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

Project Shield

projectshield.withgoogle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 92 posts

Re: Project Shield

#71

Post by Volpe »

workhere-io wrote: post #27
jamroom wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Call me cynical 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.

Wi-fi networks aren't private, you can stop a "broadcast" of the SSID, otherwise you "broadcast" it (publicly).

It's the equivelant of the the Streetview car capturing 'public property', if you want 'privacy', put up a big fence and don't broadcast your SSID.

As for the NSA issue, I'm not going to defend google too much there, but you've seen what happens to providers who didn't comply... I would put that down to more a 'The US govt is pretty hostile to privacy' more than "Google is evil".

On the scale of 'evil shit' happening in the world. Google collecting my Wifi network name ranks about similarly to 'J-Walking'...

Re: Project Shield

#72

Post by hsod »

andylei wrote: post #49
workhere-io wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it. The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.

copying isn't the same as stealing.

This brings up an interesting point.

When referring to "content," (TV, movies, music) it is common for people on HN and Reddit to refer to digital information as something that should be freely exchanged, that ownership is a meaningless concept in a world where creating a copy of something is essentially free. It is common for those who seek to lock down or restrict access to digital information in the form of entertainment media to be referred to as "dinosaurs" who are desperately clinging to an outdated business model and refusing to move into the modern age of free and ubiquitous data sharing.

Then, of course, there is the idea that online privacy is a fundamental right, and that guarding our personal information from both nation-states and corporate interests is of the utmost importance. In this context, those who seek free access to digital information are cast as villains and reviled for using modern technology in a way that doesn't fit with our classical understanding of privacy rights.

I understand that there are multiple people on HN and Reddit and they don't think as one, but I think it's fair to say that both of these opinions fall on the same side of the political spectrum.

I wonder if there's a contradiction here? There's clearly a difference between downloading Game of Thrones episodes and reading everyone's e-mail. But is it a qualitative difference or a quantitative one?

Re: Project Shield

#73

Post by workhere-io »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #67
workhere-io wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a Snowden video in which he explains it (scroll to the bottom of the article): http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2108923/usas-spioner-overvaage...

There's Snowden flapping his lips, yes. No argument there. The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all. The other problem is your worldview is not falsifiable. Everything Snowden says is true to you and everything Google says is false because Snowden said they would lie about it.

The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all.

The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was compelling.

Re: Project Shield

#74

Post by saraid216 »

workhere-io wrote: post #73
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Snowden flapping his lips, yes. No argument there. The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all. The other problem is your worldview is not falsifiable. Everything Snowden says is true to you and everything Google says is false because Snowden said they would lie about it.

The problem is he's wrong and has presented no compelling evidence at all. The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was compelling.

The Guardian and every other major news outlet seemed to think his evidence was worth publishing. This is the same media circus we decry for unfounded false controversies and double-dealing, such as over the recent US government shutdown.

Not sure what makes you think that journalists are a legitimate authority to make appeals to.

Re: Project Shield

#75

Post by saraid216 »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #28
mariusz79 wrote: post #17

I can already see the headlines: "Beginning January 1st 2016 Google will discontinue Project Shield"

You beat me to it. My first thought was, " now what sub-industry is Google trying to kill off and subsequently force the resurrection of in a couple of years when their product gets pulled?"

You make them sound like a forest fire.

Re: Project Shield

#76

Post by saraid216 »

Geee wrote: post #18

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.

If you were really paranoid, you wouldn't post on the Internet where your data traces could be analyzed.

Re: Project Shield

#78

Post by michaelt »

DannyBee wrote: post #41
workhere-io wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied. Probably because they're forced to do so by the authorities, like Lavebit was. So it becomes a question of who you are going to trust: Snowden (who has nothing to gain by lying) or Google (who is required by law to lie about it and risks losing a lot of money if their customers lose faith in them). I know who I trust in this case.

Can you please state what law you believe would force them to lie about it? As i've pointed out in a few discussions, the law does not (and generally cannot constitutionally) require you to actively lie about something (IE compelled inaccurate speech). It can require you to not speak about something, compel you to speak truthful things (as a disclosure or otherwise), and require you to not tell someone something, but…

According to 18 USC § 2709 (C)(1) it is illegal to "disclose to any person" [1] you have received a National Security Letter. Likewise, the FISA court order used to gather all Verizon call data bars Verizon from disclosing its existence [2].

I don't have the legal expertise to say whether one would be forced to lie about it, and the legislation doesn't explicitly use the word lie. However, according to someone who received one and received legal advice: "Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL [...] When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie." [3]

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709 [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-recor... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

Re: Project Shield

#80

Post by znowi »

> Project Shield is an initiative to use Google's infrastructure to protect free expression online

How peculiar. The tech is DDoS mitigation, but the PR focus is on "free expression online", Syrian gas attacks, and evil Iran.

Wonderfully executed. The internet crowd is cheering the "free speech", the government approves of the Middle East angle.

Meanwhile, PRISM keeps working and very few care about it.

Post reply on HN