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

461–470 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#461

Post by dTal »

thebordella wrote: post #375
stinkytaco wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why we're satisfied with an anonymous leaker and some shoddy looking powerpoints. I'm not going to comment on what's true or what's not, but I know a few things: 1. Having been "in the news" or when I've had firsthand knowledge of an event in the news, I'm always shocked by how inaccurate the news is. Usually not in broad strokes, but in lots of details. I have learned to take everything I read in the med…

Many times this. Do you all remember when the "news" was "leaked" by "anonymous hackers" who claimed to lift Apple user data from a hacked FBI laptop? The Internet lost its mind frothing against the surveillance state. The minority of critical thinkers who suggested that maybe the claims of anonymous hackers shouldn't be taken entirely at face value were either ignored or shouted down. Blanket denials by the FBI were…

You know, there's a conspiracy theory angle here. A tactic I have observed for dealing with awkward leaks is to allow the speculation about the unknown aspects of the leak ramp up to extreme levels, then rebut the more ridiculous theories without addressing the sensible ones. Joe average reads the rebuttal, feels let down that the story wasn't quite as inflammatory as the hype had led him to believe, and moves on.

This PRISM business (of which there had been no hint before) is a massive one-up on the seriousness of the Verizon scandal, and its timing in relation to it is deeply suspicious. It wouldn't be too difficult for someone in the intelligence services to make a pithy PowerPoint presentation about how the NSA slurps data from all and sundry (what was it supposed to be for again? "Training"?) and fake a leak to a few newspapers.

I predict that this story will turn out to be a complete wash, and in the meantime everyone will have forgotten about the not-as-sexy but much-more-true Verizon leak.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#463

Post by hannibal5 »

kllrnohj wrote: post #354
xenophanes wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's weaseling. Maybe they disclosed such information on a slightly lesser scale. That passage doesn't say. They all said stuff about "direct access", without discussing what would and wouldn't qualify as "indirect". They didn't deny doing all kinds of different access that could be called indirect in some way.

Of course they don't deny indirect because that would be a lie. Everyone provides data indirectly via a thing called "warrants". Google publishes how many indirect requests they comply with right here: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests

Those goole reports are for regular law enforcement requests. They have nothing to do with spying that happens in the name of national intelligence.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#464

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#465

Post by guelo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #267
guelo wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my company is outside the US I can try to use infrastructure that at least makes it harder for the US to gain access. If, for example, the US is spying on European allies' infrastructure it would be a diplomatically damaging revelation and the European governments would try to fight it off. If I use a Silicon Valley service I know for a fact that the US can read my data at will without any recourse on my part. It…

> If my company is outside the US I can try to use infrastructure that at least makes it harder for the US to gain access. Which is great, if you have a decent idea of the NSA's (and the US intelligence establishment in general) capabilities. If not, you're essentially fumbling around in the dark trying to make that kind of infrastructure selection. (And, of course, the US intelligence community isn't the only threat…

Hey look, I'm already being proven right http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/europe-surveillanc...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#466

Post by Steer »

I'm sure many people have said the same thing much more eloquently than I can, but what I find extra depressing in all this is that we all obviously want to take advantage of the possibilities that the Internet gives us, but while people are prosecuted right and left for sharing a song the government (any government) can do things on a scale which we can only dream of. We're all connected, but has it empowered us or has it made us into a bunch of sheep?

What happened to the government working for us, the people? Yes, I'm sure I'm naive, but still.

I don't see this getting better before it gets worse. Sorry.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#468

Post by wyck »

macchina wrote: post #346
gibsonf1 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key issue here is that Google and the other companies may have no idea this is going on. My read is that the NSA has managed to gain access to the data centers either through inside help, spy craft, hardware/router back doors, or some other means we have no idea about.

It's hard for me to believe they could access to the data centers without Google's knowledge. Isn't it more plausible that they're intercepting data flowing in and out of Google servers?

This was my initial assumption, that Prism referred to fiber optic prisms that are used to duplicate data with zero interference.

These can be installed at the trunk level with virtually no one knowing about it (maybe a couple of on site managers). They can handle massive data and pipe it directly to the NSA. The problem of course is you're dealing with raw data which isn't nearly as easy to work with then if you had direct access to internals.

These are already installed on every major backbone so I also don't see why they would bother to involve anyone, so there must be more to it.

ps. It would be nice if another whistleblower came out with the data on optic splitters and how the NSA uses them.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#469

Post by paramsingh »

jmomo wrote: post #364

This from the same guy who once gave away access to anyone's data to impress friends. His quote: Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks. He has no credibility. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2010/05/report-zuc... ; http://www.newser.com/story/88716/zuckerberg-once-mocked-dum...

Not the same guy at all...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#470

Post by mikeash »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #372
solnyshok wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"direct access to servers" looks suspicios to me as well. However, maybe several dozen lawyers had no clue how to react today, and they just copied one another's text?

More likely: the first paragraph from the Guardian and the Washington Post both emphasized "direct" access. See the picture here: http://cl.ly/image/2S3i1g2W2R2k If you're refuting claims of behavior X, it's natural to say "We don't do behavior X."

Especially when you're doing X' instead, and don't want to draw attention to it.
Post reply on HN