5 ms·

Unfortunately, I think this headline can be generally stated as the following and still be true in most cases: X listening in on Y - Z doesn't give a shit if y

Unfortunately, I think this headline can be generally stated as the following and still be true in most cases: X listening in on Y - Z doesn't give a shit if you approve. Where X is any major world government, Y is any major commercial communication system and Z is the vendor of that system. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. The US government, for one, doesn't even really bother to hide the massive amount of general sigint scanning they do online anymore nor the fact that they routinely compel large carriers to be complicit in making this as easy as possible.

fauigerzigerk 14y ago
I wouldn't generalize that far, because by doing so you punish companies (like Google) who do their best to side with their users. What Microsoft (and many other companies) want you to believe is that they only do what is legally required of them. Clearly, they go way beyond that, and we should take note.
- krichman 14y ago
  Google routinely hands out the entirety of your gmail data to the US. I don't think that's really doing their best to side with users.
  - jxi 14y ago
    It's different if the main country you're operating in has warrants to access your data. As a counter example, Google left China and instead operates out of HK now because they weren't willing to let the government eavesdrop on your search results.
    - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
      But Gmail only first offered HTTPS about two years ago...
      - harshreality 14y ago
        Available for over 4 years, default for nearly 3 years: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier... http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... Please save your criticism for Yahoo, which still does not use SSL for anything except the login form and account info editing. Only premium accounts get the privilege of SSL for mail. Hotmail might have been improved since then, but about a year ago SSL was disabled by default in account settings. Google wasn't the first to offer SSL encryption for webmail access, but Google is far better than the other major U.S. based email providers.
        IheartApplesDix 14y ago
        What a load of marketing BS. big deal if it was 2 years or 4 years, it was still trivial to implement even on 10 year old hardware.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      It's different if the main country you're operating in has warrants to access your data. -- No warrants needed for gmail, are there? Gmail older than 6m is like "public garbage" and feds can go thru it all they want.
      - rdl 14y ago
        That overstates the case a little. Public garbage is literally public. I can go to your cans (if they're on the street) and grab stuff. The government can. Zero restriction. Email over 6m old (under ECPA) doesn't require a warrant, but it's still protected more than trash. A private citizen can't just grab it -- it would require something like a subpoena (depending on terms of service). Even the government needs to assert the information is needed for some lawful purpose. Far less than a warrant, but still more than trash.
        001sky 14y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I do think the comfort of requiring a warrant comes form the fact it is Judicial (so check and balance applies). If all it takes is a prosecutor signing off, for example, a "lawful purpose" would run the risk of being pre-texted.
        rdl 14y ago
        I'm still vastly more afraid of regular criminals than I am of any part of the US Government. I'm also more afraid of specific foreign governments acting in the US (or to me when I leave the US) than I am of the US Government. That's not to say the USG is a great friend or anything.
        001sky 14y ago
        Agree with you on the whole here. A criminal would need to steal, not ask the data. Again, this is a good point. Its not that easy to get by google for a basic criminal, etc. The issue with the Gmail/cloud data & the fed's is that the pre-text can be off-topic. Once they are "in" your email/data (like, your multi-year archive or cloud storage) for some minor infraction, you have no privacy for your whole life in all areas. Even if you are not requiring a warrant, how do you protect from something like the bradley manning case? One person with access to stuff well beyond his need to know...just one bad apple all it takes in that case...all of that follows is ripe for abuse. So that is the issue in part as well.
  - fauigerzigerk 14y ago
    So what does Google not do for their users that they could legally do?
  - lurchpop 14y ago
    patraeus

fauigerzigerk 14y ago

I wouldn't generalize that far, because by doing so you punish companies (like Google) who do their best to side with their users. What Microsoft (and many other companies) want you to believe is that they only do what is legally required of them. Clearly, they go way beyond that, and we should take note.

krichman 14y ago
Google routinely hands out the entirety of your gmail data to the US. I don't think that's really doing their best to side with users.
- jxi 14y ago
  It's different if the main country you're operating in has warrants to access your data. As a counter example, Google left China and instead operates out of HK now because they weren't willing to let the government eavesdrop on your search results.
  - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
    But Gmail only first offered HTTPS about two years ago...
    - harshreality 14y ago
      Available for over 4 years, default for nearly 3 years: http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier... http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-for-gmail.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/default-https-access-f... Please save your criticism for Yahoo, which still does not use SSL for anything except the login form and account info editing. Only premium accounts get the privilege of SSL for mail. Hotmail might have been improved since then, but about a year ago SSL was disabled by default in account settings. Google wasn't the first to offer SSL encryption for webmail access, but Google is far better than the other major U.S. based email providers.
      - IheartApplesDix 14y ago
        What a load of marketing BS. big deal if it was 2 years or 4 years, it was still trivial to implement even on 10 year old hardware.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    It's different if the main country you're operating in has warrants to access your data. -- No warrants needed for gmail, are there? Gmail older than 6m is like "public garbage" and feds can go thru it all they want.
    - rdl 14y ago
      That overstates the case a little. Public garbage is literally public. I can go to your cans (if they're on the street) and grab stuff. The government can. Zero restriction. Email over 6m old (under ECPA) doesn't require a warrant, but it's still protected more than trash. A private citizen can't just grab it -- it would require something like a subpoena (depending on terms of service). Even the government needs to assert the information is needed for some lawful purpose. Far less than a warrant, but still more than trash.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I do think the comfort of requiring a warrant comes form the fact it is Judicial (so check and balance applies). If all it takes is a prosecutor signing off, for example, a "lawful purpose" would run the risk of being pre-texted.
        rdl 14y ago
        I'm still vastly more afraid of regular criminals than I am of any part of the US Government. I'm also more afraid of specific foreign governments acting in the US (or to me when I leave the US) than I am of the US Government. That's not to say the USG is a great friend or anything.
        001sky 14y ago
        Agree with you on the whole here. A criminal would need to steal, not ask the data. Again, this is a good point. Its not that easy to get by google for a basic criminal, etc. The issue with the Gmail/cloud data & the fed's is that the pre-text can be off-topic. Once they are "in" your email/data (like, your multi-year archive or cloud storage) for some minor infraction, you have no privacy for your whole life in all areas. Even if you are not requiring a warrant, how do you protect from something like the bradley manning case? One person with access to stuff well beyond his need to know...just one bad apple all it takes in that case...all of that follows is ripe for abuse. So that is the issue in part as well.
- fauigerzigerk 14y ago
  So what does Google not do for their users that they could legally do?
- lurchpop 14y ago
  patraeus