3 ms·

> I'm not ignoring any facts. You most certainly are. Fact: They are willing to lie to me, and are unwilling to set up their systems in such a way that they d

> I'm not ignoring any facts. You most certainly are. Fact: They are willing to lie to me, and are unwilling to set up their systems in such a way that they don't have to lie to me. Fact: They could also set up the system in such a way that their user's data couldn't be mishandled, but they choose not to. Bonus Fact: They say that they store our data securely, but it's clear that they don't, if they can comply with a NSL. You keep making up excuses for them, but those don't matter. The facts matter. If I'm wrong, then it would be easy to prove, and I'd ask you to do so. > You're the one who is transforming "transparently obeying lawful warrants as they disclose they will" into "lying about data usage", or at least that's the best interpretation of what you're saying I can come up with. And what is factually wrong about that? If I ask them if my data is being mishandled, they'll tell me it isn't. And by not notifying me of breaches of my data, they are lying about the quality of the security of their system.

joshuamorton 9y ago
>And what is factually wrong about that? Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. That means that they do not lie to you about complying with court orders. They tell you in advance that they will comply with them. This isn't a case of Google saying "we will never give your data to the government" and then walking back on that. That would be lying. But they don't do that, they say > We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request (edited for formatting from [1]) So again, what is the lie? I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter. The design requirements to do that make such a system untenable for most clients, for example most corporate clients need data recovery features that are impossible in a system designed to meet your requirements. [1]: https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to me? OK > I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter. No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, many other organizations do it all the time. Google simply chooses not to.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn't let you redefine words. And yes there are providers that claim to offer such security. I've already explained why such offerings are unappealing to a large swath of consumers. There are mutually exclusive features that are more appealing to a wider group of consumers. Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      > Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying. > Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand? Not at all. I'm saying that Google could build their systems in such a way that they can't comply with an NSL. The reasons why they choose not to are irrelevant. It matters that they made that choice. Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        >But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. Yes, they will not share when your data is requested under an NSL until that NSL is lifted. This is stated clearly. Every other service provider is exactly the same way. No matter who your service provider is, they will act in the same way: possibly attempt to fight the order, turn the data over, and not tell you about it until the order is lifted. The only difference is that with certain end to end encrypted services, the data they hand over may not be useful (or it may be, metadata is often valuable and often can't be secured the same way). In other words, your super secure e2e encrypted mail service is still going to have to give user logs to the NSA, and they still won't tell you about it. So if that's what you consider lying, then literally every company in the US government's jurisdiction will lie to you about when certain data about you has been compromised. In other words, such a definition of "lying" is vacuous, and I'd ask you to give an example of a company either real or theoretical that does what you ask. >They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying. This, once again, comes down to your definition of securely. Your threat model is different than the average users'. To the average user, their data is stored securely. (Note: I'm also not sure where this claim is made, feel free to cite the place you're thinking of, I expect that Google is quite explicit in what they mean by "secure"). >Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional. Elsewhere you stated that you believe Google has backdoored your device via Gapps and is secretly transferring your data to their servers despite your having opted out. In this thread you've stated that you believe that Google " lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it", despite having no evidence of them either lying about what they do with data (as I've demonstrated at this point, they are crystal clear about what they do with data, you just have ideological disagreements with those things), nor any evidence of them lying about what data they collect (you haven't even provided supposed examples of this). Am I supposed to believe that if Google did provide such a feature, we wouldn't be having this exact same conversation, but with you stating that Google's secure option was secretly backdoored, and they had access to your data anyway?

joshuamorton 9y ago

>And what is factually wrong about that? Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. That means that they do not lie to you about complying with court orders. They tell you in advance that they will comply with them. This isn't a case of Google saying "we will never give your data to the government" and then walking back on that. That would be lying. But they don't do that, they say > We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google if we have a good-faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request (edited for formatting from [1]) So again, what is the lie? I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter. The design requirements to do that make such a system untenable for most clients, for example most corporate clients need data recovery features that are impossible in a system designed to meet your requirements. [1]: https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

CaptSpify 9y ago
> Because Google states that it will comply with such orders. So Google saying that it will lie to me means that they aren't going lying to me? OK > I already explained why 'designing a system so you can't comply with an NSL' is a nonstarter. No, you gave a poor excuse as to why Google won't do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, many other organizations do it all the time. Google simply chooses not to.
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. You may disagree with the policy, but that doesn't let you redefine words. And yes there are providers that claim to offer such security. I've already explained why such offerings are unappealing to a large swath of consumers. There are mutually exclusive features that are more appealing to a wider group of consumers. Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand?
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > Sharing your data in exactly the way they describe in their privacy policy is not lying. But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying. > Are you saying that Google is wrong to respond to consumer demand? Not at all. I'm saying that Google could build their systems in such a way that they can't comply with an NSL. The reasons why they choose not to are irrelevant. It matters that they made that choice. Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      >But they refuse to tell me when my data has been compromised. Yes, they will not share when your data is requested under an NSL until that NSL is lifted. This is stated clearly. Every other service provider is exactly the same way. No matter who your service provider is, they will act in the same way: possibly attempt to fight the order, turn the data over, and not tell you about it until the order is lifted. The only difference is that with certain end to end encrypted services, the data they hand over may not be useful (or it may be, metadata is often valuable and often can't be secured the same way). In other words, your super secure e2e encrypted mail service is still going to have to give user logs to the NSA, and they still won't tell you about it. So if that's what you consider lying, then literally every company in the US government's jurisdiction will lie to you about when certain data about you has been compromised. In other words, such a definition of "lying" is vacuous, and I'd ask you to give an example of a company either real or theoretical that does what you ask. >They also say that my data is stored securely, when it is not. That is lying. This, once again, comes down to your definition of securely. Your threat model is different than the average users'. To the average user, their data is stored securely. (Note: I'm also not sure where this claim is made, feel free to cite the place you're thinking of, I expect that Google is quite explicit in what they mean by "secure"). >Additionally, there is no reason that they couldn't make it optional. Elsewhere you stated that you believe Google has backdoored your device via Gapps and is secretly transferring your data to their servers despite your having opted out. In this thread you've stated that you believe that Google " lies about what they do with data, or how they collect it", despite having no evidence of them either lying about what they do with data (as I've demonstrated at this point, they are crystal clear about what they do with data, you just have ideological disagreements with those things), nor any evidence of them lying about what data they collect (you haven't even provided supposed examples of this). Am I supposed to believe that if Google did provide such a feature, we wouldn't be having this exact same conversation, but with you stating that Google's secure option was secretly backdoored, and they had access to your data anyway?