7 ms·

“The government does not have access to Google servers”

94 points by captn3m0 13y ago

lifeguard 13y ago
"and if the government DID have access to Google servers, we would be sworn to secrecy under penalty of prison and fine"
arjie 13y ago
This denial is fairly categorical. Any objection that centres on the idea that they're only saying this because they have to is in conspiracy theory territory. Nothing that Google says could possibly disprove that claim.
- gasull 13y ago
  "According to the law" actually means "yes, we give the Government all access". Read this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-broken-hearts&#x2F http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-bro...;
  - magicalist 13y ago
    how can you possibly think that a terrible techcrunch post poorly hashing together parts of this story is a good argument here? ugh. If you're actually interested: the only source of facts on that whole page is the NYTimes piece they link to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...
signed0 13y ago
The problem with all the denials is that journalists say "Google is doing X" and Google responds "We aren't doing Y" and everyone debates whether Y = X, Y is a subset of X, or Y is something completely different. I feel as if so much could be cleared up if they would simply respond line by line to the stories by the NYTimes and Washington Post.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obama-to-come-clean-about-t,32466 http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
  - signed0 13y ago
    Weird, somehow extra characters are being added to the end of that url. Removing the trailing / fixes it. http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obama-to-come-clean-about-t,32466 http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
    - jmillikin 13y ago
      a'a Thanks, fixed. Looks like HN is over-escaping some values -- click the 'link' link to this post and see how the first line is over-escaped in the title bar?
- zobzu 13y ago
  They just have to say "the governement does not have any kind of access to the data we host, in any other way than through a court order". but i doubt they'd say that. they already seem to say they get very regular requests (which could be 10 or 100 000 or more) that are just "hey please give us that we need it".
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    Google & Facebook have literally said exactly that. You are just refusing to believe them for some reason.
- masterzora 13y ago
  It's not even that. The journalists say "Google is doing X" so Google responds "We aren't doing X" and suddenly internet commenters everywhere are taking that as evidence that Google is doing Y and Z because they aren't X. It's ludicrous.
- 13y ago
IvyMike 13y ago
Wild speculation, but what about TLS key misappropriation? In other words, NSA has access not through official channels but somehow got private keys through hook and crook? (I have to admit I do not fully understand PFS and the implications here.)
mtgx 13y ago
Even if it did, imagine how awfully damaging that would be for Google's image worldwide. So I could see why their immediate knee jerk reaction about it is to hide it as much as possible. If he is telling the truth, at least about this very specific thing (not having access to "Google's servers"), then it's still possible they are giving them easy access in some other way, such as copying the data to other servers that are "not Google's servers". So worse case scenario, he's blatantly lying about it. Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics. I have a very hard time believing none of this is happening, at this point. I hope I'm wrong though, but even then, the NSA probably has direct pipes into the carriers and ISP's, and at the very least have access to all the data going through US pipes that is unencrypted (and the encrypted data is stored for later - i.e. the 5 billion terrabyte Utah data center).
- kahirsch 13y ago
  > Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics. No, the best case scenario is he's telling the truth and Google only gives specific data in response to specific court orders that have been reviewed by their lawyers. Normally I love reading the comments on HN, but I've just despaired over the last couple of days. People are assuming that out-of-context fragments from a Powerpoint presentation are 100% correct and when every single company gives a flat-out denial, then the companies must be lying or misleading or slippery. The law does not require these companies to issue denials.
  - anon1385 13y ago
    Just a reminder: we are not all US citizens. There is no American court order or warrant that makes it legal for Google Ireland to hand over data about EU customers to the US government. They have admitted to doing this already[1] years ago. It's likely illegal under data protection laws for EU businesses to use Google services (or any other US based web service) to store customer data. Google has sent us a statement that reads: "As a law abiding company, we comply with valid legal process, and that - as for any US based company - means the data stored outside of the U.S. may be subject to lawful access by the U.S. government." [1] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Admits-Handing-over-European-User-Data-to-US-Intelligence-Agencies-215740.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Admits-Handing-over-Eu...
dylangs1030 13y ago
I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing.[1] It would be most appropriate to say that one encompasses the other, but they have two separate protocols, and as of right now, only one was discussed by the Times. 2. Let's say the NYTimes article is about PRISM, and they simply didn't mention that acronym for whatever reason. If that is the case, the information leaked therein also makes it very clear that it is entirely possible for CEOs, chief officers, and other high ranking employees to be completely in the dark about it. The only people allowed to know about the requests for information are those who receive and analyze the requests. That's not a conspiracy theory - it's leaked right along with the rest of the information.[2] Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Dave Drummond, Yonaton Zunger, etc. might literally not know the extent of how far the government reaches in their companies. 3. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the leaders of these named companies to stand together in righteous technological might against The Man. Nothing practical would be achieved by having Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page penalized for what they said on record, in public against a government agency. Nothing would benefit the American people by having them put on trial or their companies sued for violating national security. The NSA designed a Catch-22 gag order that prevents those involved from even acknowledging the existence of government involvement or letter agencies, let alone detailing specific protocols or history. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop getting distracted from the real problem here. The threat to privacy is the NSA. The threat is our government(s). We have the power to fight it if we consolidate our focus with precision. We may feel wronged by the apparent lies of public figures but they had no choice, if they were even in the wrong. We cannot know what pressures were put upon them at this point in time. Lay down your pitchforks and direct your anger and incredulity to your government, who ordered this - the public entity that made this legal and hidden and nearly impossible to speak out against. That is your real enemy. [1]: http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/7/4407782/phone-spying-and-prism-internet-surveillance-whats-the-difference http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/7/4407782/phone-spying-and-pr... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...
cromwellian 13y ago
The government has done irreparable harm to these companies, because even if they are telling the truth, they will never be able to prove it (like Obama could never prove he wasn't born in Kenya) Each new bit of evidence supporting their position will be met with just more questions. That's the problem with government spooks, their capabilities are boundless, anything the mind can imagine, and there's simply not way to erase doubt. Can the NSA break public key encryption? No? Are you 100% sure? Does the NSA have a fibre-tap on all cables? Are they running continuous keyword searches on transcribed conversations of every American, in real time? Can you prove they don't have some secret new $30 billion data center, paid for by the $60 billion in Iraq money that went "missing"? 10 years from now, people will still be talking about this. We need to roll back the Patriot Act, period.
- onecommentonly 13y ago
  Google has way more data from a million little things we online than it should have. The government can easily get it, it can leak, get hacked etc. If the data isn't archived, no one can ask for it. Simple as that.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  They can prove it. Comprehensive independent security audits managed by well known privacy and human rights organizations. Considering the scale of Google they should have number of people auditing them all the time.
zobzu 13y ago
"cause the servers belong to the NSA,not Google!" ;)
- TheCondor 13y ago
  It's possible. No mention of access to collected data.
adventured 13y ago
The government would never need access to Google's servers; it would never need a back door. A front door API would work just fine. Some people have correctly pointed out that if Prism is considered 'law' (falling under any number of national security laws), then all Google is doing is complying with the law. And in that case, what Drummond just said in no way actually denies participation in Prism or a similar program.
- invisible 13y ago
  Except that he straight out said that they have received no bulk requests at all? Seriously...
  - adventured 13y ago
    Are you qualifying a real time feed as a bulk request?
    - invisible 13y ago
      I'd consider "give us every piece of data you ever get" a bulk/blanket request - yep.
pavs 13y ago
So I checked out some of the user profile of people who are flat out proposing that google is colluding with the government and is lying right now to the users and they don't believe any official word coming out from google. Not only are their google+ profile very active, I am going to assume they are still using and most likely will be using google products (or products from other companies who has been implicated) months from now even if nothing changes. The question is, lets say you are absolutely sure beyond any doubt that all these companies willfully (or unwillingly but now lying to you) shared data with the government. What do you do now? Do you accept it as it is and carry on? Do you stop using their service? Or do you campaign to stop these companies and government from doing this (seems highly unlikely to be effective or verify)?
- waterphone 13y ago
  I'm likely going to use their services in a reduced capacity whether they were complicit or not, simply because this incident has highlighted the risk of companies who store massive amounts of personal information consolidated together in one place. Even if their only reason for doing so is advertising, I'm less interested in participating in systems that collect and store so much information on me. This probably should've been obvious before (people have certainly been saying similar things for a while), but recent revelations have made me more prone to agree. The problem, of course, is that some Google services are nearly irreplaceable, especially search. There are alternative search engines, but they simply aren't as good for the technical type searches that a programmer needs. Duck Duck Go is better than some older alternatives have been, but when using it I frequently find myself having to return to Google to actually find what I'm looking for. I wish them luck and hope very much they keep improving, as I'd like to use them, but so far I can't really.
salimmadjd 13y ago
There is a big issue with as-need-bases systems. It requires security clearance on their google counterpart side. Every time NSA, FBI requests user's private info from google they'll [the government] be divulging the identity of a suspect or a potential suspect. This leads to potential leaks or potential reputation damage. Imagine if a congressman or famous CEO is under investigation. So the person/people inside google ought to have the same clearance OR google would need to give a back door access to the government. Which is why I don't believe google. If google is sincere about their position, they should setup their systems so that no one but the user(owner) would ever be able to access their private data.
KaiserPro 13y ago
People are merging two different mechanisms here, and its important to distinguish between the two. 1) Access to users when provided with a "warrant" or someother legal instrument. This is where for example a divorce court orders the message history of a person from facebook to confirm/deny infidelity. This is your "Facebook secure room/portal" business. You don't want any tom dick and harry having access to this as its a massive security hole. 2) Snooping. This is where apparatus is placed between the public and a company which allows the interception of all data. These are two very different mechanisms, 1) is a precision tool for getting information on a small amount of users. 2) is a blunt tool that allow people to stuff themselves full of information, it is also inherently very expensive(both in time, resources and analysis). both method 1 & 2 have been going on for many years. Its also been fairly well known for many years (schneier and crytptome have been saying this for a very very long time) So why did the NSA ask verizon (and most likley all the big players) for this list of who phoned whom, if they have all this information kicking around? two reasons: Its dirt cheap, and accurate. Instead of having to infer who was on what IP at what time, you have the canonical proof.
puivert 13y ago
It's getting to the point that there is no the business case for Google to stay in the US.
rachelbythebay 13y ago
I'd love to see someone check the Takeout logs and look for anything which seems out of place. Requests for user data which aren't correlated with normal user activity would seem mighty suspicious to me. Go on, someone, make it so. Then leak it. Let's do this thing.
csomar 13y ago
I missed the article/story behind PRISM and who unveiled it. Too much noise right now to find it. But what makes the person who unveiled the PRISM more credible than all of the Tech companies? Also, I don't think they are playing with words or intending to do so. They are making it quite clear in my opinion.
taktix 13y ago
This is modern doublespeak in action, the actual inversion of meanings. Translation: "Government has all access to our servers." The message is loud and clear from Google that we need to know doublespeak when we hear it. Class is in session!
downandout 13y ago
The President himself acknowledged existence of the program, so that is no longer in dispute. I am, however, starting to think that perhaps the leadership of these companies truly didn't know that this has been going on. I'm curious if these orders can be served directly to mere employees that have access to install the monitoring software/hardware, with confidentiality obligations barring them from telling their employer. Another explanation may be that NSA agents simply obtained jobs at each company, and those agents installed the monitoring software/hardware without the knowledge of the companies. This would explain the dismay, and the clear embarrassment of the NSA.
wrath 13y ago
If we assume that everyone is telling the truth and that there is no back door or drop box, couldn't they simply get the data with man-in-the-middle type software? Getting data from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and co is nice because it comes to you in a structure way but that wouldn't stop me from trying to get information in many others way, including working with the internet providers to put servers that copy data and direct them to my data center.
bloaf 13y ago
According to the NY Times >employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company So it is possible that executives are not allowed to know what data their companies are supplying to the government.
robomartin 13y ago
The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to <insert company name here> DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to <insert company name here> users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about "direct access to servers". We care about access to data. And this can be provided through many channels, direct and indirect. It can even be provided via daily tape backup dumps. Of course, it can be provided to organizations peripherally working for or with a government yet not directly to a government agency. And, finally, it could be provided to another government that, in turn, can pipe it back to US governnment agencies or collaborators. The rabbit hole can be very deep.
voidlogic 13y ago
"The government does not have access to Google servers" No they just have Google's SSL private keys- perhaps...

94 points by captn3m0 13y ago

"and if the government DID have access to Google servers, we would be sworn to secrecy under penalty of prison and fine"

arjie 13y ago

This denial is fairly categorical. Any objection that centres on the idea that they're only saying this because they have to is in conspiracy theory territory. Nothing that Google says could possibly disprove that claim.

gasull 13y ago
"According to the law" actually means "yes, we give the Government all access". Read this: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-broken-hearts&#x2F http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-bro...;
- magicalist 13y ago
  how can you possibly think that a terrible techcrunch post poorly hashing together parts of this story is a good argument here? ugh. If you're actually interested: the only source of facts on that whole page is the NYTimes piece they link to: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...

signed0 13y ago

The problem with all the denials is that journalists say "Google is doing X" and Google responds "We aren't doing Y" and everyone debates whether Y = X, Y is a subset of X, or Y is something completely different. I feel as if so much could be cleared up if they would simply respond line by line to the stories by the NYTimes and Washington Post.

jmillikin 13y ago
http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obama-to-come-clean-about-t,32466 http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
- signed0 13y ago
  Weird, somehow extra characters are being added to the end of that url. Removing the trailing / fixes it. http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obama-to-come-clean-about-t,32466 http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-onion-urges-barack-obam...
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    a'a Thanks, fixed. Looks like HN is over-escaping some values -- click the 'link' link to this post and see how the first line is over-escaped in the title bar?
zobzu 13y ago
They just have to say "the governement does not have any kind of access to the data we host, in any other way than through a court order". but i doubt they'd say that. they already seem to say they get very regular requests (which could be 10 or 100 000 or more) that are just "hey please give us that we need it".
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  Google & Facebook have literally said exactly that. You are just refusing to believe them for some reason.
masterzora 13y ago
It's not even that. The journalists say "Google is doing X" so Google responds "We aren't doing X" and suddenly internet commenters everywhere are taking that as evidence that Google is doing Y and Z because they aren't X. It's ludicrous.
13y ago

IvyMike 13y ago

Wild speculation, but what about TLS key misappropriation? In other words, NSA has access not through official channels but somehow got private keys through hook and crook? (I have to admit I do not fully understand PFS and the implications here.)

mtgx 13y ago

Even if it did, imagine how awfully damaging that would be for Google's image worldwide. So I could see why their immediate knee jerk reaction about it is to hide it as much as possible. If he is telling the truth, at least about this very specific thing (not having access to "Google's servers"), then it's still possible they are giving them easy access in some other way, such as copying the data to other servers that are "not Google's servers". So worse case scenario, he's blatantly lying about it. Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics. I have a very hard time believing none of this is happening, at this point. I hope I'm wrong though, but even then, the NSA probably has direct pipes into the carriers and ISP's, and at the very least have access to all the data going through US pipes that is unencrypted (and the encrypted data is stored for later - i.e. the 5 billion terrabyte Utah data center).

kahirsch 13y ago
> Probably best case scenario, they're still giving them the data wholesale in some way, and he's playing word games and semantics. No, the best case scenario is he's telling the truth and Google only gives specific data in response to specific court orders that have been reviewed by their lawyers. Normally I love reading the comments on HN, but I've just despaired over the last couple of days. People are assuming that out-of-context fragments from a Powerpoint presentation are 100% correct and when every single company gives a flat-out denial, then the companies must be lying or misleading or slippery. The law does not require these companies to issue denials.
- anon1385 13y ago
  Just a reminder: we are not all US citizens. There is no American court order or warrant that makes it legal for Google Ireland to hand over data about EU customers to the US government. They have admitted to doing this already[1] years ago. It's likely illegal under data protection laws for EU businesses to use Google services (or any other US based web service) to store customer data. Google has sent us a statement that reads: "As a law abiding company, we comply with valid legal process, and that - as for any US based company - means the data stored outside of the U.S. may be subject to lawful access by the U.S. government." [1] http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Admits-Handing-over-European-User-Data-to-US-Intelligence-Agencies-215740.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Admits-Handing-over-Eu...

dylangs1030 13y ago

I will go on record as standing with Google and its denials, even if that's an unpopular position right now. Here are a few facts: 1. The New York Times article did not specifically cite PRISM, it only cited FISA, which was already largely known by the public. It is true that this could be because PRISM is allegedly justified under Section 702 of FISA, but they are not the same thing.[1] It would be most appropriate to say that one encompasses the other, but they have two separate protocols, and as of right now, only one was discussed by the Times. 2. Let's say the NYTimes article is about PRISM, and they simply didn't mention that acronym for whatever reason. If that is the case, the information leaked therein also makes it very clear that it is entirely possible for CEOs, chief officers, and other high ranking employees to be completely in the dark about it. The only people allowed to know about the requests for information are those who receive and analyze the requests. That's not a conspiracy theory - it's leaked right along with the rest of the information.[2] Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Dave Drummond, Yonaton Zunger, etc. might literally not know the extent of how far the government reaches in their companies. 3. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the leaders of these named companies to stand together in righteous technological might against The Man. Nothing practical would be achieved by having Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page penalized for what they said on record, in public against a government agency. Nothing would benefit the American people by having them put on trial or their companies sued for violating national security. The NSA designed a Catch-22 gag order that prevents those involved from even acknowledging the existence of government involvement or letter agencies, let alone detailing specific protocols or history. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Stop getting distracted from the real problem here. The threat to privacy is the NSA. The threat is our government(s). We have the power to fight it if we consolidate our focus with precision. We may feel wronged by the apparent lies of public figures but they had no choice, if they were even in the wrong. We cannot know what pressures were put upon them at this point in time. Lay down your pitchforks and direct your anger and incredulity to your government, who ordered this - the public entity that made this legal and hidden and nearly impossible to speak out against. That is your real enemy. [1]: http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/7/4407782/phone-spying-and-prism-internet-surveillance-whats-the-difference http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/7/4407782/phone-spying-and-pr... [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...

cromwellian 13y ago

The government has done irreparable harm to these companies, because even if they are telling the truth, they will never be able to prove it (like Obama could never prove he wasn't born in Kenya) Each new bit of evidence supporting their position will be met with just more questions. That's the problem with government spooks, their capabilities are boundless, anything the mind can imagine, and there's simply not way to erase doubt. Can the NSA break public key encryption? No? Are you 100% sure? Does the NSA have a fibre-tap on all cables? Are they running continuous keyword searches on transcribed conversations of every American, in real time? Can you prove they don't have some secret new $30 billion data center, paid for by the $60 billion in Iraq money that went "missing"? 10 years from now, people will still be talking about this. We need to roll back the Patriot Act, period.

onecommentonly 13y ago
Google has way more data from a million little things we online than it should have. The government can easily get it, it can leak, get hacked etc. If the data isn't archived, no one can ask for it. Simple as that.
hannibal5 13y ago
They can prove it. Comprehensive independent security audits managed by well known privacy and human rights organizations. Considering the scale of Google they should have number of people auditing them all the time.

zobzu 13y ago

"cause the servers belong to the NSA,not Google!" ;)

TheCondor 13y ago
It's possible. No mention of access to collected data.

adventured 13y ago

The government would never need access to Google's servers; it would never need a back door. A front door API would work just fine. Some people have correctly pointed out that if Prism is considered 'law' (falling under any number of national security laws), then all Google is doing is complying with the law. And in that case, what Drummond just said in no way actually denies participation in Prism or a similar program.

invisible 13y ago
Except that he straight out said that they have received no bulk requests at all? Seriously...
- adventured 13y ago
  Are you qualifying a real time feed as a bulk request?
  - invisible 13y ago
    I'd consider "give us every piece of data you ever get" a bulk/blanket request - yep.

pavs 13y ago

So I checked out some of the user profile of people who are flat out proposing that google is colluding with the government and is lying right now to the users and they don't believe any official word coming out from google. Not only are their google+ profile very active, I am going to assume they are still using and most likely will be using google products (or products from other companies who has been implicated) months from now even if nothing changes. The question is, lets say you are absolutely sure beyond any doubt that all these companies willfully (or unwillingly but now lying to you) shared data with the government. What do you do now? Do you accept it as it is and carry on? Do you stop using their service? Or do you campaign to stop these companies and government from doing this (seems highly unlikely to be effective or verify)?

waterphone 13y ago
I'm likely going to use their services in a reduced capacity whether they were complicit or not, simply because this incident has highlighted the risk of companies who store massive amounts of personal information consolidated together in one place. Even if their only reason for doing so is advertising, I'm less interested in participating in systems that collect and store so much information on me. This probably should've been obvious before (people have certainly been saying similar things for a while), but recent revelations have made me more prone to agree. The problem, of course, is that some Google services are nearly irreplaceable, especially search. There are alternative search engines, but they simply aren't as good for the technical type searches that a programmer needs. Duck Duck Go is better than some older alternatives have been, but when using it I frequently find myself having to return to Google to actually find what I'm looking for. I wish them luck and hope very much they keep improving, as I'd like to use them, but so far I can't really.

salimmadjd 13y ago

There is a big issue with as-need-bases systems. It requires security clearance on their google counterpart side. Every time NSA, FBI requests user's private info from google they'll [the government] be divulging the identity of a suspect or a potential suspect. This leads to potential leaks or potential reputation damage. Imagine if a congressman or famous CEO is under investigation. So the person/people inside google ought to have the same clearance OR google would need to give a back door access to the government. Which is why I don't believe google. If google is sincere about their position, they should setup their systems so that no one but the user(owner) would ever be able to access their private data.

KaiserPro 13y ago

People are merging two different mechanisms here, and its important to distinguish between the two. 1) Access to users when provided with a "warrant" or someother legal instrument. This is where for example a divorce court orders the message history of a person from facebook to confirm/deny infidelity. This is your "Facebook secure room/portal" business. You don't want any tom dick and harry having access to this as its a massive security hole. 2) Snooping. This is where apparatus is placed between the public and a company which allows the interception of all data. These are two very different mechanisms, 1) is a precision tool for getting information on a small amount of users. 2) is a blunt tool that allow people to stuff themselves full of information, it is also inherently very expensive(both in time, resources and analysis). both method 1 & 2 have been going on for many years. Its also been fairly well known for many years (schneier and crytptome have been saying this for a very very long time) So why did the NSA ask verizon (and most likley all the big players) for this list of who phoned whom, if they have all this information kicking around? two reasons: Its dirt cheap, and accurate. Instead of having to infer who was on what IP at what time, you have the canonical proof.

puivert 13y ago

It's getting to the point that there is no the business case for Google to stay in the US.

rachelbythebay 13y ago

I'd love to see someone check the Takeout logs and look for anything which seems out of place. Requests for user data which aren't correlated with normal user activity would seem mighty suspicious to me. Go on, someone, make it so. Then leak it. Let's do this thing.

csomar 13y ago

I missed the article/story behind PRISM and who unveiled it. Too much noise right now to find it. But what makes the person who unveiled the PRISM more credible than all of the Tech companies? Also, I don't think they are playing with words or intending to do so. They are making it quite clear in my opinion.

taktix 13y ago

This is modern doublespeak in action, the actual inversion of meanings. Translation: "Government has all access to our servers." The message is loud and clear from Google that we need to know doublespeak when we hear it. Class is in session!

downandout 13y ago

The President himself acknowledged existence of the program, so that is no longer in dispute. I am, however, starting to think that perhaps the leadership of these companies truly didn't know that this has been going on. I'm curious if these orders can be served directly to mere employees that have access to install the monitoring software/hardware, with confidentiality obligations barring them from telling their employer. Another explanation may be that NSA agents simply obtained jobs at each company, and those agents installed the monitoring software/hardware without the knowledge of the companies. This would explain the dismay, and the clear embarrassment of the NSA.

wrath 13y ago

If we assume that everyone is telling the truth and that there is no back door or drop box, couldn't they simply get the data with man-in-the-middle type software? Getting data from Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and co is nice because it comes to you in a structure way but that wouldn't stop me from trying to get information in many others way, including working with the internet providers to put servers that copy data and direct them to my data center.

bloaf 13y ago

According to the NY Times >employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company So it is possible that executives are not allowed to know what data their companies are supplying to the government.

robomartin 13y ago

The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to <insert company name here> DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to <insert company name here> users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about "direct access to servers". We care about access to data. And this can be provided through many channels, direct and indirect. It can even be provided via daily tape backup dumps. Of course, it can be provided to organizations peripherally working for or with a government yet not directly to a government agency. And, finally, it could be provided to another government that, in turn, can pipe it back to US governnment agencies or collaborators. The rabbit hole can be very deep.

voidlogic 13y ago

"The government does not have access to Google servers" No they just have Google's SSL private keys- perhaps...