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

Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#51

Post by magicalist »

robomartin wrote: post #50

The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about…

"have access, directly or indirectly, through any means" is a not a useful basis for the question, because a regular search warrant certainly qualifies as that.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#52

Post by aspensmonster »

danso wrote: post #46
guelo wrote: post #34

From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald : Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim.…

edit: doh, I misread the tweet. Looking over the new slides at that story just posted http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance... edit: It's just one new slide ( http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20... ) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slid…

>which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported?

Presumably, the Guardian is in possession of the full 41 page powerpoint. They'll likely release pieces of it at a time. Nice to see they're waiting for everyone to trip all over themselves first. I can't wait to see how this plays out in the coming weeks.

Funny. When Wikileaks did the same thing people said it was inappropriate and editorializing and dishonest. It seems that the Guardian and Wikileaks strategies for maximizing impact are on the same frequency.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#53

Post by mpyne »

guelo wrote: post #34

From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald : Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim.…

I've been wary of Greenwald for quite some time as he's often let his politics get in the way of his logical reasoning. I think this Tweet is another example.

NSA says that they can use PRISM to get information directly from a company's servers. That's true, but it happens through an intermediary (the company itself). But even with the intermediary the data being sent did come directly from the company.

In other words intelligence agencies like NSA are concerned with the source of intel and in this case there's no middle man. Access to intel is also important to NSA and in this case there is a middle man. "Access to" and "provenance of" intel are separate concepts though and it does Greenwald little credit to allow himself to be confused by it.

Edit: If I was Greenwald I would clarify quickly as well as otherwise he's going to allow the National Intelligence community to turn the debate into technical sticking points that Greenwald is going to lose on, while at the same time turning the debate away from the transparency of these types of intelligence gathering schemes and whether they're necessary at all.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#54

Post by neya »

I don't buy it, There is every single possibility that CNET was forced to write this article by someone from the top.

I'm not angry about my details leaking to governments, what I'm angry about is how manipulative the media is and how much stupid they assume we are.

I rather trust Mark Zuckerberg than CNET. Their tech reviews are mostly biased sponsored ads, why would I trust them with something serious like this?

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#55

Post by danso »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #48
danso wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: doh, I misread the tweet. Looking over the new slides at that story just posted http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance... edit: It's just one new slide ( http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20... ) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slid…

That's not what he's claiming. He explicitly states in those tweets that he reported the claims of both sides, which he was fully aware were in conflict, in the hopes that the truth of the reality would come out.

From the recent post:

> The slide, below, details different methods of data collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism, which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from four different programs involving data collection from "fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past"...Essentially, the slide suggests that the NSA also collects some information under FAA702 from cable intercepts, but that process is distinct from Prism.

This specific paragraph seems like a non-sequitur...did the counter-argument that Google made rely on claim that the news reports conflated fiber optic tapping and PRISM? I thought the argument was:

1. The Guardian has slides claiming that the NSA has direct access to our servers

2. Those slides, according to Google, are wrong.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#56

Post by mpyne »

robomartin wrote: post #50

The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about…

The answer is "Yes" and has been since the Cold War.

I think the shocking part was that the NSA might have been able to essentially run grep themselves on a company's servers (though apparently it's not that simple), but that's not the question you're asking.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#57

Post by mpyne »

danielsiders wrote: post #33
hahainternet wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He never claimed you weren't entitled to any privacy. Have you even read or seen his original words? Would you like Larry Page to detail this for you? or Matt Cutts? Who will you believe?

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6e7...

My grandparents were telling me that since I was in middle school. Even Ben Franklin had a quote about that: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead". Don't blame the weatherman for telling you that it's raining.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#58

Post by cromwellian »

"Collection directly from the servers" doesn't actually have to mean real time interception of data. It could mean "we send a National Security Letter, and when they comply, they send us the user's data in a TARBALL." That's application level data "directly from the servers" instead of upstream fiber packet traffic.

Greenwald pisses me off and I don't trust him. We know there are 41 slides. They are putting out 1 new slide per day it seems. Just release all of it and get it over with. This seems designed to maximize the Guardian's traffic by doling out the information piecemeal.

Today they released a slide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance...) that shows NSA upstream fiber-interception (outside company datacenters) + PRISM, but again, it is vague as to what PRISM is.

If the slide definitely said "Data from internal datacenter taps or backdoors" it would be clear and inarguable. All that would need to be discussed is whether they did this with HUMINT moles, or whether the companies knowingly cooperated.

As it stands now, PRISM could be anything from "Google Takeout NSA Edition" that lets the NSA get a ZIP file of account data after it's been requested via a warrant/NSA, or it could be a hack into Google's servers that somehow allows them to slurp up and intercept data and it flows around the data center.

We don't know, but if Greenwald has other slides that clarify this, just release them, the speculation right now is irresponsible and based on lack of knowledge.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#59

Post by danso »

aspensmonster wrote: post #52
danso wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: doh, I misread the tweet. Looking over the new slides at that story just posted http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance... edit: It's just one new slide ( http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20... ) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slid…

>which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported? Presumably, the Guardian is in possession of the full 41 page powerpoint. They'll likely release pieces of it at a time. Nice to see they're waiting for everyone to trip all over themselves first. I can't wait to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. Funny. When Wikileaks did the…

That doesn't explain why the Washington Post hasn't released their copy of the slides, though...those two outlets are competing on this story (it's nice to have two independent established outlets compete on a story of such national and specific importance, fwiw) and the WaPo could have the scoop. Maybe they're waiting for the Sunday edition?

My guess was that the source feared that one or all of the slides have some kind of identifying tag, if not as a meta-watermark but as something tell-tale in the content...and so had requested the Guardian and the Post to release as little as possible.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#60

Post by mpyne »

smokeyj wrote: post #44
kordless wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you trust Eric or not has zero to do with if you trust CNet's claim that "The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned." 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…

Could a possible explanation be that the feds have unauthorized access?

I think it's as simple as a misinterpretation of the technical intel-community jargon being used by NSA.

They're saying PRISM gets them access to Google/Facebook/etc.'s data with no other middleman. That's not always the case; when working with international partners NSA might obtain intel from other (foreign) intelligence agencies, or their HUMINT might report data that is itself hearsay.

So the source/provenance of data is very important for an intelligence agency. NSA is saying this (with PRISM) is the best case as far as the source of intel goes, there is no better primary source.

That still doesn't mean NSA has embedded backdoors or that the company doesn't control access to the data though. Data Access is a separate concept from Data Source in intel.

We can still say that having this kind of access to data is above the capabilities NSA needs to have (it certainly seems ripe for abuse) but it's sounding like the reality is not quite as sinister as Greenwald or WaPo had been led to believe.

Post reply on HN