3 ms·

My trust in Google comes from me believing Google is capable of preventing undetected access, and limiting detected access to that which is legally obligated. I

by skj 11y ago

My trust in Google comes from me believing Google is capable of preventing undetected access, and limiting detected access to that which is legally obligated. I'm not going to try to convince you that this is the case, only state that it's what I believe.

sandworm101 11y ago
Capable? Have you heard about prism? Google claims to have been in the dark, that data was siphoning off as it flowed between data centers. That is an admission that Google is not capable of protecting against such things. They claim to have not even contemplated the attack. To quote the boss: "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. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist." https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html
- skj 11y ago
  Yes, and as a result traffic is now encrypted between data centers. And I'm not sure what your quote adds to the point.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    My point is that google's claims today cannot be trusted any more than when those same claims made three years ago. Google was wrong about it's abilities then as it may be wrong about them today. Google is now so large that 'trust' is impossible. Google's attack surface is now so vast, the data so valuable, and cross-talk of personnel with government so common that the likelihood of another undetected breech is too great to ignore. (Same for apple/facebook et al).
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    His point is - if I may - that if they could not foresee that this was the case in the past that there is a good reason to assume they won't be able to foresee similar things in the present. It's not as if it took a great feat of imagination to suspect that data flowing between datacenters would be tapped.
  - threatofrain 11y ago
    This response is too terse given the calmness and energy other people have put into their discussion. If people were saying blatantly stupid responses, that's understandable -- but that's not apparent here whatsoever. Google has been penetrated before, and Google has had to comply with government agencies, and legislation has passed legally shielding Google from complying with orders later found to be unlawful. Now you're saying that Google can't be penetrated again, and can be trusted with user privacy. Nobody is saying that getting Google to lawfully turn over user privacy, or that penetrating Google is easy. But Google is a massive organization, and it's not surprising that the USA or China can penetrate it -- lawfully and unlawfully.
    - skj 11y ago
      As I mentioned in another post, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just saying I have confidence. Even so, security is a road, not a destination. If people want to argue that you should put your data anywhere, I'll buy it. But of the places your data can go, right now I think good is the best steward. And that certainly includes just keeping it yourself.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by skj 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

Capable? Have you heard about prism? Google claims to have been in the dark, that data was siphoning off as it flowed between data centers. That is an admission that Google is not capable of protecting against such things. They claim to have not even contemplated the attack. To quote the boss: "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. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist." https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html https://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/what.html

skj 11y ago
Yes, and as a result traffic is now encrypted between data centers. And I'm not sure what your quote adds to the point.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  My point is that google's claims today cannot be trusted any more than when those same claims made three years ago. Google was wrong about it's abilities then as it may be wrong about them today. Google is now so large that 'trust' is impossible. Google's attack surface is now so vast, the data so valuable, and cross-talk of personnel with government so common that the likelihood of another undetected breech is too great to ignore. (Same for apple/facebook et al).
- jacquesm 11y ago
  His point is - if I may - that if they could not foresee that this was the case in the past that there is a good reason to assume they won't be able to foresee similar things in the present. It's not as if it took a great feat of imagination to suspect that data flowing between datacenters would be tapped.
- threatofrain 11y ago
  This response is too terse given the calmness and energy other people have put into their discussion. If people were saying blatantly stupid responses, that's understandable -- but that's not apparent here whatsoever. Google has been penetrated before, and Google has had to comply with government agencies, and legislation has passed legally shielding Google from complying with orders later found to be unlawful. Now you're saying that Google can't be penetrated again, and can be trusted with user privacy. Nobody is saying that getting Google to lawfully turn over user privacy, or that penetrating Google is easy. But Google is a massive organization, and it's not surprising that the USA or China can penetrate it -- lawfully and unlawfully.
  - skj 11y ago
    As I mentioned in another post, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just saying I have confidence. Even so, security is a road, not a destination. If people want to argue that you should put your data anywhere, I'll buy it. But of the places your data can go, right now I think good is the best steward. And that certainly includes just keeping it yourself.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]