13 ms·
Google Admits Handing over European User Data to US Intelligence Agencies
- ditojim 15y agoThe first sentence of the article also mentions that Microsoft has been forced to do the same thing.
- ZoFreX 15y agoNo it doesn't: > Gordon Frazer, Microsoft UK's managing director, made news headlines some weeks ago when he admitted that Microsoft can be compelled to share data with the US government regardless of where it is hosted in the world.
- ditojim 15y agoRead between the lines. Don't be naive.
- ZoFreX 15y agoI'm not being naive, I'm being factually accurate. I would 100% agree with the statement "Microsoft has probably done the same", for example, but this article does not provide supporting evidence that they have.
- ditojim 15y agoThis is a news article. It sounds like you are assuming news=facts. Microsoft employs FUD in the media. In this case, they are making specific use of the U in FUD. They are neither confirming or denying that they have ever shared such information, thus one can safely assume they have. If they hadn't, they would come out and state that clearly.
- rjd 15y agoI went to a talk years ago by Microsoft just after they had opened some new data centres. The MS presenter showed a government data centre dab smack in-between MS, Google, and Yahoo!. I can't remember the complex name, it was near a hydro dam, sure it had Rose in the name. Basically the data centres where they for access to the higher quality grid and cheaper rates. He was pitching Singapore data centres and made the joke that US could just tap into any of the data centres with a warrant just like that. Then his laugh died in dry painful way leading more or less everyone in the audience to assume that the warrants had already been issued.
- yanw 15y agoCorporations based and operating in the US are subject to the PATRIOT Act, it's a shitty law but it's still the law. At least they are transparent about it. Edit: here is the article in question: http://www.wiwo.de/politik-weltwirtschaft/google-server-in-europa-vor-us-regierung-nicht-sicher-476338/ http://www.wiwo.de/politik-weltwirtschaft/google-server-in-e... They asked if their EU based dataceters are also subject to US warrants and they answered that they are.
- StrawberryFrog 15y ago"European Union legislation requires companies to protect the personal information of EU citizens" It's the law. What's more, it's a good law. I am concerned that they broke it, and seem to have tried to hide this.
- yanw 15y agoThe Patriot Act seems to trump EU law in many cases, as security fears oft trump privacy concerns. It's a good discussion to be had for sure, am I'm sure EU parliament members will debate it in length: They don't seem to have tried to hide anything. From another report: http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Google-also-passes-on-European-data-to-US-authorities-1319434.htmlN http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Google-also-passe... The previous Microsoft admission that sparked this line of questioning: http://www.h-online.com/news/item/US-authorities-have-access-to-European-cloud-data-1270961.html http://www.h-online.com/news/item/US-authorities-have-access... Relevant: the Google Transparency Report: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
- StrawberryFrog 15y agoHow does the "The Patriot Act seem to trump the EU law" ? In what sense? I reject the idea that a US law is more important in Europe than an European one. If that is what has happened, then it is wrong. If nothing was hidden, why is this policy only coming to light after the fact? There seems to be some degree of not wanting people to know.
- aik 15y ago"Do no evil" -- What do you think? Does this qualify as a breach of their motto? Or is it only a clear message to those who may have thought their Google data is private?
- watty 15y agoWhen the government (that your business operates) is requiring you to hand over data what do you do? Is it Google's fault or the US government? I certainly don't think complying with the law is "evil". If the law is bad, fix the law.
- rjd 15y agoWhile I'm an open critic of Google I don't think in this case its a breach of that motto. Maybe a failure to disclose obligations to users. Most people would understand the real culprit is the government. Microsoft and Amazon space there data centres geo graphically for a few reasons, and this is one of them.
- darklajid 15y agoI think the 'evil' part here is in this case the failure to disclose the fact(s). The law's evil as well, agreed. The government did evil things passing it, in my world. But that doesn't seem to be the reason for the 'Google did evil' claim here.
- dpatru 15y agoOne solution might be for Google to spin off its EU datacenter operations into a company incorporated outside of US jurisdiction. The Patriot Act would then no longer apply and Google would not be force to break EU law.
- arethuza 15y agoThey almost certainly have local operating companies that are wholly owned subsidiaries of the US parent company - just having a separate company isn't enough I suspect that separate ownership would also be requried.
- wisty 15y agoThey could set up special purpose vehicles, with very clear operating rules. That way, if the US asks, Google can say that they have no control over the subsidiary.
- omh 15y agoIf Google US has no control over Google EU then a number of issues could arise. Does Google EU have access to Google US data? What about the code that runs everything? What about profits - why would Google EU send profits back to Google US?
- wisty 15y agoIt's tricky, but no trickier than their accounting system ;) Google EU has a mission to "provide Google US with data hosting, and send profits back to the mothership". They have a contract, in which Google US grants free use of any code data that Google EU needs. Google EU has a strict constitution, which prevents them from disclosing data, even if Google US wants them to. This clause in their constitution states that it cannot be changed. If that's too extreme, they could allow the information to be released, but only if cleared by some specific third party. That's just a rough idea. I'm sure Google's lawyers could come up with something much better.
- 15y ago
- ujjvala 15y agoWhy are not user outraged?
- eis 15y agoCorporations operating in the EU are subject to EU data protection laws. It does not matter if the PATRIOT Act forces them to hand this data over. They are breaking the law in the EU. Google had two choices: 1. Don't hand over the data => they break the US law 2. Hand over the data => they break EU law plus hand over personal data of users who might not want that To me choice number one would be the lesser "evil" thing to do. The solution is to have completely separate entities of the company in the local jurisdictions. Those follow local law and only share data with their foreign sister companies in a lawful manner and otherwise can ignore foreign law. Of course this creates some complexities but it's the right way to do, everything else gets you into trouble and even huge companies as Google can't get around colliding laws from different jurisdictions. Handing over data to intelligence agencies is just one example of mutually exclusive laws. There are actually many more like data retention laws. The internet is probably the biggest challenge to international laws and treaties ever.
- wisty 15y agoWell, let's hope that legislators drag their feet on this, until good practices have been bedded down for them to codify.
- caf 15y agoThe PATRIOT Act is already surfacing as a competitive disadvantage for US-headquartered companies in foreign markets.
- iamelgringo 15y agoWeren't we just talking about this yesterday?.... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855764 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855764 Okay, not about this issue exactly, but the amount of data that Google collects on individuals is Law Enforcement's dream.
- nopinsight 15y agoThis is a clear example why China does not welcome US internet behemoths in their country. Who would want to give competitors easy access to their internal data?
- iwwr 15y agoIt's not as if EU governments have any more qualms about the privacy of their citizens.
- iwwr 15y agoThe only difference is the greater bureaucratic procedures in handling this data, but there is technically nothing off-limits (information-wise) to law-enforcement or security agencies. This is especially true in the wake of anti-terror legislation all across the EU. This will become more apparent as copyright lobbies are pushing for greater surveillance of internet users. The old adage that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' has been thoroughly incorporated into modern state doctrine. So downvote at will, but it would be nice to do so with some counter-arguments.
- meow 15y agoI think the requirement to be silent about handing over data is more for the corporations than the government. No wonder this remained secret for so long.
- omh 15y agoThe article doesn't mention the "Safe Harbor" provisions. This is a negotiated exception to EU Data Protection - roughly speaking, US companies can export the data to the US, as long as they promise to give equivalent protection. Google uses this to allow it to operate with personal data in the EU. If Google have exported the data to a US jurisdiction under Safe Harbor, then a subsequent PATRIOT Act request wouldn't need to involve any EU-stored data or EU companies. This seems like a much more general issue with exceptions like Safe Harbor, and something that people/companies should bear in mind. Promises like "equivalent" protection don't help with new local laws which can always trump anything.
- mattmanser 15y agoThat doesn't make one jot of sense. By complying with the request they immediately violated the safe harbor provision.
- omh 15y agoThey certainly violated the spirit, but may not have violated any actual rules. I could imagine that there's some exclusion in the safe harbor rules for "national security". It's not clear whether the Data Protection laws were ever designed to guard against national governments. I imagine that those who wrote them were really thinking about avoiding disclosure to private individuals or other companies.
- balpha 15y ago> According to German-language magazine WirtschaftsWoche, a Google spokesperson confirmed that the company has complied with requests from US intelligence agencies for data stored in its European data centers. This isn't true; the WirtschaftsWoche article doesn't claim this. It says this could happen, but the claim that this article says it already did happen is a lie. Not that this means it hasn't happened or is unlikely.
- darklajid 15y agoFrom the 'WirtschaftsWoche' article: Die US-Regierung könne "auf außerhalb der USA gespeicherte Daten zugreifen". Der Konzern habe schon viele solche Abfragen erhalten, schreibt ein Sprecher des Unternehmens. -- Rough, sorry: -- The US government is able to to access 'data stored outside the USA'. The company already got a large number of these requests, comments a spokesperson of the corporation. -- Put like this, next to each other, is a strong indicator (yeah, it's still on the edge) that they did, in fact, already comply in the past. First part is 'would/could/in theory' style, but the following sentence says they got these requests in the past and 'diese' (these) builds a rather strong link to the sentence before. So - I'm not 100% sure, but let's error on the side of caution: They did it in the past.
- balpha 15y ago"outside the USA" != "in Europe" I assume that WW would have used a much stronger phrasing, had the "Google spokesperson" actually said that. And a Google spokesperson is obviously careful when talking to the press. Yes, it's not unlikely that they did -- but Softpedia is blatantly misquoting here. They base their writing solely on the WW article, and that one doesn't include anything to back up the claim.
- paganel 15y agoHow to kill the President of the United States: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDZ574eh9Yw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDZ574eh9Yw
- antr 15y agoIf this had been the other way round, I can easily imagine this issue going to U.S. Congress, leading to hearings, etc.
- mattvot 15y agoHypothetical question that would never happen: What's to stop Google moving to Switzerland?
- d0ne 15y agoThis is a very real problem and provides case in point as to why everyone needs to start using client-side encryption for their data and communications. In some cases this is still currently impractical to do on a day to day basis but in others such as Email, Social Networking or Instant Messaging it is not[1][2]. [1] I'm involved with a company that recently launched a free tool that provides transparent client-side AES256 encryption for Facebook, Google+, Major Email apps among others. [2] https://www.socialfortress.com/ https://www.socialfortress.com/
- solid 15y agoThe Chrome extension is not working for me on Mac. When I click "options" nothing happens, and there's no confirmation that it's working.
- d0ne 15y agoWhat site are you visiting? There is no "options" option in Social Fortress. If you can email a detailed explanation to support@socialfortress.com and we will get back to you promptly.
- brudgers 15y agoI think there is a misunderstanding of the intent of this provision of the PATRIOT act. It's primary purpose is to serve US based companies by providing cover from shareholder activism and negative press when they are outed for providing such information; and to streamline the process of dealing with such requests because there is little to be gained from resistance through litigation. In other words, the PATRIOT act provides corporations with the least expensive option for providing user data and provides them with political and legal cover when they do so.
- trdlo 15y agoAny foreign corporations breaking EU law should not be allowed to operate in the EU.
- amatus 15y agoIt's not clear to me that these laws are mutually exclusive. 1. "the USA PATRIOT ACT, which states that companies incorporated in the United States must hand over data administered by their foreign subsidiaries if requested." 2. "European Union legislation requires companies to protect the personal information of EU citizens" It could be that the US gov't requested data on non-EU citizens which happened to be stored in EU data-centers.
- mikecaron 15y agoWe can't get Diaspora soon enough!
- dendory 15y agoThere's a huge need for people to start drifting to non-US based companies for everything that has to do with cloud storage or data, either that or force Google and such to offer solutions with end to end encryption that they have no access to.
- runjake 15y agoKey internet traffic choke points on US soil are monitored by the National Security Agency and people are surprised by this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Factory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Factory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T