3 ms·

all data given under a subpoena should be a matter of public record at some point (at least it is here) and I was not aware Google handed out any other data to

all data given under a subpoena should be a matter of public record at some point (at least it is here) and I was not aware Google handed out any other data to the government - if he has evidence of that it would be good to see it. Are you kidding? It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter (or whatever they're calling them these days), and illegal to even talk about. I have zero doubt whatsoever that the FBI, CIA, NSA and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores.

ErrantX 17y ago
It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter, and illegal to even talk about. I can only speak for here; but a subphoena through the normal courts probably wouldnt - I cant see it being any different over there. As to the CIA/NSA etc. having allowed access lets see your evidence - otherwise your just propagating paranoia... and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores. Whom else are you referring to? Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would be fairly quick to come to light if it was that accessible ;) conspiracy theories are usually the root of their own downfall - case in point.
- by 17y ago
  Most of the information people give to Google is not encrypted when it passes across the internet so this would be relevant to revealing people's Google searches : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Agreed; but that was not the assertion made.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  I can only speak for here Well, I'm not actually American, but seeing that Google is, and that's where they store all their data, and as such both they and it is subject to US law, I was speaking for there. a subphoena through the normal courts Why on earth would they get a subpoena? Do you know what an NSL is? Not that they even need that, apparently. Have a read of this: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/why-use-a-national-security-le http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/why-use-a-national-securit... Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would be fairly quick to come to light None of this is conspiracy, though it might have sounded like that even 10 years ago. It's common knowledge. Most privacy-conscious individuals I know, including myself, have been operating under the assumption that interested government organisations have full access to anything stored by any business or government entity, with only the sheer volume of data providing any kind of anonymity.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    It's common knowledge I must have missed the memo. Why is it common knowledge - how do we know? (Im not one to take anything on faith).
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      Hm, I guess I don't know what you're referring to. I am mainly talking about NSLs, since that's what we know about, but that's an FBI thing - a relatively "open" agency, as these things go. I imagine the other three-letter agencies have their own versions whose existence is not yet on the record. The very existence of the NSLs, however, kind of sweeps all these pleasant ideals of due process and transparency off the table. They're a legal warrant for any information whatsoever, can be signed and validated by any FBI field officer, and the recipient is legally obliged to keep the fact of their receipt a secret. There have been hundreds of thousands of such letters issued. Better yet, the FBI has gotten sick of writing the letters, and the recipients know they have no chance of resisting giving up the information, so nowadays they're not even writing them. See the above article. And as a commenter on that piece writes, if you believe for one second that the FBI has mended its ways since 2007, I have a bridge to sell you. There are no barriers whatsoever to law enforcement or national security services getting whatever data they want, whenever they want, with no oversight whatsoever. And if you extrapolate a little, taking into account developments such as the NSA's new $2b, 65MW data centre in Utah, I bet the intelligence agencies have full bulk data access and probably a replication of all major email and social networking providers' data for mining purposes. I don't think any of this could be called a conspiracy theory any more. It's just the reality of world we live in. We might not know all the details yet, but the writing is very clearly on the wall. I congratulate your skepticism and lack of credulity - we sure need more of that in the world - but most or all of this is real and happening right now. The new system was called TIA, then it was called ADVISE. Its current codename is unknown, it was supposedly cancelled, but whaddya know, that data centre is still being built, and another similar facility in Texas. What do you think they're for? Remember, ECHELON was a "conspiracy theory" too once. The very nature of classified activity is that we don't know all the details while it's going on. But we can sure connect the dots. And there's an awful lot of dots.

ErrantX 17y ago

It would, of course, be covered by a National Security Letter, and illegal to even talk about. I can only speak for here; but a subphoena through the normal courts probably wouldnt - I cant see it being any different over there. As to the CIA/NSA etc. having allowed access lets see your evidence - otherwise your just propagating paranoia... and anyone else who wants it has full access to everything Google stores. Whom else are you referring to? Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would be fairly quick to come to light if it was that accessible ;) conspiracy theories are usually the root of their own downfall - case in point.

by 17y ago
Most of the information people give to Google is not encrypted when it passes across the internet so this would be relevant to revealing people's Google searches : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co...
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Agreed; but that was not the assertion made.
sailormoon 17y ago
I can only speak for here Well, I'm not actually American, but seeing that Google is, and that's where they store all their data, and as such both they and it is subject to US law, I was speaking for there. a subphoena through the normal courts Why on earth would they get a subpoena? Do you know what an NSL is? Not that they even need that, apparently. Have a read of this: http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/why-use-a-national-security-le http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/20/why-use-a-national-securit... Dont you think such a massive conspiracy would be fairly quick to come to light None of this is conspiracy, though it might have sounded like that even 10 years ago. It's common knowledge. Most privacy-conscious individuals I know, including myself, have been operating under the assumption that interested government organisations have full access to anything stored by any business or government entity, with only the sheer volume of data providing any kind of anonymity.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  It's common knowledge I must have missed the memo. Why is it common knowledge - how do we know? (Im not one to take anything on faith).
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Hm, I guess I don't know what you're referring to. I am mainly talking about NSLs, since that's what we know about, but that's an FBI thing - a relatively "open" agency, as these things go. I imagine the other three-letter agencies have their own versions whose existence is not yet on the record. The very existence of the NSLs, however, kind of sweeps all these pleasant ideals of due process and transparency off the table. They're a legal warrant for any information whatsoever, can be signed and validated by any FBI field officer, and the recipient is legally obliged to keep the fact of their receipt a secret. There have been hundreds of thousands of such letters issued. Better yet, the FBI has gotten sick of writing the letters, and the recipients know they have no chance of resisting giving up the information, so nowadays they're not even writing them. See the above article. And as a commenter on that piece writes, if you believe for one second that the FBI has mended its ways since 2007, I have a bridge to sell you. There are no barriers whatsoever to law enforcement or national security services getting whatever data they want, whenever they want, with no oversight whatsoever. And if you extrapolate a little, taking into account developments such as the NSA's new $2b, 65MW data centre in Utah, I bet the intelligence agencies have full bulk data access and probably a replication of all major email and social networking providers' data for mining purposes. I don't think any of this could be called a conspiracy theory any more. It's just the reality of world we live in. We might not know all the details yet, but the writing is very clearly on the wall. I congratulate your skepticism and lack of credulity - we sure need more of that in the world - but most or all of this is real and happening right now. The new system was called TIA, then it was called ADVISE. Its current codename is unknown, it was supposedly cancelled, but whaddya know, that data centre is still being built, and another similar facility in Texas. What do you think they're for? Remember, ECHELON was a "conspiracy theory" too once. The very nature of classified activity is that we don't know all the details while it's going on. But we can sure connect the dots. And there's an awful lot of dots.