as usual. Our choice.
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...