3 ms·

From the 2nd page of the article : “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data,” a company spokesman said. “We disclose user data to government

From the 2nd page of the article : “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data,” a company spokesman said. “We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.”

sneak 13y ago
They are legally required, personally and individually, to lie about the existence of these programs, or go to prison instantly. These orders are gag-ordered by default.
- greedo 13y ago
  I doubt that Steve Jobs or Ballmer would "go to prison instantly" if they had disclosed the existence of these programs. Yes, they might have been prosecuted under statute, but they wouldn't vanish. In fact, the high visibility of Brin, Jobs, Ballmer etc would probably have been a deterrent against prosecution. Can you imagine the outrage if Jobs came out with a statement saying that the NSA was requiring that Apple grant access to all user data, and he was then incarcerated?
  - sneak 13y ago
    Jobs was an elitist, knows-better-than-you prick. AFAICT he was fine with this kind of "trust us" nanny state bullshit. Apple does the same "we'll decide for you" stuff by policy as a matter of course. We can assume that Cook, who appeared behind Obama during The State of the Union, is probably on the same page. Highly powerful people know they can't fight the tide; and truly, why should they? The normal rules could never apply to them.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    If you're going to build something like PRISM because the ends justify the means, is prison really going to be the only thing you threaten people with?
- nijk 13y ago
  Simply not true. They are forbidden from disclosing individual cases. Google files Transparency Reports all the time announcing that the government compels them to release user data unwillingly.

sneak 13y ago

They are legally required, personally and individually, to lie about the existence of these programs, or go to prison instantly. These orders are gag-ordered by default.

greedo 13y ago
I doubt that Steve Jobs or Ballmer would "go to prison instantly" if they had disclosed the existence of these programs. Yes, they might have been prosecuted under statute, but they wouldn't vanish. In fact, the high visibility of Brin, Jobs, Ballmer etc would probably have been a deterrent against prosecution. Can you imagine the outrage if Jobs came out with a statement saying that the NSA was requiring that Apple grant access to all user data, and he was then incarcerated?
- sneak 13y ago
  Jobs was an elitist, knows-better-than-you prick. AFAICT he was fine with this kind of "trust us" nanny state bullshit. Apple does the same "we'll decide for you" stuff by policy as a matter of course. We can assume that Cook, who appeared behind Obama during The State of the Union, is probably on the same page. Highly powerful people know they can't fight the tide; and truly, why should they? The normal rules could never apply to them.
- philwelch 13y ago
  If you're going to build something like PRISM because the ends justify the means, is prison really going to be the only thing you threaten people with?
nijk 13y ago
Simply not true. They are forbidden from disclosing individual cases. Google files Transparency Reports all the time announcing that the government compels them to release user data unwillingly.