6 ms·

What's become very clear is that there is a lot of careful parsing going on. Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very c

What's become very clear is that there is a lot of careful parsing going on. Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very careful interpretation of the words on the page. Does Google give anyone, any company, any entity, anyone at all direct access to their data? They've specifically excluded NSA. Does NSA subcontract that to Booz Allen Hamilton? Google claims that no government has this access, what about one of the 1200+ Top Secret cleared contracting companies? Can these companies officially comment on this stuff yet? Or are they violating court orders if they talk about it? I like Google, I really want to trust them and I think they've moved the needle in our industry in some very positive ways. Honestly though, I think they could make much much stronger statements about this stuff. I expect them to say stuff like this to keep up with appearances.

ralfd 13y ago
Did you read Larry's blog post? He didn't rule out the NSA, he did rule out the USgovernment period. Quote: > Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.
- Nelson69 13y ago
  I did read it, with the dozens of other articles and such it's blurred together. He did rule out the US Government, does that rule out contractors? Does that rule out Verizon? What if Google has data in someone else' datacenter? That's specifically what they said the US government doesn't have direct access to. Do they give carte blanch access to their data to ANYONE? Regardless of the datacenter. If they don't they can say that.
  - aiiane 13y ago
    No one gets carte blanch access. Even Googlers don't get carte blanch access.
- HoochTHX 13y ago
  And yet this still misses more important issues. While it is fantastic that Google does not give the USG a free pass to the whole enchilada, Google still collects and stores this data, and gives it when compelled, if they truly had the users best interests in mind they would reduce the data collected to only what they MUST have to do what they do, and not use Vacuum cleaner like methods to get and keep everything they can, if Google did not keep it, the USG would not want it. So the best way for Google to be a part of the solution would be to reduce what they intake and keep, burn the rest.
  - aiiane 13y ago
    What do you consider to be "what they do"?
  - mortehu 13y ago
    https://www.google.com/dashboard https://www.google.com/dashboard provides an overview over your data at Google. Most/all of these services have permanent delete buttons. It is possible to permanently erase or disable your search history from here: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54067?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54067?hl=en You can opt out of Google Analytics using this add-on: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout
Avenger42 13y ago
The quote is: Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. He doesn't say "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information directly to the government..." As such, I think you can either take it as "we don't disclose anything to anyone, or you can say that the sentence isn't true.
- outside1234 13y ago
  what does "on such a scale" mean? i mean it could be 40% of what we think it is and its still scary.
  - Avenger42 13y ago
    Based on the sentence two lines before it, it likely means "millions of users": > we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. [...] Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.
  - ralfd 13y ago
    Larry Page links to a Google "transparency report" in his blog post which gives a rough figure: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US
- greyman 13y ago
  No, the quote is still vague and I agree with Nelson69. He could easily say that "we don't provide any access to gov, nor to their subcontractors nor to any other entity,..." - if that would be true.
Avenger42 13y ago
I also wanted to point out this: > Honestly though, I think they could make much much stronger statements about this stuff. They can't really, though - they do cooperate with the government on a ton of properly-filed, fully-legal subpoenas. And that's fine, that's what they have to do, and it's what every other company in the world would do - though we should all push our government(s) to be more transparent about what they're requesting and why.
rayiner 13y ago
> Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very careful interpretation of the words on the page. There is no "careful parsing" of the Constitution going on. Just people who never read the document very carefully other than what they thought the teacher said in 8th grade. This is the entirety of the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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." If any "parsing" is going on, it's creative parsing to make the argument that information you freely handed over to Google and AT&T, or indeed information that was never even in your possession but was generated by AT&T (e.g. call data records, web server logs) is somehow your "papers or effects." Tell me how that is anything other than creative parsing? How is a document that you never even had in your possession somehow your private information?
- DougWebb 13y ago
  How is a document that you never even had in your possession somehow your private information? Have you been to a doctor? Have you seen that folder full of your medical information? Have you ever possessed it? Most likely not, but that is your private information and there are very strict rules about how it is handled and who can access its contents.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Those rules are all statutory. There is no Constitutional protection for those documents.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Congress can repeal HIPAA.
- kalkin 13y ago
  Really? You don't think of information in your Gmail or Google Drive as personal "papers or effects"? Would you be fine with a Google employee reading through your email or your spreadsheets in order to figure out whether you were working on a product that might compete with one of Google's, or maybe because they ran across your profile on a dating site and wanted to check up on you? If so, I think you're unusual. In a world where important documents are increasingly electronic, and electronic stuff is increasingly routinely backed up, transmitted through, or just stored on remote servers, people's personal papers will be increasingly in the possession of others. I won't argue that it's impossible to read the Constitution so that it becomes a set of meaningless restrictions on outdated technologies--legal text is never deterministic and always subject to multiple interpretations--but it's certainly not unreasonable for somebody to have "read the document very carefully" and found it more robust and relevant than you do.

ralfd 13y ago

Did you read Larry's blog post? He didn't rule out the NSA, he did rule out the USgovernment period. Quote: > Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.

Nelson69 13y ago
I did read it, with the dozens of other articles and such it's blurred together. He did rule out the US Government, does that rule out contractors? Does that rule out Verizon? What if Google has data in someone else' datacenter? That's specifically what they said the US government doesn't have direct access to. Do they give carte blanch access to their data to ANYONE? Regardless of the datacenter. If they don't they can say that.
- aiiane 13y ago
  No one gets carte blanch access. Even Googlers don't get carte blanch access.
HoochTHX 13y ago
And yet this still misses more important issues. While it is fantastic that Google does not give the USG a free pass to the whole enchilada, Google still collects and stores this data, and gives it when compelled, if they truly had the users best interests in mind they would reduce the data collected to only what they MUST have to do what they do, and not use Vacuum cleaner like methods to get and keep everything they can, if Google did not keep it, the USG would not want it. So the best way for Google to be a part of the solution would be to reduce what they intake and keep, burn the rest.
- aiiane 13y ago
  What do you consider to be "what they do"?
- mortehu 13y ago
  https://www.google.com/dashboard https://www.google.com/dashboard provides an overview over your data at Google. Most/all of these services have permanent delete buttons. It is possible to permanently erase or disable your search history from here: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54067?hl=en https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/54067?hl=en You can opt out of Google Analytics using this add-on: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout

Avenger42 13y ago

The quote is: Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. He doesn't say "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information directly to the government..." As such, I think you can either take it as "we don't disclose anything to anyone, or you can say that the sentence isn't true.

outside1234 13y ago
what does "on such a scale" mean? i mean it could be 40% of what we think it is and its still scary.
- Avenger42 13y ago
  Based on the sentence two lines before it, it likely means "millions of users": > we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. [...] Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.
- ralfd 13y ago
  Larry Page links to a Google "transparency report" in his blog post which gives a rough figure: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US
greyman 13y ago
No, the quote is still vague and I agree with Nelson69. He could easily say that "we don't provide any access to gov, nor to their subcontractors nor to any other entity,..." - if that would be true.

Avenger42 13y ago

I also wanted to point out this: > Honestly though, I think they could make much much stronger statements about this stuff. They can't really, though - they do cooperate with the government on a ton of properly-filed, fully-legal subpoenas. And that's fine, that's what they have to do, and it's what every other company in the world would do - though we should all push our government(s) to be more transparent about what they're requesting and why.

rayiner 13y ago

> Careful parsing of the constitution, careful parsing of various laws, very very careful interpretation of the words on the page. There is no "careful parsing" of the Constitution going on. Just people who never read the document very carefully other than what they thought the teacher said in 8th grade. This is the entirety of the 4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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." If any "parsing" is going on, it's creative parsing to make the argument that information you freely handed over to Google and AT&T, or indeed information that was never even in your possession but was generated by AT&T (e.g. call data records, web server logs) is somehow your "papers or effects." Tell me how that is anything other than creative parsing? How is a document that you never even had in your possession somehow your private information?

DougWebb 13y ago
How is a document that you never even had in your possession somehow your private information? Have you been to a doctor? Have you seen that folder full of your medical information? Have you ever possessed it? Most likely not, but that is your private information and there are very strict rules about how it is handled and who can access its contents.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Those rules are all statutory. There is no Constitutional protection for those documents.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Congress can repeal HIPAA.
kalkin 13y ago
Really? You don't think of information in your Gmail or Google Drive as personal "papers or effects"? Would you be fine with a Google employee reading through your email or your spreadsheets in order to figure out whether you were working on a product that might compete with one of Google's, or maybe because they ran across your profile on a dating site and wanted to check up on you? If so, I think you're unusual. In a world where important documents are increasingly electronic, and electronic stuff is increasingly routinely backed up, transmitted through, or just stored on remote servers, people's personal papers will be increasingly in the possession of others. I won't argue that it's impossible to read the Constitution so that it becomes a set of meaningless restrictions on outdated technologies--legal text is never deterministic and always subject to multiple interpretations--but it's certainly not unreasonable for somebody to have "read the document very carefully" and found it more robust and relevant than you do.