7 ms·
We do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy!
by betterunix 13y ago
We do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy!
- rasterizer 13y agoWhy aren't the rest of the companies on that list issuing false denials if that's the case?
- tyre 13y agoThey will in time. HN has been hit with links to new stories as each denies the 'direct access to their servers.' First came Google, then Apple, now Facebook. Regardless, they are purposefully missing the point. The average citizen isn't upset by the means of the private information sharing, but that it is going on in the first place. It is that 'providing only information required by law' sounds limiting, but if the law makes clever use of language to access a huge amount of data then that phrase doesn't mean anything.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chris_mahan 13y agoThat's what warrants are for.
- hga 13y agoMore specifically, narrow warrants. From a no longer operative document: "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- aylons 13y agoWarrants AND due process. It is very easy to get a warrant through a due process, with independent judges and registered probable cause and evidences for it. Eventual access to these documents are necessary so law enforcement agents must be liable for any possible mischief. Without the proper checks and balances, it becomes very easy to game the system and put us in a kafkian situation, or worse.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- throwaway420 13y agoExactly. Everybody can obviously read these companies' very carefully worded denials for themselves and see that there's enough wiggle room to drive a bus through.
- Sven7 13y agoEven if they are getting all this data(and they most likely have access), I find it highly improbable that the govt has access to the human resources (R&D/Engineering) required, to produce something useful. Just think about the teams they have to put together to build even reasonably useful tools.
- carbocation 13y agoThe same government that invented the nuclear bomb and provided feedback that protected DES's S boxes from differential cryptanalysis before it was publicly known to exist? I think you give it too little credit. The government does a bad job with citizen-facing software engineering. It's not clear that the same is true for defense and intelligence applications.
- Sven7 13y agoSure but the big difference today is the internet. Good luck trying to hire an Oppenheimer today and setting up Los Alamos in secret. Take a look at successful teams that already work with "big data" like at Wolfram Alpha or IBM's Watson. It is not at all easy to build such teams today. There aren't enough PhD's around, unless you are outsourcing to China. And then to step it up a level to Google's requirements we enter personal chefs and segway territory. I cant find the quote but Eric Schmidt has said multiple time what is hampering progress is not the lack of cash or infrastructure but talent. More than the privacy issues I have to wonder about the waste. Cause getting the data and the infrastructure to handle it is the "easy" part. Extracting actionable intelligence I doubt highly they will succeed. Will turn into a big cash sink, that no one will talk about as the costs need to be justified...until they cant be.
- rdouble 13y ago
- rasterizer 13y agoGoogle flatout says "no backdoors".
- betterunix 13y agoSending a copy of data to someone is not the same as creating a back door.
- aspensmonster 13y agoAnd what he described wasn't a back door.
- droopyEyelids 13y agoAll these denials cover one specific thing that they're not doing, not the spirit of all things that could be done. Mirroring all traffic to an additional destination isn't providing a back door, but it accomplishes much of the same function.
- monkmartinez 13y agoGoogle specifically says "no back doors". Why use a back door when the front door works... try before you pry.
- rasterizer 13y ago"Front door" is court orders and warrants: these are far less problematic.
- 13y ago
- btilly 13y agoWe do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy! Lest people think this is a joke, this is EXACTLY what the telecoms did under Bush that lead to Congress passing retroactive telecom immunity. Predictable outrage this time looks to me like outrage then, and I have no reason to believe that we won't see a similar legislative response. That said, in Google's case I believe them. This is the company that is going to court to stop the government from trying to get information about Google users with warrantless national security letters. FB on the other hand, I would expect to see providing technical support to the FBI about how to use their in house tools to more quickly analyze the dumps...
- pyre 13y ago| FB on the other hand, I would expect to see | providing technical support to the FBI about | how to use their in house tools to more quickly | analyze the dumps... According to Mark Zuckerberg: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" I'm surprised that he didn't beg the government to peruse his data to weed out all these 'phonies' that are polluting his perfect system. [Only half-joking]
- flyinRyan 13y agoOh now that is a hilarious quote. Mark fucking Zuckerberg talking about other people lacking integrity!
- rdtsc 13y ago> Congress passing retroactive telecom immunity. A very telling fact was that Obama was one of those voting for it as well. That told me at least who Obama was. I was never fooled by his hope and change rhetoric, that one action said all I wanted to know before he even started running for pres. Here is Sen Obama's 2008 reason for flip flopping on the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-giving-i_n_108370.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-gi... --- "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. ---
- Locke1689 13y agoThis is not true of Microsoft's statement.
- downandout 13y agoYes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology. It's not like this contingency wouldn't have been planned for - they all knew the gravity of their decision to enter into this. Those statements were likely provided to them by the Justice Department when they first came on board with PRISM in the event that the program ever came to light. A creative US Attorney likely concluded that this would be a legally defensible statement, even if it is wholly misleading.
- rdtsc 13y ago> Yes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology. Yap, it seems as if they got a set of "talking points". They can use certain words and phrases and still given some technicality get away with telling "truth" while effectively also telling lies. Some say how NSL (national security letters) are pretty draconian and imply personal liability for disclosure. And that is true perhaps but at the same time these agencies do want to get some cooperation and are perhaps willing to "help out" their co-conspirators so PR departments I imagine get a cheat-sheet -- "use these phrases as responses".
- dustingetz 13y agoFurthermore it seems apple fb google etc leapt at the chance to loudly deny using white listed talking points, knowing full well that the story was unfolding. They want the public to know they are gagged.