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

On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

anarchism.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 230 posts

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#21

Post by signed0 »

mtgx wrote: post #13

They keep the deleted e-mails too? So even if you want to escape that 180 days law that says after 180 days it's free for all for authorities to get your e-mails, then deleting them before that time passes won't do you much good. So basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway. It's just that they won't get them in the first 180 days. And of course this just applies to police/FBI, as NSA can get…

Not necessarily. Just because the government asks for them doesn't mean they exist. I'd be surprised if they were actually deleted though.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#22

Post by throwaway10001 »

Google shouldn't be trusted with everything you have. Between Analytics, Android, Google Search, Documents and E-mail they know what you are thinking and virtually everything you do, online and offline. Even if the current management are saints--I doubt it--the next team will push the envelope to monetize it even more. And then there is the NSA and FBI and the local divorce lawyer. If it's there they will get it.

So try things like blocking analytics at host level, using either gmail or search etc etc. Makes it harder for NSA. Can you imagine yourself in a trial trying to explain why you visited certain sites or searched for certain keywords 3 years ago? Were you really researching what you saw on CSI or were you preparing the perfect murder of your wife?

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#24

Post by tptacek »

How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process.

Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is:

(a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at least to the extent that anything in the Fourth Amendment conflicts with any interest of the US.

(b) He's a person of interest in the investigation of one of the most significant leaks of national security information in US history.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#25

Post by betterunix »

walls wrote: post #15
betterunix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe engineer a service that is harder to wiretap? It is not easy, but they have some of the best computer scientists on this planet working for them. If I were them, I would start somewhere around here: http://crypto.stanford.edu/adnostic/adnostic.pdf

Wire tapping is completely irrelevant to the question.

Wiretapping in this context refers to both getting information on the wire and getting information stored on Google's servers. At this point the distinction between the two is completely pedantic.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#26

Post by rasterizer »

mtgx wrote: post #13

They keep the deleted e-mails too? So even if you want to escape that 180 days law that says after 180 days it's free for all for authorities to get your e-mails, then deleting them before that time passes won't do you much good. So basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway. It's just that they won't get them in the first 180 days. And of course this just applies to police/FBI, as NSA can get…

They didn't say they keep deleted mail, could be boilerplate warrant language.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#27

Post by embolism »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #19

Google should invent a distributed, encrypted email protocol and make that network an option in GMail for storage and message sending. That would be a great PR move - if there is no central server, and no central message pipe, it's a little hard for anyone to think Google wants to be complicit in spying.

That would be the antithesis of what Google does - they give away services for free in exchange for access to personal information that they use to sell more precise targeting to advertisers.

Google's business relies on them being able to examine your personal data. That's how Gmail is paid for.

Perhaps someone who has a different business model e.g. Samsung, Microsoft, or Apple should do this.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#28

Post by tptacek »

betterunix wrote: post #12
rasterizer wrote: post #9

Abit harsh on Google. I mean what are they to do?

Maybe engineer a service that is harder to wiretap? It is not easy, but they have some of the best computer scientists on this planet working for them. If I were them, I would start somewhere around here: http://crypto.stanford.edu/adnostic/adnostic.pdf

It's not directly apropos this particular thread, but Google has engineered an email service that is particularly difficult to wiretap. To wit:

(a) They're the Internet's foremost adopter and proponent of DHE ciphersuites, which drastically reduce the impact of losing the RSA key that underpins most site's TLS security, and, just as importantly, forces adversaries to actively MITM every connection in order to decrypt them.

(b) They're a pioneer in key pinning, which bakes the identity of their key into the Chrome browser binary, meaning that when your Chrome browser talks to Google's mail service, it's unlikely to trust any otherwise- valid- looking certificate presented by a MITM attacker.

Google's mail service is better encrypted than most banks.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#29

Post by kybernetyk »

digitalengineer wrote: post #18

"Google is, however, allowed to tell me what account is involved, and I can do whatever I want with the information Google gave me" So Google was allowed, not required . Looks like they did the right thing by at least telling OP what they were forced to do. Shouldn't the title be "Not trusting your Government"?

Maybe "not trusting Google with your data" would be a better fit.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#30

Post by rayiner »

betterunix wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the FISC grant Article III warrants?

Can information gathered under a FISA warrant be used to get another court to grant an Article III warrant, and can such information be critical to getting an Article III warrant? If a rubber stamp like FISC enables the government to get Article III warrants that it would not otherwise get, then FISC might as well just hand out Article III warrants.

It's not a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer to it one way or the other.

As to your second sentence, I think it's very reductionist. I see a FISC warrant as functioning like a subpoena. Say the SEC subpoena's your company's financial records from your accountant, and finds in there evidence that is sufficient to get a proper warrant to get documents from your company's premises. Does that mean there is no protection or purpose to the SEC not just being able to give itself Article III warrants?

Post reply on HN