4 ms·

I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake. I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, how

I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake. I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, however, given that we have definitive proof that Google is known to work with the government.

nl 10y ago
"Work with government" means lots of things. The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". There are other things where Google does work with the US and other governments. I believe they pass Flu Trends data to the CDC for example.... And which government branch do you think that Google is working with here? The #DNCLeaks thing is a anti-Hillary story, promoted mostly by bitter Bernie Sanders promoters. There are some Trump supporters jumping on too, but they seem a minority. It's inside-baseball for DNC wonks. I could see an argument that someone at Google is a Hillary Clinton supporter and therefore took it on themselves to take it down. That would be a dumb thing to do, but at least would make sense. But which government branch would try to get Google to do it? The White House wouldn't be so stupid - it would leak in an instant. Some secret three-letter agency? Why would they care? Some other department?
- gkoberger 10y ago
  You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp. Hillary and her supporters won't talk about it because it favors them, the DNC won't because they violated bylaws requiring impartiality, and the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC.
  - nl 10y ago
    You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp. I think we mostly agree here? By the "#DNCLeak story" I mean the analysis of the emails as well as the leak itself - that's what is happening under that hashtag. the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC. The only thing I've seen on this is the "Chuck, this must stop" email. It's pretty clear that was a wish, not an order (otherwise why the follow up call). Anyone who's watched any political drama on TV has seen how often politicians offices call journalists to complain - I don't see much different here? Also, the media is reporting the leaks, pretty heavily. The NY Times[1] and CNN[2] amongst plenty of others both have major stories. I think I agree with everything else you say. (If it matters, I don't think Hillary is a great candidate, and wouldn't class myself as a supporter. I would have liked to see a much broader set of candidates in the Democratic race.) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-ema...
- woah 10y ago
  Presidential candidates used to be nominated by party insiders. The primary system was supposed to allow the voters to choose democratic and republican candidates. It's been pretty clear this election that the Democratic Party has gone back to the old way. I don't personally object that much because I don't vote democrat, but it's not just "inside baseball". My guess is that you don't want to hear about it because you are rooting for the democrats.
- colordrops 10y ago
  > The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. . Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification. Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?
    - colordrops 10y ago
      You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed. You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."
      - colordrops 10y ago
        Anyone care to elaborate why I'm being downvoted?
        tombrossman 10y ago
        I didn't downvote you but if you read the comments guidelines[0] they are helpful and cover some of the comments you made above. As an aside, your profile says you signed up 1337 days ago and your karma is at 1358. Another 21 down-votes and your Hacker News profile page will looking pretty leet - I say go for it. Remember, it's just fake internet points, you can't spend them or do anything interesting with them. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- paganel 10y ago
  > The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". A Guardian article from September 2013, two-or-so-months after the Snowden leaks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost... > The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian. > While the ruling did not concern the Prism program directly, documents passed to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden describe the problems the decision created for the agency and the efforts required to bring operations into compliance. The material provides the first evidence of a financial relationship between the tech companies and the NSA. > An NSA newsletter entry, marked top secret and dated December 2012, discloses the huge costs this entailed. "Last year's problems resulted in multiple extensions to the certifications' expiration dates which cost millions of dollars for Prism providers to implement each successive extension – costs covered by Special Source Operations," it says. > An earlier newsletter, which is undated, states that the Prism providers were all given new certifications within days of the Fisa court ruling. "All Prism providers, except Yahoo and Google, were successfully transitioned to the new certifications. We expect Yahoo and Google to complete transitioning by Friday 6 October." Google only gave a bla-bla answer when asked about it: > Google did not answer any of the specific questions put to it, and provided only a general statement denying it had joined Prism or any other surveillance program. It added: "We await the US government's response to our petition to publish more national security request data, which will show that our compliance with American national security laws falls far short of the wild claims still being made in the press today." I'd say that you should revisit your believes when it comes to the relationship between the NSA and big SV companies.
lomnakkus 10y ago
> I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake. So why are you repeating it? (It sounds like you don't even think it's true. What the use in repeating it, then?) > I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, however, given that we have definitive proof that Google is known to work with the government. "I'm just saying...". Well, at least it's a step up from "I'm just asking!". Look, suspicion of government and authority (and media probably moreso) is generally speaking a good default, but if you're throwing concrete allegations about you need to have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise it's just scaremongering or conspiracy theory.

nl 10y ago

"Work with government" means lots of things. The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". There are other things where Google does work with the US and other governments. I believe they pass Flu Trends data to the CDC for example.... And which government branch do you think that Google is working with here? The #DNCLeaks thing is a anti-Hillary story, promoted mostly by bitter Bernie Sanders promoters. There are some Trump supporters jumping on too, but they seem a minority. It's inside-baseball for DNC wonks. I could see an argument that someone at Google is a Hillary Clinton supporter and therefore took it on themselves to take it down. That would be a dumb thing to do, but at least would make sense. But which government branch would try to get Google to do it? The White House wouldn't be so stupid - it would leak in an instant. Some secret three-letter agency? Why would they care? Some other department?

gkoberger 10y ago
You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp. Hillary and her supporters won't talk about it because it favors them, the DNC won't because they violated bylaws requiring impartiality, and the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC.
- nl 10y ago
  You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp. I think we mostly agree here? By the "#DNCLeak story" I mean the analysis of the emails as well as the leak itself - that's what is happening under that hashtag. the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC. The only thing I've seen on this is the "Chuck, this must stop" email. It's pretty clear that was a wish, not an order (otherwise why the follow up call). Anyone who's watched any political drama on TV has seen how often politicians offices call journalists to complain - I don't see much different here? Also, the media is reporting the leaks, pretty heavily. The NY Times[1] and CNN[2] amongst plenty of others both have major stories. I think I agree with everything else you say. (If it matters, I don't think Hillary is a great candidate, and wouldn't class myself as a supporter. I would have liked to see a much broader set of candidates in the Democratic race.) [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/ http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-ema...
woah 10y ago
Presidential candidates used to be nominated by party insiders. The primary system was supposed to allow the voters to choose democratic and republican candidates. It's been pretty clear this election that the Democratic Party has gone back to the old way. I don't personally object that much because I don't vote democrat, but it's not just "inside baseball". My guess is that you don't want to hear about it because you are rooting for the democrats.
colordrops 10y ago
> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. . Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification. Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?
  - colordrops 10y ago
    You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed. You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."
    - colordrops 10y ago
      Anyone care to elaborate why I'm being downvoted?
      - tombrossman 10y ago
        I didn't downvote you but if you read the comments guidelines[0] they are helpful and cover some of the comments you made above. As an aside, your profile says you signed up 1337 days ago and your karma is at 1358. Another 21 down-votes and your Hacker News profile page will looking pretty leet - I say go for it. Remember, it's just fake internet points, you can't spend them or do anything interesting with them. [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
paganel 10y ago
> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government". A Guardian article from September 2013, two-or-so-months after the Snowden leaks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs-tech-companies-paid https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost... > The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian. > While the ruling did not concern the Prism program directly, documents passed to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden describe the problems the decision created for the agency and the efforts required to bring operations into compliance. The material provides the first evidence of a financial relationship between the tech companies and the NSA. > An NSA newsletter entry, marked top secret and dated December 2012, discloses the huge costs this entailed. "Last year's problems resulted in multiple extensions to the certifications' expiration dates which cost millions of dollars for Prism providers to implement each successive extension – costs covered by Special Source Operations," it says. > An earlier newsletter, which is undated, states that the Prism providers were all given new certifications within days of the Fisa court ruling. "All Prism providers, except Yahoo and Google, were successfully transitioned to the new certifications. We expect Yahoo and Google to complete transitioning by Friday 6 October." Google only gave a bla-bla answer when asked about it: > Google did not answer any of the specific questions put to it, and provided only a general statement denying it had joined Prism or any other surveillance program. It added: "We await the US government's response to our petition to publish more national security request data, which will show that our compliance with American national security laws falls far short of the wild claims still being made in the press today." I'd say that you should revisit your believes when it comes to the relationship between the NSA and big SV companies.

lomnakkus 10y ago

> I'm not saying this particular theory is true. It's probably a mistake. So why are you repeating it? (It sounds like you don't even think it's true. What the use in repeating it, then?) > I'm just saying that it's completely reasonable to be suspicious and ask questions, however, given that we have definitive proof that Google is known to work with the government. "I'm just saying...". Well, at least it's a step up from "I'm just asking!". Look, suspicion of government and authority (and media probably moreso) is generally speaking a good default, but if you're throwing concrete allegations about you need to have some concrete evidence of wrongdoing. Otherwise it's just scaremongering or conspiracy theory.