21–30 of 92 posts
Seems like its just a straight up competitor to Cloudflare. There doesn't' appear to be any direct revenue gain from this, maybe this is more of a mafia protection kinda thing (as in protecting its interests, the websites hosting its ads). Does anyone know what it takes to mitigate DDoS, at this kind of scale?
Did you seriously just accuse Google of "a mafia protection kinda thing"? Seriously?
Serious question: what happens if say Wikileaks or Snowden or the next important whistleblower uses this service, and then the head of DHS, FBI, DOJ, etc (not a Court) "gives a call" to Google? Will Google "protect their free expression", or comply with the order within hours, like Amazon did [1]? Google may have great lawyers and a lot of money, but what if they tell them "hey, you know that tax-free money you're se…
Google has been pretty explicit about the circumstances in which it will hand user data over to governments or law enforcement. Even if it is required to be done in secret (e.g. a NSL or FISA request), it still requires a valid court order or other legal process. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests If you think any U.S.-based company is able to do better, I'd love to hear how.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you seriously just accuse Google of "a mafia protection kinda thing"? Seriously?
I'm assuming the OP was referring to a protection racket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket >A protection racket is an operation where criminals provide protection to persons and properties, settle disputes and enforce contracts in markets where the police and judicial system cannot be relied upon. Of course, Google isn't threatening anyone with DDoS, (even assuming that they somehow make money of you).…
I can already see the headlines: "Beginning January 1st 2016 Google will discontinue Project Shield"
Seems like its just a straight up competitor to Cloudflare. There doesn't' appear to be any direct revenue gain from this, maybe this is more of a mafia protection kinda thing (as in protecting its interests, the websites hosting its ads). Does anyone know what it takes to mitigate DDoS, at this kind of scale?
I see big time indirect revenue - with all of a sites actions/users moving through Google, they can gather way more (potentially private) information about a user - all the better to sell targeted ads on. Call me cynical, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.
Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
I can already see the headlines: "Beginning January 1st 2016 Google will discontinue Project Shield"
Isn't it a clear that they set this up to track users to those kinds of sites and feed NSA with that information? Also, they get to control what information they want to let out. Call me paranoid, but I don't trust Google a bit here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has been pretty explicit about the circumstances in which it will hand user data over to governments or law enforcement. Even if it is required to be done in secret (e.g. a NSL or FISA request), it still requires a valid court order or other legal process. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests If you think any U.S.-based company is able to do better, I'd love to hear how.
Snowden mentioned Google as one of the companies that provides direct access to its backend to NSA - meaning that NSA can access information on Google users without needing a court order. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrPquNK1Mc
>I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.
We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely telling the truth about all of this. Our business depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html