21–30 of 82 posts
I don't know who to believe anymore...
Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings wi…
Would you like Larry Page to detail this for you? or Matt Cutts? Who will you believe?
Well done guys! Quite an achievement turning a site for so-called smart people into one dumber than the Drudge Report in only two days.
Nope, according to a new tweet today by Glenn Greenwald (who broke the story): Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121
I would call it 'directly from the servers'. It's likely used to distinguish client vs server side. Not the actual technical mechanism.
1. What is the process.
What requests come from the government. What government entities make those requests. What entities within the internet companies process those requests. What parts of the request handling are done by humans with decision-making authority vs what parts are handled by machines or by humans following a rigid script. In either case, what policy drives those decisions. What proportion of the requested information is given or denied.
2. What is the speed and scale of the process
How quickly are these requests fulfilled. How much data comes back from a request. What proportion of this data is relevant to the target and the investigation vs “incidental”. How many requests are there per month or per year. How much data is gathered per month or per year.
Side-issues not covered above:
Is the access “direct”. Is there a “back door”. Is access given to “servers”. Is access given to a “network”. Is there a “beam splitter”. Is the government provided with a private or secret “key”.
There are many ways to construct such a system, and there are many ways to describe it (nevermind flat-out lie about it) by carefully parsing these side-issues. What matters is not the implementation details but the effect.
"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the
Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized
legal process that companies are obliged to do."
Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings wi…
Inferring he is no longer CEO and might not know about these matters is just an informal fallacy and has zero to do with whether or not Google, Facebook, etc. is telling the truth on the matter. FWIW, I believe them when they say they aren't giving direct access to their servers to the government. That doesn't mean they aren't, and I'm willing to listen to any substantial claims that they are.
I don't trust the government to always do the right thing when poking around in our business, but I'm also not going to run around like a chicken with my head cut off when everyone gets their underwear in a knot over leaks like these.