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

Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#81

Post by tubbs »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #25
fixermark wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question has never been "Can you trust cloud services?" It's "Can you trust them more than the alternatives?" Yes, you can almost certainly keep your private data more secure in a system you build and monitor yourself(1). Until an NSA or GCHQ-level entity takes interest in you, and uses a 0-day exploit on your system or just physically walks in with a warrant and steals your physical media. How is that functional…

There is a massive, massive difference between automatically slurping all data coming in and out of a cloud provider, and going after somebody with a targeted exploit or physically seizing machines.

I'd rather make them go through the trouble of getting my data physically then just typing

  grab * -ss 834-29-1293
or whatever they do.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#82

Post by sarciszewski »

tubbs wrote: post #81
throwaway2048 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a massive, massive difference between automatically slurping all data coming in and out of a cloud provider, and going after somebody with a targeted exploit or physically seizing machines.

I'd rather make them go through the trouble of getting my data physically then just typing grab * -ss 834-29-1293 or whatever they do.

Is 834-29-1293 your actual SSN? :\

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#83

Post by maxerickson »

sarciszewski wrote: post #82
tubbs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather make them go through the trouble of getting my data physically then just typing grab * -ss 834-29-1293 or whatever they do.

Is 834-29-1293 your actual SSN? :\

834 was never used as an area number:

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/ssns/HGJune2411_final...

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#84

Post by lawnchair_larry »

tptacek wrote: post #77
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised. And yes I know what Matasano did. Which is why I say you'd be surprised.

"Does", not "did". But I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Right, "does" - I forgot they just nested their namespace after going to NCC, sorry.

If you had to make a guess, you'd probably guess correctly, but we'll just end this thread here (don't guess). FWIW I'm not supporting Zigurd's statements, which sound crazy.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#85

Post by tptacek »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Does", not "did". But I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Right, "does" - I forgot they just nested their namespace after going to NCC, sorry. If you had to make a guess, you'd probably guess correctly, but we'll just end this thread here (don't guess). FWIW I'm not supporting Zigurd's statements, which sound crazy.

I'm more confused now than before you commented.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#86

Post by anonbanker »

zaroth wrote: post #71
higherpurpose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Going to the third party provider as if it owns your data is a complete bypass of the 4th amendment. To make an analogy it would be like the federal government having to serve a warrant/court order/gar order only to your local mayor to search your house without your permission. Imagine how messed up that would be. Yet, it's exactly what happens in the digital world, and somehow we've learned to take it for grant…

It just occurred to me, they figured out how to serve a complaint against your property (civil forfeiture) so I'm actually half surprised they don't serve warrants against the house not the house's occupants. Or even better, just serve the data itself; US Government versus 134,612 bytes of Data!

That's called in rem[1] jurisdiction. I hope to see it happen with bytes of data in my lifetime.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem

Post reply on HN