http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/go... "Google Lawsuit Challenges N.S.A. Domestic-Spying Apparatus" the first hit on google for "google nsa lawsuit"
> the first hit on google for "google nsa lawsuit" [emphasis mine] ...and for you ! [filter bubble anyone?!]
Are you implying that he's living in a google bubble? I just searched with multiple search engines, with different browsers, and even with different IPs and they all returned a link to the same effect. Different sources (prweb on most), but still the same story.
> the first hit on google for "google nsa lawsuit" [emphasis mine] ...and for you ! [filter bubble anyone?!]
Are you implying that he's living in a google bubble? I just searched with multiple search engines, with different browsers, and even with different IPs and they all returned a link to the same effect. Different sources (prweb on most), but still the same story.
Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably. Granted, Microsoft et. al could attempt to lobby politicians to get these sorts of laws reversed, but that's not the position I was arguing against. Specifically, the GP said, "Do you…
Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably. The standard some have applied to Snowden should also apply to corporate executives: companies should oppose the orders publicly, and "face the music." Ballmer might be arrested, or h…
You're making the assumption that Ballmer even knew about this, which isn't immediately clear. Someone at Microsoft certainly did, but so did people working within the government. You know, people working for US citizens, ultimately, if you still believe in the whole "government for the people, by the people" thing. So far, only Snowden leaked any of this stuff. I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Ballmer's feet in particular, considering both of those things.
Microsoft's June 7th statement: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it." One down, several to go. If I were Google/Fac…
Honest question: how does that article contradict that statement? Everyone is bouncing off the walls about this but I honestly can't see where the story is. Microsoft + others enable NSA to access customer data when presented with court order. You can agree or not agree but is it really a shock?
Except that you can't make noise in the press because doing so could get you arrested for leaking classified information. You can't ignore it, either, because that could also get you arrested. So what do you do? You follow it, probably. The standard some have applied to Snowden should also apply to corporate executives: companies should oppose the orders publicly, and "face the music." Ballmer might be arrested, or h…
You're making the assumption that Ballmer even knew about this, which isn't immediately clear. Someone at Microsoft certainly did, but so did people working within the government. You know, people working for US citizens, ultimately, if you still believe in the whole "government for the people, by the people" thing. So far, only Snowden leaked any of this stuff. I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Ballmer's feet…
Oh, they all have their fair share of guilt, of course. What I'm saying is that there are citizens and there are citizens. Billionaires like Ballmer, Ellison or Gates, and the corporations they run are, de facto, less amenable to legislative pressure, if anything because they have armies of lawyers ready to blow holes in every book thrown at them. At any point in time, they could have resisted this overreach in many, many ways, and they didn't, so they're as guilty as the power-crazy civil servants and lawmakers who started the whole thing.
Microsoft's June 7th statement: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it." One down, several to go. If I were Google/Fac…
Honest question: how does that article contradict that statement? Everyone is bouncing off the walls about this but I honestly can't see where the story is. Microsoft + others enable NSA to access customer data when presented with court order. You can agree or not agree but is it really a shock?
Providing integration to make access easier is part of a voluntary NSA program (Twitter has said they refused to participate).
I must be in the minority here, but I'm no more concerned now than before reading this, and I'm still not super concerned if it works the way I think it does. It doesn't answer the main question of HOW MANY USERS are being watched like this. We already knew from Prism that Microsoft is providing data to the NSA, and we already knew that it included real time video, emails, messages, etc. So this is more of a behind-t…
Yes, it's a fairly detailed description of how it's done, but to me this information doesn't seem to broaden the scope or intrusiveness of the surveillance apparatus that has been uncovered so far, the convenient interface for warranted querying that is PRISM.
Google isn't above doing things that harm people to make them more money. Like the steadily decreasing background contrast and lack of borders separating ads from search results. Older people are far less cognizant of borders and thus would click on ads thinking they're search results. http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentional... They recently got rapped by the FTC for it. http://wallstcheatsheet.c…
Actually, the "they" that got "rapped" by the FTC were "AOL, Ask, Bing, Blekko, Duck Duck Go, Google and Yahoo as general purpose search engines and 17 'of the most heavily trafficked' shopping, travel and local search engines"[1]. These were reissued rules that clarified and enhanced the rules issued by the FTC in 2002 to make advertising clear. It likely came out of Danny Sullivan's letter to the FTC[2] showing how…
"maybe stick around for a while before making pseudo-hypotheses about story dynamics?"
Ok I've been around for awhile and can vouch that what he's claiming happens regularly. Some links from the last time I bothered to comment on it can be found in the following: