Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“The government does not have access to Google servers”

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

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

#31

Post by onedev »

fianchetto wrote: post #27
smtddr wrote: post #15

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.

No I'm not going to do any of that.

My mother doesn't even know what the words "public key crypto" mean.

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

#32

Post by masterzora »

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.

It's not even that. The journalists say "Google is doing X" so Google responds "We aren't doing X" and suddenly internet commenters everywhere are taking that as evidence that Google is doing Y and Z because they aren't X.

It's ludicrous.

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

#33

Post by anon1385 »

kahirsch wrote: post #16
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 th…

Just a reminder: we are not all US citizens. There is no American court order or warrant that makes it legal for Google Ireland to hand over data about EU customers to the US government. They have admitted to doing this already[1] years ago. It's likely illegal under data protection laws for EU businesses to use Google services (or any other US based web service) to store customer data.

Google has sent us a statement that reads: "As a law abiding company, we comply with valid legal process, and that - as for any US based company - means the data stored outside of the U.S. may be subject to lawful access by the U.S. government."

[1] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Admits-Handing-over-Eu...

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

#34

Post by KaiserPro »

People are merging two different mechanisms here, and its important to distinguish between the two.

1) Access to users when provided with a "warrant" or someother legal instrument. This is where for example a divorce court orders the message history of a person from facebook to confirm/deny infidelity. This is your "Facebook secure room/portal" business. You don't want any tom dick and harry having access to this as its a massive security hole. 2) Snooping. This is where apparatus is placed between the public and a company which allows the interception of all data.

These are two very different mechanisms, 1) is a precision tool for getting information on a small amount of users. 2) is a blunt tool that allow people to stuff themselves full of information, it is also inherently very expensive(both in time, resources and analysis).

both method 1 & 2 have been going on for many years. Its also been fairly well known for many years (schneier and crytptome have been saying this for a very very long time)

So why did the NSA ask verizon (and most likley all the big players) for this list of who phoned whom, if they have all this information kicking around? two reasons: Its dirt cheap, and accurate.

Instead of having to infer who was on what IP at what time, you have the canonical proof.

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

#36

Post by rachelbythebay »

I'd love to see someone check the Takeout logs and look for anything which seems out of place. Requests for user data which aren't correlated with normal user activity would seem mighty suspicious to me.

Go on, someone, make it so. Then leak it. Let's do this thing.

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

#37

Post by magicalist »

mtgx wrote: post #28
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…

They also have an obligation to their users. I hope they realize that I will be actively be on the look out for alternative services from Europe in the future. 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…

Meanwhile you still pay your taxes and you vote for your sitting senator. Where's your responsibility here? Maybe you'll hate them so much over the years and as soon as a decent competitor is around, you'll vote for that guy?

These are big companies and putting pressure on them like this is both practical (just pick your data-hosting European country carefully, though) and could create economic leverage on Congress, but I think it's kind of bullshit when these transparency reports mention receiving between "0-999" National Security Letters, and Eric Schmidt is telling people about the PATRIOT Act requiring them to hand over information, and now you're saying "what?? they're handing over data because of an order that doesn't require probable cause established in front of a judge?"

I don't want to come off as too harsh here, but, yes, this is what we've been banging the drum on for years about. Jewel v NSA[1] is very nearly 5 years old now, and the executive branch is trying to drag it out even longer. Welcome to the fight; let's try to make our country livable instead of dreaming about jumping ship but doing nothing in the meantime.

[1] https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

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

#38

Post by aw3c2 »

mtgx wrote: post #28
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…

They also have an obligation to their users. I hope they realize that I will be actively be on the look out for alternative services from Europe in the future. 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…

Just so you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

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

#39

Post by magicalist »

gasull wrote: post #8
arjie wrote: post #2

This denial is fairly categorical. Any objection that centres on the idea that they're only saying this because they have to is in conspiracy theory territory. Nothing that Google says could possibly disprove that claim.

"According to the law" actually means "yes, we give the Government all access". Read this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-bro... ;

how can you possibly think that a terrible techcrunch post poorly hashing together parts of this story is a good argument here? ugh.

If you're actually interested: the only source of facts on that whole page is the NYTimes piece they link to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...

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

#40

Post by csomar »

I missed the article/story behind PRISM and who unveiled it. Too much noise right now to find it.

But what makes the person who unveiled the PRISM more credible than all of the Tech companies?

Also, I don't think they are playing with words or intending to do so. They are making it quite clear in my opinion.

Post reply on HN