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

61–70 of 482 posts

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#61

Post by deelowe »

chris_mahan wrote: post #52
deelowe wrote: post #26

Why is everyone so suspicious of Google to begin with? Is there a shred of evidence to lend any credibility to the accusations thus far? Given how Google's technology works, I imagine it would be quite an expense to provide the kind of access the govt. would want and Google hasn't been exactly overly enthused with having to comply with BS government requests(e.g. see how they deal with requests to scrub search result…

US government agencies have money available to them for this sort of things.

OK. How does this automatically make Google and not, I don't know Chevrolet's onstar system, a target for criticism? Where's the evidence?

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#62

Post by dannyr »

Some of the comments here just shows that people will believe what they want to believe.

There's nothing Google, Apple, Facebook, etc can say that some people won't poke holes into.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#63

Post by chime »

I don't want any more fluff "no direct access" emails. I just want these questions to be answered with a YES/NO:

1. Is there any way that someone outside of Google, can get a copy of an email I sent from my gmail to my own gmail, without a warrant that specifies my exact gmail address?

2. If I delete my Google search history, is there any way for anyone to access this history, with or without a warrant?

3. If I make a Google search from an incognito window, is there any way for Google to connect it to my Google account via my IP address? I know I've done this in the past to prevent spambots from creating fake accounts. Can Google connect these dots if someone sends them an NSL?

If the answer to any of this is YES, I am going to have to rethink my entire online life.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#64

Post by javert »

deelowe wrote: post #26

Why is everyone so suspicious of Google to begin with? Is there a shred of evidence to lend any credibility to the accusations thus far? Given how Google's technology works, I imagine it would be quite an expense to provide the kind of access the govt. would want and Google hasn't been exactly overly enthused with having to comply with BS government requests(e.g. see how they deal with requests to scrub search result…

> Why is everyone so suspicious of Google to begin with?

We live in a semi-authoritarian society. Anyone the authorities might want to use for their purposes is suspect. We _should_ be encrypting everything as a matter of principle and not relying on one huge point of failure like Google.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#65

Post by deelowe »

mullingitover wrote: post #45
deelowe wrote: post #26

Why is everyone so suspicious of Google to begin with? Is there a shred of evidence to lend any credibility to the accusations thus far? Given how Google's technology works, I imagine it would be quite an expense to provide the kind of access the govt. would want and Google hasn't been exactly overly enthused with having to comply with BS government requests(e.g. see how they deal with requests to scrub search result…

The President getting on national television and acknowledging that the program exists is a pretty big shred of evidence.

He said nothing about Google, which is the topic of the OP.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#66

Post by [deleted] »

jessaustin wrote: post #51
bluedino wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they bother asking you, when they could simply ask your ISP? Why ask each customer?

Presumably university IT would have been able to provide more precise demographically identifying data than the ISP. It's unlikely the ISP was running the RADIUS server.

[deleted]

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#67

Post by washedup »

packetslave wrote: post #32
ceejayoz wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is still pretty flexible language. "Oh, it's not open-ended access, it's limited to the conditions in the authorization..." The Verizon order was limited to 3 months, for example, which is hardly open-ended... except that it presumably got re-upped every three months.

Read the NEXT SENTENCE! "Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records." AND THE TWO AFTER THAT: "We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely fals…

It is very possible that Google is lying.

Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM

#70

Post by minwcnt5 »

adamdavis wrote: post #42
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please throw out an estimate of how big you think a mirror of all Google's network traffic might be.

And this is relevant to what?

I think his point is it would be extremely expensive. The leaked presentation claimed the cost of PRISM was only $20M.
Post reply on HN