6 ms·

Assange's "When Google met Wikileaks" comes to mind... https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

by uvesten 11y ago

wslh 11y ago
(strong downvotes here) But Google uses HTTPS... Joking aside, Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole (just take a look at their security blog). Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud. Joking aside #2: could a private company like Google be acquired by US as a key security asset? It seems possible, I found this https://www.quora.com/Can-the-US-government-acquire-private-companies https://www.quora.com/Can-the-US-government-acquire-private-... helpful.
- Thrymr 11y ago
  > Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud. That may be obvious to you, but it isn't to most people. Even most people who are uncomfortable with having their "private life in the cloud" make compromises and have large parts of it there.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Do you have a mobile phone?
  - wslh 11y ago
    Yes, but it does not contain sensitive information.
    - phn 11y ago
      Can you expand? I cannot imagine what you do with your phone in order not to have sensitive info on it. At the very least your approximate location and people you talk to is definitely in there.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        That approximate location is not on the phone (but in the cell tower your phone currently sees as closest, you can query that but you don't have to and it is not something a party on the other side of a data connection can normally query) and who you talk to does not have to be in there either, it's up to you to populate your address book and to keep your history.
        jshen 11y ago
        > That approximate location is not on the phone It is on any smart phone with GPS, or at least, one should assume it is. > who you talk to does not have to be in there either Really? If the number is there does it matter if the name isn't in your address book? I'm fairly tech savvy and how much confidence do I really have that clearing my call history actually removes it from the phone all together?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        > It is on any smart phone with GPS, or at least, one should assume it is. Not on mine. > Really? If the number is there does it matter if the name isn't in your address book? I'm fairly tech savvy and how much confidence do I really have that clearing my call history actually removes it from the phone all together? You don't need any confidence because it is safe to assume you've given those numbers to the phone company (and by extension the secret service of your own country and probably in some back room deal to the United States and from there to the other five eyes countries). So you're paranoid about the wrong thing. Your cellphone 'knows where it is' but so do you and anybody looking at your cellphone, that's not exactly secret information. Where it was may be a different story. And where it is is interesting information when looking from the providers side into the network.
    - frandroid 11y ago
      Yeah, but it's broadcasting useful metadata like crazy.
    - StreamBright 11y ago
      Having a mobile number by itself is a privacy risk. See the following video: https://www.facebook.com/digg/videos/10153611859073432/ https://www.facebook.com/digg/videos/10153611859073432/
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      Your mobile is a huge security risk should you have any reason to not want to be compromised (or even, in some cases if you don't). It can be used to eavesdrop, track your location, track who you meet with, who you talk to, why you meet and talk with these people, who you are close to, who your relatives are and if it's a smartphone, what your personality is, what your interests are, what you are thinking about at any given time etc etc.
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  I'm a bit mystified by the downvotes. During previous wars, the US did in fact compel industry to retool for wartime needs. And not in arm's-length transactions, but by fiat and in many cases at enforced price levels. e.g., during WWII domestic civilian auto and airplane construction was completely diverted to military needs. In a global war, I think it is actually quite likely that the same thing would happen with each combatant's civilian tech industry.
  - adventured 11y ago
    In a new world war, assuming no nuclear wipe-out scenario, Google would indeed be drafted. Their effectiveness as a global entity would collapse rapidly however, as the global internet would be destroyed as a first stage target. Google would lose the vast benefits it has on global information, tracking, etc. Mostly what Google would be drafted for then, would be the sheer engineering talent - basically the government would want their skill, not Google itself per se. In the case of WW2, the government wanted the steel output and labor.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  (strong downvotes here) You really ought to look into the early history of Google (particularly the Stanford years) before disregarding this point. If you're not an Assange fan, that's OK (I'm not either) -- but other people have done some pretty good research on this. It's all there, if you want to find it. I'm sure you know how.
  - nickbauman 11y ago
    Didn't the first version of Google emerge from a DARPA grant?
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      Pretty much, as I recall. But the connections went much deeper than just pulling down DARPA money.
      - propogandist 11y ago
        ??
- StreamBright 11y ago
  I am not sure how is this related to what Assange said. Eric Smith is famous about not respecting privacy of ordinary citizens. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
- s_q_b 11y ago
  Short answer: Yes. It is exceedingly unlikely, however. The Federal government can seize control of private companies through one of two mechanisms: 1. Seize ownership of Google and pay market value (the Takings Clause allows the government to seize private property so long as there is "just compensation.") 2. Declare war, and essentially draft Google's workers into wartime production. This was done extensively during WWII. For example, Ford motor company only built about 200 automobiles for private use during the entire course of the war because their assembly lines were devoted nearly entirely to wartime production.
- Umn44 11y ago
  "Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud." It doesn't matter, all packets are logged. So even if you didn't put anything in the cloud. The trunks of the internet are still recording metadata about information from programs sites you visit they find interesting. They are recording everything. They will use it for later analysis. They want to understand the political evolution of complex societies and be able to predict, and ultimately politically control populations for elite objectives.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  In general the only reason you can nationalize someone else's stuff is because you have the guns. In the latter half of the 21st century, the robots and the AI will be "the guns". Who has the AI?
- chestnut-tree 11y ago
  "Google uses HTTPS...Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole" I've always felt that Google sees privacy solely or largely through the lens of security. You can't have privacy without security, but privacy is more than just security. Online, it's about being tracked in the first place. Google may have the best encryption and the most secure data storage, but that security and encryption doesn't stop Google from voraciously tracking and recording as much of your online behaviour as they can. Google has it's digital fingerprints in every corner of the web: from analytics to CDNs, to online accounts that sync your activity on mobile, desktop, tablet, TV and no-doubt more gadgets in the future. They have an entire cloud-based OS that requires immediate sign-in on start-up (and which is heavily promoted in schools). The amount of data they capture (much of it not even anonymous) is truly staggering. And yet on matters of privacy, they get a completely free ride from the tech community.
  - shawn-butler 11y ago
    They don't get a free ride. Here on HN some of us call it out all the time. We just get downvoted to oblivion by all the google cube dwellers.
    - nomansland 11y ago
      In the land of the open office, there's no more cube dwellers.
- username223 11y ago
  > Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole (just take a look at their security blog). I've always seen "Project Zero" and such as a smart PR move: hire some security folks, pay them to break other people's software, publish the results. Improving computer security would be an accidental side-effect.

Assange's "When Google met Wikileaks" comes to mind... https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

by uvesten 11y ago

Assange's "When Google met Wikileaks" comes to mind... https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

wslh 11y ago

(strong downvotes here) But Google uses HTTPS... Joking aside, Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole (just take a look at their security blog). Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud. Joking aside #2: could a private company like Google be acquired by US as a key security asset? It seems possible, I found this https://www.quora.com/Can-the-US-government-acquire-private-companies https://www.quora.com/Can-the-US-government-acquire-private-... helpful.

Thrymr 11y ago
> Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud. That may be obvious to you, but it isn't to most people. Even most people who are uncomfortable with having their "private life in the cloud" make compromises and have large parts of it there.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rorykoehler 11y ago
Do you have a mobile phone?
- wslh 11y ago
  Yes, but it does not contain sensitive information.
  - phn 11y ago
    Can you expand? I cannot imagine what you do with your phone in order not to have sensitive info on it. At the very least your approximate location and people you talk to is definitely in there.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      That approximate location is not on the phone (but in the cell tower your phone currently sees as closest, you can query that but you don't have to and it is not something a party on the other side of a data connection can normally query) and who you talk to does not have to be in there either, it's up to you to populate your address book and to keep your history.
      - jshen 11y ago
        > That approximate location is not on the phone It is on any smart phone with GPS, or at least, one should assume it is. > who you talk to does not have to be in there either Really? If the number is there does it matter if the name isn't in your address book? I'm fairly tech savvy and how much confidence do I really have that clearing my call history actually removes it from the phone all together?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        > It is on any smart phone with GPS, or at least, one should assume it is. Not on mine. > Really? If the number is there does it matter if the name isn't in your address book? I'm fairly tech savvy and how much confidence do I really have that clearing my call history actually removes it from the phone all together? You don't need any confidence because it is safe to assume you've given those numbers to the phone company (and by extension the secret service of your own country and probably in some back room deal to the United States and from there to the other five eyes countries). So you're paranoid about the wrong thing. Your cellphone 'knows where it is' but so do you and anybody looking at your cellphone, that's not exactly secret information. Where it was may be a different story. And where it is is interesting information when looking from the providers side into the network.
  - frandroid 11y ago
    Yeah, but it's broadcasting useful metadata like crazy.
  - StreamBright 11y ago
    Having a mobile number by itself is a privacy risk. See the following video: https://www.facebook.com/digg/videos/10153611859073432/ https://www.facebook.com/digg/videos/10153611859073432/
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    Your mobile is a huge security risk should you have any reason to not want to be compromised (or even, in some cases if you don't). It can be used to eavesdrop, track your location, track who you meet with, who you talk to, why you meet and talk with these people, who you are close to, who your relatives are and if it's a smartphone, what your personality is, what your interests are, what you are thinking about at any given time etc etc.
zekevermillion 11y ago
I'm a bit mystified by the downvotes. During previous wars, the US did in fact compel industry to retool for wartime needs. And not in arm's-length transactions, but by fiat and in many cases at enforced price levels. e.g., during WWII domestic civilian auto and airplane construction was completely diverted to military needs. In a global war, I think it is actually quite likely that the same thing would happen with each combatant's civilian tech industry.
- adventured 11y ago
  In a new world war, assuming no nuclear wipe-out scenario, Google would indeed be drafted. Their effectiveness as a global entity would collapse rapidly however, as the global internet would be destroyed as a first stage target. Google would lose the vast benefits it has on global information, tracking, etc. Mostly what Google would be drafted for then, would be the sheer engineering talent - basically the government would want their skill, not Google itself per se. In the case of WW2, the government wanted the steel output and labor.
kafkaesq 11y ago
(strong downvotes here) You really ought to look into the early history of Google (particularly the Stanford years) before disregarding this point. If you're not an Assange fan, that's OK (I'm not either) -- but other people have done some pretty good research on this. It's all there, if you want to find it. I'm sure you know how.
- nickbauman 11y ago
  Didn't the first version of Google emerge from a DARPA grant?
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    Pretty much, as I recall. But the connections went much deeper than just pulling down DARPA money.
    - propogandist 11y ago
      ??
StreamBright 11y ago
I am not sure how is this related to what Assange said. Eric Smith is famous about not respecting privacy of ordinary citizens. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid...
s_q_b 11y ago
Short answer: Yes. It is exceedingly unlikely, however. The Federal government can seize control of private companies through one of two mechanisms: 1. Seize ownership of Google and pay market value (the Takings Clause allows the government to seize private property so long as there is "just compensation.") 2. Declare war, and essentially draft Google's workers into wartime production. This was done extensively during WWII. For example, Ford motor company only built about 200 automobiles for private use during the entire course of the war because their assembly lines were devoted nearly entirely to wartime production.
Umn44 11y ago
"Obviously, it is not a good idea to have your private life in the cloud." It doesn't matter, all packets are logged. So even if you didn't put anything in the cloud. The trunks of the internet are still recording metadata about information from programs sites you visit they find interesting. They are recording everything. They will use it for later analysis. They want to understand the political evolution of complex societies and be able to predict, and ultimately politically control populations for elite objectives.
JabavuAdams 11y ago
In general the only reason you can nationalize someone else's stuff is because you have the guns. In the latter half of the 21st century, the robots and the AI will be "the guns". Who has the AI?
chestnut-tree 11y ago
"Google uses HTTPS...Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole" I've always felt that Google sees privacy solely or largely through the lens of security. You can't have privacy without security, but privacy is more than just security. Online, it's about being tracked in the first place. Google may have the best encryption and the most secure data storage, but that security and encryption doesn't stop Google from voraciously tracking and recording as much of your online behaviour as they can. Google has it's digital fingerprints in every corner of the web: from analytics to CDNs, to online accounts that sync your activity on mobile, desktop, tablet, TV and no-doubt more gadgets in the future. They have an entire cloud-based OS that requires immediate sign-in on start-up (and which is heavily promoted in schools). The amount of data they capture (much of it not even anonymous) is truly staggering. And yet on matters of privacy, they get a completely free ride from the tech community.
- shawn-butler 11y ago
  They don't get a free ride. Here on HN some of us call it out all the time. We just get downvoted to oblivion by all the google cube dwellers.
  - nomansland 11y ago
    In the land of the open office, there's no more cube dwellers.
username223 11y ago
> Google is seriously helping to advance computer security as a whole (just take a look at their security blog). I've always seen "Project Zero" and such as a smart PR move: hire some security folks, pay them to break other people's software, publish the results. Improving computer security would be an accidental side-effect.