8 ms·
White House admits it has 'access' to Facebook, Google
- coldcode 13y agoMark and Larry seem to disagree. Someone's not telling the truth.
- andreyf 13y agoHow do they disagree? They have access when they get a lawful order from a court. Obama confirmed the same: "Now, with respect to the Internet and emails [...], the FISA Court has to authorize it." [1] 1. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
- danso 13y agoOr...you may be misinterpreting what's at issue. I can't claim to really know either, but from what I gather, the issue at hand is: Does the NSA have a direct feed into Google's servers, via PRISM? Google says "No". However, Google has not denied giving government access to user data: in fact, Google for a few years has been publishing a report of how many times governments ask it for user data: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests&#x...;
- reledi 13y agoFixed link: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests
- winslow 13y ago"EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this story was published, The Guardian has reported that the UK intelligence gathering organisation GCHQ has had access to the PRISM system since at least June 2010 and has generated 197 intelligence reports." So other governments have a backdoor to our government's backdoor... What stops China among others from being able to access this? On the other hand, what is the truth if Larry Page is saying that Google does not allow 'direct' access but the White House is saying that it does have access? This just looks like a giant finger pointing and blame game now.
- cclogg 13y agoInteresting, well I'm just glad this is all hitting the mainstream as it is... I think the community here had been well aware of the lack of privacy in most online services.
- ihsw 13y ago> So other governments have a backdoor to our government's backdoor And we have a backdoor to their backdoor. It's fairly easy to assume that they -- state-sponsored intelligence agencies -- collude with each-other by offering access to each-other's data stores. In a sense we are all foreign to each-other, and the USG may access American data through requests acting as foreign agencies.
- leoc 13y agoIt's long been understood that this was the basis of the ECHELON system, right?
- brown9-2 13y agoThe US, UK, Australia and NZ have had a bilateral intelligence sharing agreement since the 1940s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK-US_Security_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK-US_Security_Agreement
- brymaster 13y agoSounds like everybody gets a hand in the cookie jar. Let's make a toast! https://secure.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/in/photostream https://secure.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/in/ph...
- winslow 13y agoWow... that sure does explain a lot. Thank you for posting this!
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago> So other governments have a backdoor to our government's backdoor... What stops China among others from being able to access this? Nothing, and that's exactly what China was doing during Aurora and similar operations. It's worth noting that Google posted incorrect/misleading information on their blog at the time of that incident as well. They claimed that the intrusions were motivated by China wanting to target human rights and freedom of speech activists, positioning them as a villain.[1] It ended with the same crap about pushing for freedom and transparency. A few months ago it was leaked that the actual motivations behind Aurora were that China was using it to see which of China's spies were being monitored by the US government through the PRISM-like interface[2]: ""What we found was the attackers were actually looking for the accounts that we had lawful wiretap orders on," Aucsmith says. "So if you think about this, this is brilliant counter-intelligence. You have two choices: If you want to find out if your agents, if you will, have been discovered, you can try to break into the FBI to find out that way. Presumably that's difficult. Or you can break into the people that the courts have served paper on and see if you can find it that way." [3]: "As Google was responding to the breach, its technicians made another startling discovery: its database with years of information on surveillance orders had been hacked. ... The most sensitive orders, however, came from a federal court that approves surveillance of foreign targets such as spies, diplomats, suspected terrorists and agents of other governments. Those orders, issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are classified. Google did not disclose that breach publicly, but soon after detecting it, the company alerted the FBI, former officials said." [1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china... [2] www.cio.com/article/732122/_Aurora_Cyber_Attackers_Were_Really_Running_Counter_Intelligence [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hackers-who-breached-google-gained-access-to-sensitive-data-us-officials-say/2013/05/20/51330428-be34-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chines...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ibudiallo 13y agoI don't know if you know this, but we all have access to facebook data. Not much of it is private
- jcampbell1 13y agoThe presentation makes it seem they are harvesting the data. That would resolve any apparent contradiction. The biggest question is how? Surely google has noticed these man in the middle attacks. I think the guardian misinterpreted the word "provider". Edit: it appears the NSA has google's ssl keys. That would explain all the talk about "direct access".
- 7952 13y agoWhat is the source on the SSL keys? Arguably a lot of metadata could be gleaned without even decrypting the data. If an IP is tied to an identity, timing of traffic alone would be very revealing.
- jcampbell1 13y agoMy guess? They worked with the CEO to discuss the issue. Then recommended hiring some consulting company that specializes in key management. The consultant says something like, you need to keep a copy of the keys in an offsite vault for disaster recover purposes. The NSA now has the keys. It is also possible they just got the keys from spies. In my company, anyone with sudo access to front end machines can get the keys. I have no idea how to keep these keys secure from the NSA.
- kniht 13y agoYou should look into how perfect forward secrecy works in TLS before you make these kinds of claims. [1] http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ssl-perfect-forward-secrecy.html http://vincent.bernat.im/en/blog/2011-ssl-perfect-forward-se...
- vidarh 13y agoIf someone has your private cert and keys, that is irrelevant - they can fully MITM you. Forward secrecy only ensures that a compromised key doesn't compromise data collected in the past.
- 13y ago
- smtddr 13y agoWhatever your views on this are, I hope nobody is actually surprised. If I were a $CURRENT_MEDIA_BOOGIEMAN_SCAPEGOAT_THINKOFTHECHILDREN, I would definitely assume that the usgov has access to any "big data" on the general public and can get it anytime they want. My plans for world-domination won't be sent through gmail or sent in a private message on facebook, or an text-msg on VerizoNSA. I'd take the time to learn and use PGP. Only regular citizens will be caught by this and... the whitehouse knows it. I only wish the general public could see HN now. Someone with lots of money,looks-at-Google, should buy like 2mins of commercial-time during the Super-bowl to talk about stuff like this.
- jiggy2011 13y agoI'm no intelligence expert, but I'd be surprised if the NSA would expect something like this to find a "smoking gun" proving that person X is planning Y. More likely you already have suspects, and your suspects have acquaintances , family etc. You would be more interested in looking at these people, who do they network with on social media, what are they interested in? Might they be knowingly or unknowingly be providing material support? You would probably use this information to build up a broader profile and see which avenues are worth investigation.
- hrbrtglm 13y agoOk, but what about companies who store sensitive data and emails on Google Apps for business, especially non US companies ? What about non US citizens who seems to have less protection and spyable at mercy ? Should we the ( whatever your country or citizenship ) avoid by all means US internet corps. If the American gov wanted to kill the cloud, then good job ! I want to clarify that I do not trust my own gov neither ...
- rayiner 13y agoNobody should store sensitive data and e-mails on a system where they're sitting there in plain text accessible to god knows how many people at Google and their data centers. That's insane.
- ig1 13y agoFacebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers." Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers" AOL: "nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers." Paltalk: "Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers" Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers"
- elchief 13y ago"we do however give them a data dump every minute"
- lawdawg 13y agoAnd if they didn't say that, everyone on HN would be whining about why they didn't deny "direct access" when that was the headline accusation. Can't win with you guys.
- ig1 13y agoIt's not the phrase "direct access" (which they could reasonably use given it was used in the original leak story), but rather the construction of the whole sentence. There are millions of ways you could phrase the response (Dropbox and Microsoft used completely different language), the chance that these five came up with the phrasing used independently seems fairly low. Especially as the statements weren't all given to a single reporter (who could have phrased the question in a particular way) but rather to a variety of different news sources. It could still be completely innocent, they could all have cribbed off whoever did the first denial or they could have discussed it beforehand and co-ordinated messages without there having been any government involvement. It is however something that needs explaining.
- leoc 13y ago> they could have discussed it beforehand and co-ordinated messages without there having been any government involvement These are after all companies several (all?) of whom have co-ordinated illegal no-hire compacts in the past: it's not far-fetched to think they'd work together on a PR response to this. Which isn't necessarily to rule out a more sinister explanation of course.
- der3k 13y agoV for Vendetta IRL.
- denzil_correa 13y agoCan someone just tell what the final deal is? I'm quite annoyed by conflicting reports from the media, Internet firms and the US government. Also, please stop playing with words. It doesn't matter if the program is named PRISM or Hexagon. What matters is the access powers to otherwise private data by governments.
- fchollet 13y agoThe White House has confirmed that PRISM existed, and has condemned the leak. This means that the power point slides that were leaked are real. Now go read the slides, and you'll know exactly what is going on.
- joevandyk 13y agoEven if the White House confirmed the PRISM program exist, and condemned the leak about the PRISM program, it doesn't mean all the facts in some power point presentation is real at all.
- jlgreco 13y agoIf the powerpoint were fake, why would the white house hesitate to point that out?
- denzil_correa 13y agoFrom the Sherlock files? I've read the presentation; it doesn't mean everything out there is cast & stone. I'm seeking the truth and not popular stories.
- mrwnmonm 13y agolink to the slides, please
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wavefunction 13y agoTo be honest, this whole thing is coordinated. The leak, the opportunity for outrage, the opportunity to gloss over the outrage, and now it's out in the open where the politicians and CEOs don't have to face real outrage. True theater!!!
- krapp 13y agoIf they were truly that powerful and organized, wouldn't they have rather just not orchestrated the leak to begin with?
- wavefunction 13y agoIf it's going to come out eventually, why not control the leak? PR 101, mang
- krapp 13y agoBut they're not controlling anything, they're just doing now what they would be doing if the leak had been real, assuming it was orchestrated. They would've done a better job letting everyone stay distracted by all the other crap being dropped on Obama's head right now.
- wavefunction 13y agoNow they can say "what police state," everybody already knows about it!!! :P
- leoc 13y agoNot necessarily: you could for example throw in red herrings and disinformation along with whatever facts you're disclosing. The "limited hangout" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout is apparently a real thing, though of course once you've heard of them it's easy to start imagining them where they don't exist.
- runn1ng 13y agoIs this article providing anything new? It seems just like a rehash of all the old articles, with a speculative title.
- maresca 13y agoIf it's going over the wire, you can bet they have access to it, with or without 'access.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- stusmall 13y agoFacebook is opt-in https and I believe google is https by default. I don't know about the other services. Without their keys having it over the wire won't get them what they want. EDIT: poor wording.
- maresca 13y agoI don't think it's a stretch to think the government has the ssl keys. Or the ability to find the ssl keys.
- fragsworth 13y agoEric Schmidt, in March 2010, knew about this when he said the following for users who wished their actions to be private: > But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
- fragsworth 13y ago> “It [PRISM] cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States,” said James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. And how are we supposed to believe this? We were already blatantly lied to.
- danbruc 13y agoWhat really pisses me off is something like »It [PRISM] cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States«. Mass surveillance without suspicion of foreigners is even worse than spying the own people.
- kahirsch 13y agoThis article is terrible. What exactly did "the White House" say? There is not even one sentence that is attributed to a specific individual. Was it the White House press secretary, or Obama, or somebody else? Or are they referring to the statements from the Director of National Intelligence? Here is what Obama said: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/07/statement-president http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/07/statem... Here are the statements from the DNI: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized-disclosures-of-classified-information http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre... http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre... Nowhere in those do I see any confirmation that there is direct or unlimited access to the servers of the companies mentioned.
- losethos 13y agoGod and others have access to brains. God can do time travel. God says... C:\TAD\Text\PLATO.TXT or myrtle. And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means; having an eye to poverty or war. SOCRATES - GLAUCON But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal. True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish-salt, and olives, and ---- fertle murtle, war on poverty in Socrates.
- devbin 13y agoAnother Onion fake news became real. http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/ http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...;
- 852147963 13y agofdhyzeturyzetdyizet-riu
- 852147963 13y agoWhite House admits it has 'access' to Facebook
- mrcactu5 13y agoThe public has unprecedented access to information b/c of the stuff publicized on HackerNews. Should come as any surprise the White House also has this access? I just assume Barack is LOLing everytime I crack a funny on twitter.