Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying

If so, what you are saying is equivalent to Google being more secure than the NSA.

As everybody knows: It has been revealed that Google is one of the NSA partner companies (which should have been obvious to begin with, given the fact that Google is probably the biggest data hoover ever built).

This fact terminates even the last tiny little bit of "trust" we could have had in Google.

And that's really all there is to say.

But at least on my part, this doesn't begin to "impress me". So far they're only talking about encrypting data between servers and they've also recently talked about encrypting Drive storage data (why wasn't it encrypted in the first place?!)

They need to implement OTR or some form of end to end encryption with PFS for Hangouts, and it would be nice if they at least gave the option to have encrypted calls and voice calls with ZRTP in Hangouts. The button should be right there and obvious for everyone who wants to use it. But I'm saying it's optional only because I'm not sure how it could impact what they're trying to do with Hangouts, and if ZRTP works with multiple people at once. But if they can do that, then it should be by default for everyone.

I'm also not sure exactly what kind of forward secrecy they are using for Google search - is it really a new key being generated per session - or is it like a few weeks? Because I think I read something about "a few weeks".

I think all SSL/TLS encryption is almost useless without PFS so everyone should use it, when we're talking about the government. A single order from them and they could get your key for everything. That's just completely unacceptable! So every service should be using PFS.

If I were them I'd also seriously evaluate whether RSA 2048 bits is enough, and if there's any doubt that it is, then they should move to more bits, or if the whole RSA algorithm is in danger, then they should be looking for alternatives quickly.

When Google and others start doing that, then I will begin to have some trust in them again. All of these press releases so far, and the lawsuit to fight to only disclose (not stop) the mass requests aren't fooling me, and I hope they aren't fooling many others either.

Until then I'll be on the lookout for any new great service that promises that type of security, and I'll switch to them as soon as they're available, and recommend others to do it, too, both offline and online.

I hope Google and Microsoft and others aren't thinking that because I haven't "ragequit" their services yet, it means the whole NSA thing doesn't bother me. It just means I'm anxiously waiting for the alternatives to appear - which will appear. There is a crypto war (again), and I do believe the security community will win again, so it's only a matter of time.

They crop up in every submission detailing an action taken by Google with regards to the Snowden/Prism/NSA revelations. Is it so ridiculous that a large corporation should seek to ameliorate its image in the eyes of users and shareholders?

PR has become such a dirty word.

Of course it would be best if all these actions were taken earlier, purely as the result of a strongly held principle. However, when presented with the realities of public businesses operating on a global scale - I am glad that such steps as those detailed above are taken: at whatever stage, and for whatever reason.

The tinfoil hat brigade needs to, as the old saying goes, "stop seeing reds under the beds" and occasionally ... just occasionally ... take the facts presented to them.

In times when misinformation and confusion is so wont to proliferate, attempting to discern true motive is almost ridiculous - condemnation on the basis of any such discernment doubly so.