4 ms·

So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter

by johansch 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago
Fail: Microsoft?
- johansch 10y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Ah, right, of course. Thanks!
- chopin 10y ago
  Microsoft has totally crushed any confidence in automatic updates. That would be enough for me to count them in. Why again should I trust them? I liked Windows 7. I set up an AD domain at home to use it. Now I feel forced to move to Linux.
zzzcpan 10y ago
Google is definitely in cahoots with the government and probably way deeper than Yahoo. Why would you even assume otherwise, given how much ties to the government they expose to the public these days?
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  Why would you assume they are? Do you have any proof to backup your theory? And try to provide actual proof.
  - Zigurd 10y ago
    > Why would you assume they are? Because the odds of Yahoo being exceptionally bad and anyone else being exceptionally good about this are extremely low. The intelligence agency doing this wants 100% coverage - it would be absurd not to. Everyone has been told to do this.
    - bitmapbrother 10y ago
      Just like I thought - you have no proof. Come back when you have actual proof to substantiate your bullshit.
- johansch 10y ago
  As a European I have to I assume all major US companies in this area are either infiltrated or willingly participating in pervasive surveillance. It's still interesting to know which companies have been actually exposed for this kind abuse of their customers' trust.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kuschku 10y ago
    I’ve said the same a few times before, sadly, I usually get downvoted for it. It’s impossible to trust Google (Search, Chrome, DNS, Fi, Voice, Android, etc) or other big US companies at all regarding this, so we need open source solutions. The US government is openly hostile to citizen of other countries, on the internet and in the real world, so relying on them not sending an NSL to Google to fuck you over is quite dumb. Personally, I built my own cloud for everything I need, and I run Firefox on Arch Linux.
  - M2Ys4U 10y ago
    Quite - and the European Court of Justice basically agrees with you too. Hence why Safe Harbor was anulled.
- generj 10y ago
  Google denied they have a similar program: For its part, Google was the most unequivocal. Spokesman Aaron Stein e-mailed: "We've never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: 'no way.'"[0] I wonder if Google could even run a program like this while keeping it secret. Yahoo had their program discovered within weeks, and public within a year. Stamos could easily have immediately gone public in a way which would have prevented him from being prosecuted - say posting a blog post about how hypothetically Yahoo would implement such a system at the governments request, forwarding this on to Bruce Scheiner, and then refusing to comment if such a "hypothetical" program actually existed. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-...
  - zzzcpan 10y ago
    Well, you know, it would be insane for any company to admit something like this.
    - generj 10y ago
      But it also would be insane to make a provably false statement, leaving you open to lawsuits and probably enraging any would be whistle blowers. It would be even more insane to make your false statement more false than it needs to be.
    - thomasahle 10y ago
      They could always reply something like what Microsoft did. “We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo,” Everybody else declined having received the request, Microsoft just declined doing exactly what the report said yahoo were doing. Seems a lot more "safe".

So, is this correct, in this context? Pass: Apple, Google Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo Unknown: Facebook, Twitter

tptacek 10y ago

Fail: Microsoft?

johansch 10y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-...
- tptacek 10y ago
  Ah, right, of course. Thanks!
chopin 10y ago
Microsoft has totally crushed any confidence in automatic updates. That would be enough for me to count them in. Why again should I trust them? I liked Windows 7. I set up an AD domain at home to use it. Now I feel forced to move to Linux.

zzzcpan 10y ago

Google is definitely in cahoots with the government and probably way deeper than Yahoo. Why would you even assume otherwise, given how much ties to the government they expose to the public these days?

bitmapbrother 10y ago
Why would you assume they are? Do you have any proof to backup your theory? And try to provide actual proof.
- Zigurd 10y ago
  > Why would you assume they are? Because the odds of Yahoo being exceptionally bad and anyone else being exceptionally good about this are extremely low. The intelligence agency doing this wants 100% coverage - it would be absurd not to. Everyone has been told to do this.
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    Just like I thought - you have no proof. Come back when you have actual proof to substantiate your bullshit.
johansch 10y ago
As a European I have to I assume all major US companies in this area are either infiltrated or willingly participating in pervasive surveillance. It's still interesting to know which companies have been actually exposed for this kind abuse of their customers' trust.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kuschku 10y ago
  I’ve said the same a few times before, sadly, I usually get downvoted for it. It’s impossible to trust Google (Search, Chrome, DNS, Fi, Voice, Android, etc) or other big US companies at all regarding this, so we need open source solutions. The US government is openly hostile to citizen of other countries, on the internet and in the real world, so relying on them not sending an NSL to Google to fuck you over is quite dumb. Personally, I built my own cloud for everything I need, and I run Firefox on Arch Linux.
- M2Ys4U 10y ago
  Quite - and the European Court of Justice basically agrees with you too. Hence why Safe Harbor was anulled.
generj 10y ago
Google denied they have a similar program: For its part, Google was the most unequivocal. Spokesman Aaron Stein e-mailed: "We've never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: 'no way.'"[0] I wonder if Google could even run a program like this while keeping it secret. Yahoo had their program discovered within weeks, and public within a year. Stamos could easily have immediately gone public in a way which would have prevented him from being prosecuted - say posting a blog post about how hypothetically Yahoo would implement such a system at the governments request, forwarding this on to Bruce Scheiner, and then refusing to comment if such a "hypothetical" program actually existed. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-...
- zzzcpan 10y ago
  Well, you know, it would be insane for any company to admit something like this.
  - generj 10y ago
    But it also would be insane to make a provably false statement, leaving you open to lawsuits and probably enraging any would be whistle blowers. It would be even more insane to make your false statement more false than it needs to be.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    They could always reply something like what Microsoft did. “We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo,” Everybody else declined having received the request, Microsoft just declined doing exactly what the report said yahoo were doing. Seems a lot more "safe".