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

Larry Page addresses PRISM

googleblog.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#451

Post by zero_intp »

adventured wrote: post #405
tomkarlo wrote: post #384

Earlier 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?

The Feds have direct taps into every major telecom carrier in the US. You can't fire off a search query to Google without the Feds technically being able to pick it up. Access is trivial, volume is a much more interesting problem.

This is accurate. When your service provider is having a scheduled maintenance, it might be a passive optical tap or port replicator.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#452

Post by gohrt »

defen wrote: post #275
DannyBee wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The statement does not rule out the possibility that aliens are using advanced technology to watch the bits on optical lines without affecting the photos either.

True. However, the prior probability of that statement being true is exceedingly remote, so a non-denial of that still leaves me relatively certain that I don't have to worry about aliens conspiring with the federal government to spy on me.

"prior probability" is a fancy way of saying "without evidence, I believe what I want". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not something Larry Page can help you with.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#453

Post by gohrt »

downandout wrote: post #298
declan wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is untrue. See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-... ; James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a statement last night saying the Guardian and Post articles about PRISM "contain numerous inaccuracies." Clapper's statement didn't confirm or deny any NSA activity. He said only that the articles "refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Fo…

So, you are suggesting that the slides detailing their participation were simply made up?

There are no such slides. The slide just has a name and a date, no details of what "participation" means.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#455

Post by magicalist »

adventured wrote: post #408
white_devil wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Page is clearly and unambiguously denying that Google supplies any information to the government on a millions-of-users scale. Kind of like Mariano Rajoy insisted that Spain didn't need a bailout?

And the Federal Reserve said there was no real estate bubble to worry about. And the banks were well capitalized.

Yes, and murderers always insist that they're innocent. QED. We've got them now!

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#456

Post by fkdjs »

mullingitover wrote: post #192
danso wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy? So, basically, what politicians put into their speeches? Read over your statement again. There's very little of substance in there. For example, what does "this" in "We would never do 'this'" mean? And I'm not being pedantic, beca…

> "So, you'd feel more comfortable if the company threw in some rhetoric about morals and freedom that are, as assertions, impossible to verify, but would make people feel more warm and fuzzy?" If Google was actually taking a moral/ethical stance that being an accessory to unconstitutional warrantless searches is something that they find to be morally wrong, yes, I would be more comfortable. My reading of this was La…

Maybe you and many others would be better off by paying attention to actions vs words, and notice which company was the first to push back on the government to provide transparency to national security letters when everyone else bowed down before the government. Being skeptical and not falling for feel good platitudes could help all of us.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#457

Post by chrisbuc »

chrisacky wrote: post #4

I 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…

"Direct access" is a phrase from the original report in The Guardian: "The National Security Agency had obtained direct access..." - first sentence of the report.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#458

Post by visarga »

necubi wrote: post #146
revelation wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? This is the direct result of the governments toxic conduct. They issue orders that forbid you from talking about having received any such order, they classify everything (to the point where a parallel society to the tune of 1M people exist that have access to (e.g.) cables, as became apparent during the WikiLeaks diplomatic cables row), they institute secret courts, laws with secret interpretations.. They have p…

At this point, it pretty much is a conspiracy theory. The only evidence we have of these companies' involvement is the leaked slides, which could have been the result of over-promising from a contractor or a misunderstanding from a non-technical manager. We have a lot of evidence to the contrary, particular that nearly every company allegedly involved has issued strong denials, which, again, they cannot be compelled…

> Do you have any idea how much data Google produces? How complicated their infrastructure is?

For a continuous activity stream, a single fiber would do. How many queries and mails do you think google processes per second?

I found somewhere that they have 4 billion queries per day. I put 100 bytes per query, that translates to a measly 5MB/s. For emails I estimated 10% of 300 billion (some figures I found somewhere), with 10KB/email that translates to 3GB/s.

A single fiber optic cable contains many fibers each carrying at least 1TB/s. It's easily doable in a stealth way. They don't need to use more than 1% of a single fibre.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#459

Post by mcherm »

hindsightbias wrote: post #438
A1kmm wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, probab…

>I've been told this stuff is outsourced, probably to the lowest bidder.

You have been told incorrectly. (Source: I work for a major US credit card company.) Certain pieces of the development and maintenance may be outsourced (under the supervision of US employees), but we (and, as far as I know, all our major competitors) own the data centers where they are run.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#460

Post by dTal »

davros wrote: post #358
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #257

Earlier 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 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 don't mind targeted surveillance against genuine suspected terrorists."

This kind of language bothers me - "suspected terrorist" requires no proof at all, while sounding authoritative (65% of Americans support the remote execution by drone of 'suspected terrorists').

I know roughly what you meant, of course, but where that line is drawn is a discussion that needs to be had. I'd say that with the level of surveillance that goes on, we are all suspected terrorists now.

Post reply on HN