11 ms·
Google tried to resist FBI requests for data, but the FBI took it anyway
- andyl 13y agoIf you don't want Google giving your data to the FBI, then don't use google. Oh - wait - Google is gonna get your data no matter what. Google Analytics.
- w1ntermute 13y agohttp://www.ghostery.com/ http://www.ghostery.com/
- qwertzlcoatl 13y agoIs this getting downvoted because of advertising or because of the integrity of the software?
- jlgreco 13y agoCurrently, the comment's font color is black. It appears gray for you because you have visited that site.
- eightyone 13y agoWhy is the text so small?
- jlgreco 13y agoAre you using chrome on android? It does that for some idiotic reason.
- eightyone 13y agoNope, I was using Safari on the latest version of iOS. I'm on my laptop now and it looks normal.
- bluetooth 13y agoFor some reason, comments on HN appear with seemingly random font sizes when viewed on mobile. I've seen it on both android and iOS.
- maskedinvader 13y ago+1 i see the same behavior on my android, but don't see the issue on the desktop !
- robbiep 13y agoI always thought it was due to a comment being of less than a certain number of characters, as a way of diminishing throwaway comments that may generally not add much to a debate. I guess not?
- Terretta 13y agoThe software works well and the company has been very open.
- Steko 13y agoI found blocking GAnalytics broke too many websites (although that may be poor design of those sites). There's an opt out[1] which I'm sure is carefully worded that if enough people used it they could still track us but at least websites load. [1] https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
- throwaway2048 13y agoBoth Ghosterly and NoScript have a built in ability to unbreak sites that have tight Google Analytics integration. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5182359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5182359 not sure if this applies to Chrome versions, but if you are using Chrome, and dont trust Google, im not really sure what you are thinking.
- kyllo 13y agoDoesn't Google Analytics just collect metadata that you're sending in your HTTP requests anyway? And basic tracking cookies for distinguishing unique users/visits? I don't think there's really a reasonable expectation of privacy for that sort of data. You're already sharing it with every other website you visit.
- DominikR 13y agoYou could also stop using the internet altogether, because someone is going to provide an analytics service, even if Google didn't.
- DominikR 13y agoWhat I was trying to say is that the problem is not some company, but the government itself.
- SquareWheel 13y agoGoogle Analytics doesn't profile users - it's aggregate data for webmasters.
- josephlord 13y agoCan you prove that Google doesn't gather that data for themselves?
- throwaway2048 13y agoif it doesn't profile users, how is it able to supply you with the demographics of your visitors?
- pyvek 13y agoYou just see some pretty statistics but you don't know (and possibly can't) what happens behind the scenes.
- pavs 13y agoHow to be completely Anonymous on the internet: http://www.slashgeek.net/2012/06/15/how-to-be-completely-anonymous-online/ http://www.slashgeek.net/2012/06/15/how-to-be-completely-ano...
- easong 13y agohttps://disconnect.me/ https://disconnect.me/ Also blocks as many other tracking scripts as can be found. I've found it to be faster than ghostery etc.
- afhof 13y agoThis is isn't specific to Google, and I would go further and say that ISPs are a much juicier target than Google. ISPs have the raw access to all your traffic and wilt more easily when pressed by law enforcement (eg Carnivore). I don't think there is an easy way to solve this. From law enforcement's perspective, big tech companies have already done the hard work of getting users' data; all they need is a warrant or a NSL or any other magic ticket. That is the problem we should solve. Disclaimer: I work on Google Analytics.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> This is isn't specific to Google, and I would go further and say that ISPs are a much juicier target than Google. This statement probably would have made more sense when Google wasn't an ISP.
- angryasian 13y agoI don't even understand the ignorance of this comment every major tech company had been cited as participating and especially the isp's. Google analytics is nothing in comparason to what the isp's know
- gelnior 13y agoYeah there are plenty alternatives now like Cozy Cloud or Owncloud. https://www.cozycloud.cc/ https://www.cozycloud.cc/ http://owncloud.org/ http://owncloud.org/
- kiba 13y agoEven if we could trust google to fight for our interest, we may not be able to trust our governments to do the right thing.
- marssaxman 13y agoHere in the USA, we can trust our government not to do the right thing.
- mrschwabe 13y agoOh OK Google "tries" to resist FBI requests, but how about requests from the NSA? Top secret: http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_house.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_...
- dschiptsov 13y agoCompanies like Google, FB, Tweeter even Amazon and Opera are intentionally built to collect, mine and analyze, then sell (or profit from) its user's data. This is just a standard way of making money - collect a huge dataset of user-generated data and then monetize it. No wonder that authorities will use the data, because, well, it is just business as usual.)
- mtgx 13y agoSure, but let's say there was a very popular e-mail company where you paid for the service. They would be keeping your e-mail anyway. Do you really think it would make any difference for NSA/FBI? They'd still get them just as easily as from Google, Apple and others.
- rpgmaker 13y agoMisleading headline. Google fought that one time but it's been years since they've been part of PRISM.
- alexandrosjanis 13y agoPRISM is the NSA. This article was about the FBI. The FBI has always had less access to SIGINT than the FBI. The NSA has one purpose: SIGINT. The FBI is a much broader and, in this sphere, weaker authority.
- krugmanlol 13y agoLol whatever
- AddisonRyan 13y agoAre people actually upset with Google and the other tech companies over all of this? It seems they were legally compelled to do it. Be furious at Washington, not Silicon Valley.
- b6 13y agoIn this case, I would be happy if some CEO refused, breaking the law in support of a higher principle.
- FireBeyond 13y agoGood luck finding someone who is willing to risk his own reputation and livelihood, including hireability (after he and the company have the shit sued out of them by their shareholders, including institutional investors), as well as the livelihood of his employees.
- b6 13y agoI understand. But the world would be totally different and much better if people didn't cave in like this.
- adventured 13y agoVery few people don't cave when you put a gun to their head (NSA information demands like this require the direct supporting threat of violence as an or-else).
- wavefunction 13y agoThese guys have millions of dollars already, and just think about the goodwill generated from standing up on principle. We're not at the point where the government can seize their assets "because f___ you, that's why" They're just as cowardly as many others facing this situation, except the CEO has a lot less to lose (if you can understand this paradox, cheers)
- mtgx 13y ago300,000 NSL's? Is that really how many terrorist plots they've foiled or even suspected? Because I'm very skeptical about that. The fact that the government can put a gag order 300,000 times on companies and people like this is insane. Forget about "future abuses". It has already happened and keeps happening. It's pretty clear the government is very loosely using these NSL's now. Where are the checks and balance?
- e40 13y agoWe found out the PATRIOT Act was really used for drug enforcement[1] so I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with NSLs. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-ac...
- flyinRyan 13y ago>It's pretty clear the government is very loosely using these NSL's now Now? It's never been any other way. I wonder if they ever intended anything else.
- EGreg 13y agoLet me get this straight, when you receive an NSL from the FBI (executive branch) then you are not allowed by law to contest it in court (because of the gag order) without fearing repercussions for violating the gag order by revealing the NSL to the executive branch? Where are the checks and balances??
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chiph 13y agoYou aren't even allowed to contact counsel for advice.
- EGreg 13y agoWhat happened to this: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14254522342/shocker-court-says-national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-bans-them.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14254522342/shocke...
- kahirsch 13y agoYou are allowed to contest it and Google did contest it. This is true since, at least, 2006. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3511 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3511
- jordanthoms 13y agoSo what happens if you tell them to go away anyway? They take you to court? Raid your datacenter? Good luck getting public support for that. Seems the problem with these secret orders is, you can't actually _enforce_ them without making them public, you can just make threatening gestures. I'm dissapointed no tech company has decided to play hardball on this...
- bobsy 13y agoWouldn't defying the court order mean you are breaking the law? I wonder what that would mean in terms of fines and possible legal implications for the directors? I am sure the Government would say that the company is with holding data essential to counter-terrorism. With a bit of Government spin I don't see how the tech company could come off positively from making such a stand.
- ljf 13y agoThey would accuse you of 'supporting terrorism' and 'aiding the enemy' - both of which can come with lengthy jail terms. Pretty sure that no matter how outraged you or I might be by this, the person in the street would believe the spin: 'I can't believe company X really wants to support terrorists by keeping information from those that are trying to make this country safe'. Look at the lack of outrage at the treatment of Manning (or god forbid the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay - most held without charge with no hope of a trial, simply still held because no (friendly) country will take them - and you know we can't have them going home now can we...)
- Tosh108 13y agoHow does this effect foreign users of these services? I mean I'm pretty sure that they haven't restricted their data collection to US citizens. Is there international law about this?
- danso 13y agoUh, the NSA's primary mission is to conduct data surveillance on foreign entities. The reason why PRISM exists is that much of this data flows through American companies' servers.
- Tosh108 13y agoOf course. Just surprised that EU politicians don't take the chance to gain some popularity by screaming that they're angry at the US.
- andrewmccall 13y agoDon't worry, they will.
- neaanopri 13y agoI'm surprised google didn't go public with all of this information. They have more legitimacy and support than the government at this point, and I think that if push came to shove, google would just refuse and call the NSA's bluff.
- pcx66 13y agoI can't help but wonder how such a system can be practically implemented. I cannot imagine that engineers at companies like Google, Apple, MS etc, the ones working on stuff like Gmail, YouTube, iOS, would co-operate with such unethical practices. But it has been proved again and again that authority trumps conscious.
- Silhouette 13y agoThis is a classic "technology is neutral" situation, or if you prefer, "social problems don't have technical solutions". I'm sure some of the technologies I've worked on during my professional career could be used to do things under ethically dubious circumstances. They could also be used to do the exact same things with a sound ethical and legal basis that almost everyone would agree was reasonable. And they could also be used to do many other completely unrelated and useful things where there is no ethical dilemma at all. Context is everything. I would guess that the majority of people who work in any kind of manufacturing or information services industry could say the same thing, probably including technicians working on communications systems at the kinds of organisation you mentioned. Most of those people have no way to know or influence the way their work will ultimately be used further down the line. Society is too big and too complex to expect action or accountability for everything at that level. That means the only practical position is to say that responsibility for (mis)use of general purpose tools must lie with the (mis)user, and if the system isn't working, that is the level where any fixes need to be applied.
- Quarrelsome 13y agoWait.... if I use Google Analytics on a site this implies that the IPs of every visitor to the site is available to the NSA? Correct?
- grandalf 13y agoSomeone high up at Google could have risked jail time if the issue mattered. None did. That says it all.
- _progger_ 13y agoProbably not as easy as resisting paying proper taxes...
- malandrew 13y agoCould they just partition user data so that data locality on citizens of country X are located in country Y and therefore outside the jurisdiction of country X. When you sign up, they could make this an option. "Do you prefer faster access to your data or have you data located in a specific jurisdiction?"
- chrisgd 13y agoSays google