6 ms·

I'm glad that this is gonna be so close to the Bluffdale, UT NSA data center. Now they wont even have to build too much of their own cable to listen in on every

I'm glad that this is gonna be so close to the Bluffdale, UT NSA data center. Now they wont even have to build too much of their own cable to listen in on every single packet!

angersock 13y ago
Damn. Hadn't thought of that. :(
w1ntermute 13y ago
End-to-end encryption, folks. Fuck the NSA.
- a3n 13y ago
  The War on Citizens will make encryption illegal again.
javert 13y ago
The fact that this is close to Bluffdale only helps support (just a little bit) the likely thesis that Google has decided to ally itself with the US surveillance state (which is probably has little choice about anyway).
- clobber 13y ago
  It seems fact at this point :( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-...
  - jholman 13y ago
    TL;DR: trash-talking Google's record doesn't seem fair to me. Here are some things that are public knowledge: 1) Google considers some kind of network traffic to be attacks (obviously). Google claims (and no one doubts) that in some cases Google reports these attacks to law enforcement authorities, and to other companies believed to be affected. The main example of this that I'm aware of is Operation Aurora (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora ), the purported 2009 attack, allegedly by Chinese state actors. AIUI, this is the source of the Google/government collaboration mentioned in that Wired article that clobber linked. I think that any reasonable person would agree that this type of data-sharing between victims of crime and the government is not necessarily tantamount to "allying oneself with the surveillance state" (although a reasonable person could point out that once you start cooperating with governments, sometimes it's a slippery slope). 2) Google wants to position itself as a defender of user rights against governments. Maybe this is for-real, maybe this is bullshit; what do we know? We know that Google publishes a transparency report ( google.com/transparencyreport ) , you can read it for yourself. Google claims that they comply with the law, and thus obeys e.g. National Security Letters (including the gag orders that come with most NSLs). If you want to say that obeying legally-constituted surveillance law is necessarily "allying oneself with the surveillance state", well, maybe... but I dispute that this is in-general true. 3) Google also purports to push back the limits of this legal surveillance. For example, in the case of the IRS claiming (until a few days ago) that it can warrantlessly read your email, Google alleges that they refuse to respect such IRS demands, instead requiring a warrant. That is, Google claims to be daring the IRS to take Google to court, since Google thinks the IRS is overreaching their government authority. I cannot prove (or disprove) that Google is in fact doing as they claim, but if so, I see this as a mildly courageous act that protects civil society. For Google's claims about IRS email surveillance, see e.g. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279441-facebook-email-providers-require-warrant-for-private-data http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279441-f... (For full-on heroics, see John Doe vs Ashcroft, revealed to be Nicholas Merrill of Calyx, so mad props to him. Also see http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstit... , another piece of brave civil challenge to the same surveillance bullshit). ------ So, what's my point here? Look, we don't know that Google isn't doing sinister shit. Google knows a lot, and has a lot of secrets, so it's appropriate to be wary. (Knowing a lot is key to the huge benefits that Google provides, btw.) But I think we have basically zero evidence of this hypothetical sinister behaviour; all secret-sharing we know about is appropriate and above-board. And we have some meaningful evidence that Google is actively pursuing the public interest by resisting over-sharing (not that I'm claiming this is the #1 corporate goal). TL;DR: trash-talking Google's record doesn't seem fair to me. Disclaimer: I work at Google, I have a pro-Google bias, I have no insider knowledge of any of the things discussed in this comment, and if I did have insider knowledge I wouldn't post it on Hacker News.
    - clobber 13y ago
      I was more trashing the NSA's record because they ARE doing sinister shit. We just don't know 100% if Google is being forced to play along. I'd say it's really naive to think there would be public 'evidence' in the first place. You say it's unfair but I say it's critical thinking. Given the circumstance and the history, I'd say it's completely fair. Either way it's terrifying, wouldn't you agree?
      - jholman 13y ago
        I agree with almost all of this comment of yours (contrasted with the previous one). The NSA should be assumed to be invasive, we don't know how much Google is being forced to play along, there would be little or no public evidence. And critical thinking is good, especially given the circumstances and history. Your previous comment said that "the likely thesis that Google has decided to ally itself with the US surveillance state" was "seem[ingly] fact at this point". That's a completely different statement, and I strongly disagree with it; I do not think that is Google's decision or allegiance, nor that it's established fact. I think the parent to your comment accused Google of malfeasance, and I think that is neither critical thinking nor fair. Either way, I'm not personally terrified, but I do think it's worth awareness and resistance, on principle.
    - javert 13y ago
      I'm the one who claimed they seem to have "allyed themselves with the surveillance state," so I guess I'm really the one you're responding to. I wouldn't consider that to be trash talking, exactly, but I don't mind you saying that. I actually don't know many of the facts on the ground, as you do. I mean, you can cite evidence and provide links, and I can't. What I do know is that Google is a humongous red target painted on it that is screaming, "I have a huge proportion of all global email and lots of other kind of data! Governments and other malicious actors, come and get it if you can!" So, I think it's absolutely insane that so many of us trust Google with so much. I think we should all be encrypting everything as a matter of principle and policy, and I don't think we should all be using Google so much. I mean, how much of China's annual budget is devoted just to hacking Google via technical and social engineering means? Tens of millions of USD? That sounds very reasonable. That's what I'd be doing if I were on their side and had authority. Also, it's worth noting that individual rights are no longer considered absolutes in the US, and our legal system is currently in a trend of slow erosion. So, eventually, the government authorities are probably going to be able to demand whatever they want of Google. They possibly already have ways of doing this. As an aside, I don't begrudge you for working there. In fact, once I'm on the job market, I may even try to get a job there (not sure if they'd still have me, though, since I make the above point not infrequently).
- eco 13y ago
  I don't know how you can jump to that conclusion. Provo is one of the few municipalities with a fiber network already in place. Combined with Provo wanting to get out of the fiber business itself makes Provo uniquely suited for Google Fiber. Google probably didn't consider the fact that the NSA building was 20 miles away at all when making this decision because it has very little to do with their deployment. The NSA would tap backbones, not last mile fiber deployments.
  - javert 13y ago
    I'm not saying it has anything to do with directly tapping wires. I'm just saying that the DHS has an interest in building up infrastructure in this particular place. I didn't even know Google was interested in buying fiber deployments and redoing them. I thought they were trying to build them from scratch.
    - throwawaay 13y ago
      First, you imply that underlying intention behind the Fiber deployment in Provo is to make surveillance a piece of cake by practically serving up data on a platter. You admit no other possibility, since this "only helps support" your thesis. Then someone calls you on it, and you back off and say you weren't implying anything, just that [the NSA] has an interest in building up infrastructure there. Did you even consider the possibility that both parties might be coincidentally interested in Provo for entirely different reasons?
clobber 13y ago
This is an important point that will be ignored. But who cares since we can to sign into our facebooks with fiber internet, right?
- driverdan 13y ago
  The NSA is cracking your SSL encrypted Facebook session so they can read about what your friends had for breakfast. Right.
  - clobber 13y ago
    Oh yes, precisely my point rolls eyes. Since you seem to be aware of the NSA's intentions, aside from your sarcasm, perhaps you could explain the purpose of this data center: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean shady things aren't happening.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Just because the NSA is building a datacenter doesn't mean shady things are happening.
      - clobber 13y ago
        That's cute. Quite the shadow of the doubt you have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_pro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center But move along, nothing to see here!
      - thomasjames 13y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE

I'm glad that this is gonna be so close to the Bluffdale, UT NSA data center. Now they wont even have to build too much of their own cable to listen in on every single packet!

angersock 13y ago

Damn. Hadn't thought of that. :(

w1ntermute 13y ago

End-to-end encryption, folks. Fuck the NSA.

a3n 13y ago
The War on Citizens will make encryption illegal again.

javert 13y ago

The fact that this is close to Bluffdale only helps support (just a little bit) the likely thesis that Google has decided to ally itself with the US surveillance state (which is probably has little choice about anyway).

clobber 13y ago
It seems fact at this point :( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-...
- jholman 13y ago
  TL;DR: trash-talking Google's record doesn't seem fair to me. Here are some things that are public knowledge: 1) Google considers some kind of network traffic to be attacks (obviously). Google claims (and no one doubts) that in some cases Google reports these attacks to law enforcement authorities, and to other companies believed to be affected. The main example of this that I'm aware of is Operation Aurora (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora ), the purported 2009 attack, allegedly by Chinese state actors. AIUI, this is the source of the Google/government collaboration mentioned in that Wired article that clobber linked. I think that any reasonable person would agree that this type of data-sharing between victims of crime and the government is not necessarily tantamount to "allying oneself with the surveillance state" (although a reasonable person could point out that once you start cooperating with governments, sometimes it's a slippery slope). 2) Google wants to position itself as a defender of user rights against governments. Maybe this is for-real, maybe this is bullshit; what do we know? We know that Google publishes a transparency report ( google.com/transparencyreport ) , you can read it for yourself. Google claims that they comply with the law, and thus obeys e.g. National Security Letters (including the gag orders that come with most NSLs). If you want to say that obeying legally-constituted surveillance law is necessarily "allying oneself with the surveillance state", well, maybe... but I dispute that this is in-general true. 3) Google also purports to push back the limits of this legal surveillance. For example, in the case of the IRS claiming (until a few days ago) that it can warrantlessly read your email, Google alleges that they refuse to respect such IRS demands, instead requiring a warrant. That is, Google claims to be daring the IRS to take Google to court, since Google thinks the IRS is overreaching their government authority. I cannot prove (or disprove) that Google is in fact doing as they claim, but if so, I see this as a mildly courageous act that protects civil society. For Google's claims about IRS email surveillance, see e.g. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279441-facebook-email-providers-require-warrant-for-private-data http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/279441-f... (For full-on heroics, see John Doe vs Ashcroft, revealed to be Nicholas Merrill of Calyx, so mad props to him. Also see http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstit... , another piece of brave civil challenge to the same surveillance bullshit). ------ So, what's my point here? Look, we don't know that Google isn't doing sinister shit. Google knows a lot, and has a lot of secrets, so it's appropriate to be wary. (Knowing a lot is key to the huge benefits that Google provides, btw.) But I think we have basically zero evidence of this hypothetical sinister behaviour; all secret-sharing we know about is appropriate and above-board. And we have some meaningful evidence that Google is actively pursuing the public interest by resisting over-sharing (not that I'm claiming this is the #1 corporate goal). TL;DR: trash-talking Google's record doesn't seem fair to me. Disclaimer: I work at Google, I have a pro-Google bias, I have no insider knowledge of any of the things discussed in this comment, and if I did have insider knowledge I wouldn't post it on Hacker News.
  - clobber 13y ago
    I was more trashing the NSA's record because they ARE doing sinister shit. We just don't know 100% if Google is being forced to play along. I'd say it's really naive to think there would be public 'evidence' in the first place. You say it's unfair but I say it's critical thinking. Given the circumstance and the history, I'd say it's completely fair. Either way it's terrifying, wouldn't you agree?
    - jholman 13y ago
      I agree with almost all of this comment of yours (contrasted with the previous one). The NSA should be assumed to be invasive, we don't know how much Google is being forced to play along, there would be little or no public evidence. And critical thinking is good, especially given the circumstances and history. Your previous comment said that "the likely thesis that Google has decided to ally itself with the US surveillance state" was "seem[ingly] fact at this point". That's a completely different statement, and I strongly disagree with it; I do not think that is Google's decision or allegiance, nor that it's established fact. I think the parent to your comment accused Google of malfeasance, and I think that is neither critical thinking nor fair. Either way, I'm not personally terrified, but I do think it's worth awareness and resistance, on principle.
  - javert 13y ago
    I'm the one who claimed they seem to have "allyed themselves with the surveillance state," so I guess I'm really the one you're responding to. I wouldn't consider that to be trash talking, exactly, but I don't mind you saying that. I actually don't know many of the facts on the ground, as you do. I mean, you can cite evidence and provide links, and I can't. What I do know is that Google is a humongous red target painted on it that is screaming, "I have a huge proportion of all global email and lots of other kind of data! Governments and other malicious actors, come and get it if you can!" So, I think it's absolutely insane that so many of us trust Google with so much. I think we should all be encrypting everything as a matter of principle and policy, and I don't think we should all be using Google so much. I mean, how much of China's annual budget is devoted just to hacking Google via technical and social engineering means? Tens of millions of USD? That sounds very reasonable. That's what I'd be doing if I were on their side and had authority. Also, it's worth noting that individual rights are no longer considered absolutes in the US, and our legal system is currently in a trend of slow erosion. So, eventually, the government authorities are probably going to be able to demand whatever they want of Google. They possibly already have ways of doing this. As an aside, I don't begrudge you for working there. In fact, once I'm on the job market, I may even try to get a job there (not sure if they'd still have me, though, since I make the above point not infrequently).
eco 13y ago
I don't know how you can jump to that conclusion. Provo is one of the few municipalities with a fiber network already in place. Combined with Provo wanting to get out of the fiber business itself makes Provo uniquely suited for Google Fiber. Google probably didn't consider the fact that the NSA building was 20 miles away at all when making this decision because it has very little to do with their deployment. The NSA would tap backbones, not last mile fiber deployments.
- javert 13y ago
  I'm not saying it has anything to do with directly tapping wires. I'm just saying that the DHS has an interest in building up infrastructure in this particular place. I didn't even know Google was interested in buying fiber deployments and redoing them. I thought they were trying to build them from scratch.
  - throwawaay 13y ago
    First, you imply that underlying intention behind the Fiber deployment in Provo is to make surveillance a piece of cake by practically serving up data on a platter. You admit no other possibility, since this "only helps support" your thesis. Then someone calls you on it, and you back off and say you weren't implying anything, just that [the NSA] has an interest in building up infrastructure there. Did you even consider the possibility that both parties might be coincidentally interested in Provo for entirely different reasons?

clobber 13y ago

This is an important point that will be ignored. But who cares since we can to sign into our facebooks with fiber internet, right?

driverdan 13y ago
The NSA is cracking your SSL encrypted Facebook session so they can read about what your friends had for breakfast. Right.
- clobber 13y ago
  Oh yes, precisely my point rolls eyes. Since you seem to be aware of the NSA's intentions, aside from your sarcasm, perhaps you could explain the purpose of this data center: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/ Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean shady things aren't happening.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Just because the NSA is building a datacenter doesn't mean shady things are happening.
    - clobber 13y ago
      That's cute. Quite the shadow of the doubt you have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_co... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_electronic_surveillance_pro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center But move along, nothing to see here!
    - thomasjames 13y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9-3K3rkPRE