3 ms·

Hey teawithcarl, I appreciate that. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the right thing is. I suspect that we're actually in agreement on most points. I

Hey teawithcarl, I appreciate that. I'd be interested in hearing what you think the right thing is. I suspect that we're actually in agreement on most points. If there's something you think we should be doing differently (and I agree with you :), I'm more than happy to lobby for that within Google. I do think Google is working hard to protect our users from unwarranted government requests. Just speaking for me personally, I really dislike provisions in the PATRIOT Act and FISA that compel secrecy. One thing I did like in Google's blog post was that we spoke out against the "level of secrecy around the current legal procedures." I was encouraged that Facebook later said something similar. In my opinion, a lot of the frustration about the current situation would be best applied to changing some laws in the United States.

bigiain 13y ago
Hey Matt. While I honestly think _you_ believe Google is doing "the right thing" - there's a nagging suspicion that there's some NSL-style legal (or possibly extra-legal) compulsion being used at the very top levels. Even if I believe that Larry is 100% "on my side" against the government - I'm also under no doubt that Larry and Google are effectively powerless against the pressure the various US government agencies could apply if they so chose. While explanations of the similarity between Larry's and Mark Z's posts based on direct rebuttal of the WaPo article are plausible, when combined with Apple's, AOL's, and Yahoo's suspiciously similar structure and wording - cynical-me can't help but wonder if all 5 CEO's are being compelled to disseminate the same government supplied message (and are possibly intentionally using almost word-for-word similar language as a plausibly deniable way of telling people that). I'm not sure if there's much Google can say or do - given the depth and seriousness of the seeds of suspicion that've already been sown… (Having said that, I was pleased to read Yonatan's G+ post earlier today…)
- declan 13y ago
  When AT&T was asked politely by the NSA to open its networks under the warrantless surveillance program, the company refused to confirm or deny. They actually offered arguments like this one from an AT&T attorney: http://news.cnet.com/Legal-loophole-emerges-in-NSA-spy-program/2100-1028_3-6073600.html http://news.cnet.com/Legal-loophole-emerges-in-NSA-spy-progr... Federal law may "authorize and in some cases require telecommunications companies to furnish information" to the executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was associate White House counsel when President Bush authorized the NSA surveillance program in late 2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm in Washington, D.C. Far from being complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander." And a sealed AT&T document I obtained tried to offer benign reasons why there would be a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center that would be designed to monitor Internet and telephone traffic: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077353.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077353.html What Google and Facebook are doing today is precisely the opposite of what AT&T did.
teawithcarl 13y ago
Hi Matt - Thanks for answering. I genuinely appreciate your earnest communication. To answer your question, I sincerely believe Larry should do the right thing irregardless of the law, which means telling the American public the truth. What Sergey (and Google) bravely did in China gave Google years of priceless respectability. This is one of those situations where civil disobedience is best. I realize you can't just "pull out of the United States", yet Google is looking like liars, and that just doesn't work. For what it's worth, if Larry summoned the courage to speak his conscience completely, he will not go to jail. Far from it ... Google will be the true statesman, showing courage and leadership. Indeed, I believe it may help Google the most, by catalyzing people's courage to do what's right. It's simply wrong to associate yourself with this. It must come from Google first, Google is the strongest. Please consider the honor in doing this. Done genuinely, the public will rally behind Google, just like SOPA/PIPA. And don't forget, you have the world's largest bully pulpit.
- gohrt 13y ago
  It is literally impossible for you to know for certain if Larry Page is telling the truth or lying about PRISM. So, now what? Are you asking Larry to violate the law on National Security Letters, by publicly posting their content?
- Matt_Cutts 13y ago
  Thanks for posting this. Here's something I wrote to someone recently: "I view talking about FISA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillan... ) like handling radioactive waste or juggling chainsaws: it has to be done carefully." The reason is that FISA orders come with a gag order: see https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa . So I understand why official company blog posts, even from Larry, have been carefully worded so far, even if that comes across as legalistic or weaselly-worded to some. For what it's worth, I'd recommend reading this post: https://plus.sandbox.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsphBron https://plus.sandbox.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsph... To me, Yonatan's post read as the sort of personal, even blunt statement that you're asking for.

bigiain 13y ago

Hey Matt. While I honestly think _you_ believe Google is doing "the right thing" - there's a nagging suspicion that there's some NSL-style legal (or possibly extra-legal) compulsion being used at the very top levels. Even if I believe that Larry is 100% "on my side" against the government - I'm also under no doubt that Larry and Google are effectively powerless against the pressure the various US government agencies could apply if they so chose. While explanations of the similarity between Larry's and Mark Z's posts based on direct rebuttal of the WaPo article are plausible, when combined with Apple's, AOL's, and Yahoo's suspiciously similar structure and wording - cynical-me can't help but wonder if all 5 CEO's are being compelled to disseminate the same government supplied message (and are possibly intentionally using almost word-for-word similar language as a plausibly deniable way of telling people that). I'm not sure if there's much Google can say or do - given the depth and seriousness of the seeds of suspicion that've already been sown… (Having said that, I was pleased to read Yonatan's G+ post earlier today…)

declan 13y ago
When AT&T was asked politely by the NSA to open its networks under the warrantless surveillance program, the company refused to confirm or deny. They actually offered arguments like this one from an AT&T attorney: http://news.cnet.com/Legal-loophole-emerges-in-NSA-spy-program/2100-1028_3-6073600.html http://news.cnet.com/Legal-loophole-emerges-in-NSA-spy-progr... Federal law may "authorize and in some cases require telecommunications companies to furnish information" to the executive branch, said Bradford Berenson, who was associate White House counsel when President Bush authorized the NSA surveillance program in late 2001 and is now a partner at the Sidley Austin law firm in Washington, D.C. Far from being complicit in an illegal spying scheme, Berenson said, "AT&T is essentially an innocent bystander." And a sealed AT&T document I obtained tried to offer benign reasons why there would be a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center that would be designed to monitor Internet and telephone traffic: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077353.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6077353.html What Google and Facebook are doing today is precisely the opposite of what AT&T did.

teawithcarl 13y ago

Hi Matt - Thanks for answering. I genuinely appreciate your earnest communication. To answer your question, I sincerely believe Larry should do the right thing irregardless of the law, which means telling the American public the truth. What Sergey (and Google) bravely did in China gave Google years of priceless respectability. This is one of those situations where civil disobedience is best. I realize you can't just "pull out of the United States", yet Google is looking like liars, and that just doesn't work. For what it's worth, if Larry summoned the courage to speak his conscience completely, he will not go to jail. Far from it ... Google will be the true statesman, showing courage and leadership. Indeed, I believe it may help Google the most, by catalyzing people's courage to do what's right. It's simply wrong to associate yourself with this. It must come from Google first, Google is the strongest. Please consider the honor in doing this. Done genuinely, the public will rally behind Google, just like SOPA/PIPA. And don't forget, you have the world's largest bully pulpit.

gohrt 13y ago
It is literally impossible for you to know for certain if Larry Page is telling the truth or lying about PRISM. So, now what? Are you asking Larry to violate the law on National Security Letters, by publicly posting their content?
Matt_Cutts 13y ago
Thanks for posting this. Here's something I wrote to someone recently: "I view talking about FISA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillan... ) like handling radioactive waste or juggling chainsaws: it has to be done carefully." The reason is that FISA orders come with a gag order: see https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa https://ssd.eff.org/foreign/fisa . So I understand why official company blog posts, even from Larry, have been carefully worded so far, even if that comes across as legalistic or weaselly-worded to some. For what it's worth, I'd recommend reading this post: https://plus.sandbox.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsphBron https://plus.sandbox.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/huwQsph... To me, Yonatan's post read as the sort of personal, even blunt statement that you're asking for.