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

Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#71

Post by nemof »

aspensmonster wrote: post #52
danso wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: doh, I misread the tweet. Looking over the new slides at that story just posted http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance... edit: It's just one new slide ( http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20... ) which says "directly from the servers"...but since Google is ostensibly arguing that the slides are poorly worded, hopefully the Guardian believes the other unreleased slid…

>which means that they will be releasing bombshell by bombshell, or that they think other revelations will be independently reported? Presumably, the Guardian is in possession of the full 41 page powerpoint. They'll likely release pieces of it at a time. Nice to see they're waiting for everyone to trip all over themselves first. I can't wait to see how this plays out in the coming weeks. Funny. When Wikileaks did the…

they're not just maximising impact, they are most likely currently having discussions as to what they can legally release without getting into too much trouble or causing a national security problem (e.g. see redacted names on latest slide).

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#72

Post by gypsobelum »

aspensmonster wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We reported - wrongly - what was actually happening in the real world." The lede on Greenwald's story: The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. Then, just 1 graf later: The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document [...] Later: The NSA access was enabled by…

Forgive me, but I'm thoroughly confused. What objection is brought up here to Greenwald's work? That he's using the noun "program" instead of the noun "document" when discussing the program that the document entails? That Greenwald's tone is not sufficiently interrogative and peppered with "claims" and "alleges" and "supposes"? There's no substantive difference between "It was followed by Yahoo in 2008" and "The docu…

tptacek is a supporter of Obama's program of extra judicial drone executions, so it goes without saying that he dislikes Glenn Greenwald. Additionally, he feels he can make attacks on the tone and minor details of Greenwald's reporting so he comments on that, but does not comment on this story for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844972 where it's more difficult to discredit the messenger.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#73

Post by leoc »

So, what's new news in the CNET story?

The order has to be for account information or an intercept directed at a specific foreign person, and "you can't say everyone in Pakistan who searched for 'X'... It still has to be particularized."

This seems to contradict the NYT's claim http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-... that

FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said.

. Maybe it's specifically there to contradict the NYT claim.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#74

Post by andrewflnr »

aspensmonster wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We reported - wrongly - what was actually happening in the real world." The lede on Greenwald's story: The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. Then, just 1 graf later: The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document [...] Later: The NSA access was enabled by…

Forgive me, but I'm thoroughly confused. What objection is brought up here to Greenwald's work? That he's using the noun "program" instead of the noun "document" when discussing the program that the document entails? That Greenwald's tone is not sufficiently interrogative and peppered with "claims" and "alleges" and "supposes"? There's no substantive difference between "It was followed by Yahoo in 2008" and "The docu…

There is a world of difference between a statement that something is happening and a statement that someone claims it is happening. The latter is specifically about a person talking, which is only evidence insofar as the person and all intermediate transmission channels are trustworthy. Those conditions might in fact be true here, but it is an important distinction.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#75

Post by vor_ »

magicalist wrote: post #49
lazyjones wrote: post #12

Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings wi…

Wow, you're really going to still quote that out of context. Literally the next sentence out of his mouth was a warning that Google is subject to the PATRIOT Act and you should be careful what you use it for: " But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the Unit…

What context is added to his original statement by the subsequent sentence that changes its meaning? If anything, it strengthens his point by mentioning that Google retains the information, and that one example of its use is that authorities could request it.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#76

Post by mst »

mpyne wrote: post #53
guelo wrote: post #34

From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald : Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim.…

I've been wary of Greenwald for quite some time as he's often let his politics get in the way of his logical reasoning. I think this Tweet is another example. NSA says that they can use PRISM to get information directly from a company's servers. That's true , but it happens through an intermediary (the company itself). But even with the intermediary the data being sent did come directly from the company. In other wor…

Seems like the 'directly' could easily refer to the company-provided secure lockers that are referenced in the uncrunched article.

If true, that means there's no direct panopticon access, only an expedited, direct, digital means of getting the data, once retrieved, into the government's hands.

Ignoring whether I think a government should be able to ask for this information at all, I think the existence of such direct means is probably on the whole a good thing, because if the british government's repeated losses of laptops and DVDs full on private information are anything to go on, governments really suck at secure data transfer and I'd rather only a government had it than a government -and- whoever managed to steal the thing en route.

I still hope google will continue to challenge the NSL process etc. in court, but I can't say I mind them arranging things in the meantime so as to minimise the odds of the government screwing up the execution of said process.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#77

Post by leoc »

eksith wrote: post #5
jjguy wrote: post #3

The referenced story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of... ; declan submitted his story https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844091 but it languished. It's a shame, because it's the first responsible piece of reporting I've seen on this mess. The media has been trolled by a Powerpoint brief from self-important USG bureaucrats.

Yes, but it's still using the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness. Surveillance is tricky business and technology makes the boundaries of what's acceptable to reveal even trickier. It's true that the muddling of the Verizon/AT&T stories is being interwoven with this, which may not have helped. And the scope of the information requested falls well within acceptable procedure for…

> the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness.

This seems unfair. There was a specific accusation or suggestion of direct access, so it's not (or at least not necessarily) misdirection for Google and friends to specifically deny it. It certainly doesn't answer all questions about PRISM, but between the denial of direct access, and the denial of any Verizon-scale order which would amount to direct access in all but name, you get a pretty forthright statement limiting the possible extent of the NSA data-gathering.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#78

Post by robomartin »

magicalist wrote: post #51
robomartin wrote: post #50

The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about…

"have access, directly or indirectly, through any means" is a not a useful basis for the question, because a regular search warrant certainly qualifies as that.

Criticism accepted.

Now, could you suggest better language?

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#79

Post by anonyfuss »

gypsobelum wrote: post #72
aspensmonster wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me, but I'm thoroughly confused. What objection is brought up here to Greenwald's work? That he's using the noun "program" instead of the noun "document" when discussing the program that the document entails? That Greenwald's tone is not sufficiently interrogative and peppered with "claims" and "alleges" and "supposes"? There's no substantive difference between "It was followed by Yahoo in 2008" and "The docu…

tptacek is a supporter of Obama's program of extra judicial drone executions, so it goes without saying that he dislikes Glenn Greenwald. Additionally, he feels he can make attacks on the tone and minor details of Greenwald's reporting so he comments on that, but does not comment on this story for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844972 where it's more difficult to discredit the messenger.

If I read an inflammatory and disturbingly arrogant comment, in which personal opinions are presented as facts, and contrarianism is practiced as an artform, there's a near 100% chance tptacek wrote it.

Re: Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

#80

Post by tptacek »

anonyfuss wrote: post #79
gypsobelum wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tptacek is a supporter of Obama's program of extra judicial drone executions, so it goes without saying that he dislikes Glenn Greenwald. Additionally, he feels he can make attacks on the tone and minor details of Greenwald's reporting so he comments on that, but does not comment on this story for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844972 where it's more difficult to discredit the messenger.

If I read an inflammatory and disturbingly arrogant comment, in which personal opinions are presented as facts, and contrarianism is practiced as an artform, there's a near 100% chance tptacek wrote it.

That actually sounds about right. Which is why I'm not a journalist.
Post reply on HN