Wow, what a load.
Project Shield
81–90 of 92 posts
Re: Project Shield
#82I am not being funny, however, shouldn't this form be https? Or did I miss something?
Re: Project Shield
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for. But they won't…
Their obligation to their shareholders actually means that their uninterrupted profits are too important.
Google's share structure[1] means this isn't actually the case at all.
[1] http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/13/new-google-stoc...
Re: Project Shield
#84Earlier 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.
I guess the main issue is that the timeline of events has gone like this:
Snowden/Guardian: NSA is doing X Govt/NSA: We are not doing X Snowden/Guardian: Here are some slide/proof Govt/NSA: Ok we are doing X, but it's for your own good.
Rinse and repeat each fortnight.
So each denial means less and less, and tips believability towards Snowden even where the proof is inconclusive in some cases.
Re: Project Shield
#85so this is like cloudflare but for people whom google like?
Re: Project Shield
#86Re: Project Shield
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I mean all those people who were broadcasting unencrypted information loud and clear to literally any device that receives wi-fi packets in the immediate vicinity, they have no culpability in this whatsoever!
Private citizens don't have IT staff, so their security is often unaudited. The law considers authorized access via a vulnerability to be similar, conceptually, to trespassing.
Except its not a vulnerability in the normal sense. It's the functional equivalent of playing a private recording with your speakers turned to maximum and the windows open - just in the EM spectrum.
I'm not contending that using that information wouldn't be a crime, but accidentally collecting it certainly should be held to a different standard.
Re: Project Shield
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mor…
They didn't just collect wi-fi names, they also collected other forms of data, some of which could be considered private. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/googles-wifi-wireta...
Re: Project Shield
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for. But they won't…
They do to an extent they can. They fight for more transparency ( http://gigaom.com/2013/08/22/google-and-microsofts-plea-on-n... ) and fund organizations such as EFF. You have to understand how US law works. If you are not an injured party, you can't sue the government for it. In other words, Google cannot sue the government for the injury government is causing to you. What they can do, however, is claim an 'injury'…
Yahoo! did try to fight. If they can attempt I'm sure Google could put an even bigger fight. Not to mention they have money for lobbying in Congress.
Re: Project Shield
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 re…
1. As I mentioned, non-disclosure is very different from compelled speech. Compelled accurate speech is even held to a different standard than compelled lies. I have the legal expertise to tell you they are different. :)
2. This person seems to have missed choice b: "Do not comment". They are not compelled to lie, by the very law you cite. They are only required not to disclose. No court has ever held this to mean "lie when asked", rather than "say nothing when asked". If the government went after someone for not saying anything, that would be ... a tough case.
3. I am happy to admit the distinction between compelled lying and non-disclosure is, for some people, no distinction at all, but the law does make such a distinction.