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

471–480 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#471

Post by camus »

gohrt wrote: post #445
rayiner wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you be fine with a Google employee reading through your email or your spreadsheets in order to figure out whether you were working on a product that might compete with one of Google's, or maybe because they ran across your profile on a dating site and wanted to check up on you? Wouldn't I be pretty stupid if I had a problem with these things, yet still uploaded these documents in clear text to Google's server…

Please stop spreading misinformation. * Google scans email, not other documents in Drive: http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=60762 * Just as the NSA claims that collecting data doesn't count until a person reads it, Google affirms that humans do not read user data without permission. * Documents are are encrypted in transit, not uploaded in clear text. Google Drive is very much like a safe deposit…

> If my secretary holds my briefcase, is the government allowed to seize it without any warrant or judicial approval?

if your secretary agrees to give it to them , of course they can.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#472

Post by kllrnohj »

hannibal5 wrote: post #463
kllrnohj wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

False, national intelligence is still covered by Google's transparency report - see the NSL (National Security Letters) part.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#473

Post by Matt_Cutts »

teawithcarl wrote: post #435
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey teawithcarl, I appreciate that. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the right thing is. I suspect that we're actually in agreement on most points. If there's something you think we should be doing differently (and I agree with you :), I'm more than happy to lobby for that within Google. I do think Google is working hard to protect our users from unwarranted government requests. Just speaking for me person…

Hi Matt - Thanks for answering. I genuinely appreciate your earnest communication. To answer your question, I sincerely believe Larry should do the right thing irregardless of the law, which means telling the American public the truth. What Sergey (and Google) bravely did in China gave Google years of priceless respectability. This is one of those situations where civil disobedience is best. I realize you can't just…

Thanks for posting this. Here's something I wrote to someone recently: "I view talking about FISA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillan... ) like handling radioactive waste or juggling chainsaws: it has to be done carefully." The reason is that FISA orders come with a gag order: see https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa . So I understand why official company blog posts, even from Larry, have been carefully worded so far, even if that comes across as legalistic or weaselly-worded to some.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend reading this post: https://plus.sandbox.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsph... To me, Yonatan's post read as the sort of personal, even blunt statement that you're asking for.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#474

Post by Matt_Cutts »

ashleyblackmore wrote: post #415
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...

Thought twice about posting this, but am I the only one who feels really queasy about someone like Matt Cutts jumping directly into conversations about their own company on HN (especially when it could be connoted as being part of damage control)? He's hardly rank-and-file. I think it is plain old creepy, YMMV.

ashleyblackmore, the initial news stories seemed to imply voluntary, wide-scale, direct access to Google's (and other's) data by the NSA. I genuinely thought that sounded wrong and against the bent of Google--both its execs and the rank and file employees. In the last few days, more recent stories have indicated that it's more like compelled, limited FISA requests, which all US companies are legally required to respond to. See Yahoo's recent post at http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/52491403007/setting-the-record-... which also points in this direction.

Compelled and limited is a very different story than voluntary, wide-scale, and direct. Do I like FISA? No, I think it sucks. FISA orders come with a gag order, and laws that compel secrecy like that should be struck down, in my opinion. But in recent days, you've heard the CEO of Google say that they haven't gotten the sort of broad requests that (say) Verizon got, and that Google can and does push back on requests that they consider too broad.

I think the proper response to this issue should be frustration with bad laws, and calling your Senator or Representative in Congress to tell them that.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#475

Post by teawithcarl »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #473
teawithcarl wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi Matt - Thanks for answering. I genuinely appreciate your earnest communication. To answer your question, I sincerely believe Larry should do the right thing irregardless of the law, which means telling the American public the truth. What Sergey (and Google) bravely did in China gave Google years of priceless respectability. This is one of those situations where civil disobedience is best. I realize you can't just…

Thanks for posting this. Here's something I wrote to someone recently: "I view talking about FISA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillan... ) like handling radioactive waste or juggling chainsaws: it has to be done carefully." The reason is that FISA orders come with a gag order: see https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa . So I understand why official company blog posts, even from Larry, have be…

Will do, thanks. Genuinely appreciate you.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#476

Post by glesica »

bskap wrote: post #144
glesica wrote: post #72

I assume the government would require them to deny involvement, just like companies aren't (weren't?) allowed to discuss NSLs. Consequently, I view the denials as meaningless.

So then what could these companies do to convince you, short of giving you physical access to all of their datacenters and shell access to all of their servers?

Nothing, that's the problem. What needs to happen is for these programs to be brought in to the sunlight and for Congress to make it explicitly legal for people to discuss them, regardless of any previous prohibition. Then I might be able to believe a denial, or at least accept it as meaningful.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#477

Post by glesica »

bskap wrote: post #144
glesica wrote: post #72

I assume the government would require them to deny involvement, just like companies aren't (weren't?) allowed to discuss NSLs. Consequently, I view the denials as meaningless.

So then what could these companies do to convince you, short of giving you physical access to all of their datacenters and shell access to all of their servers?

Nothing, that's the problem. What needs to happen is for these programs to be brought in to the sunlight and for Congress to make it explicitly legal for people to discuss them, regardless of any previous prohibition. Then I might be able to believe a denial, or at least accept it as meaningful.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#479

Post by hannibal5 »

kllrnohj wrote: post #472
hannibal5 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

False, national intelligence is still covered by Google's transparency report - see the NSL (National Security Letters) part.

>The presentation claims Prism was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.

>"Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#480

Post by silenteh »

adventured wrote: post #406
silenteh wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I am mistaken US and most European countries are based on Democracy. Wikipedia defines Democracy as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Granted, wikipedia is not the oracle but it gives a good definition in my opinion. Does, the gathering of my personal data, affect my life ? Well in my personal opinion it does, therefore I should be i…

The US was based on the ideas of a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

Right, there are different forms of democracies. From this chart I see that US is categorized under Full Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2012_gree... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Post reply on HN