6 ms·

Setting the Record Straight

84 points by llambda 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
evolve2k 13y ago
Wow bet Yahoos glad they took a little longer than Facebook and Google to 'set the record straight'. This statement definitely carries much higher conviction language that related statements, interesting to note the absence of Marissa Mayer from the statements. I would guess that it just gives a little more PR distance in case things blow up further.
coolj 13y ago
These companies are making themselves look really bad to anyone paying attention. Nobody is reporting that they joined a program to volunteer illegal access to user data, so these assurances are canards. What is being reported is that the NSA has been running a secret program to legally collect user data from these companies. If these companies want my respect, they need to admit that these reports are true, declare their opinion against the practice, and state their position on legal reform to make such practices illegal.
- HoochTHX 13y ago
  Spot on.
- md224 13y ago
  Sincere question: was it not common knowledge that these companies would hand over user data if compelled to do so by the government? What exactly is new about this revelation?
  - coolj 13y ago
    I'm not sure how others feel, but for me the systematic nature and the scope of collection are what get my hackles up. Requesting specific information on a specific individual because of the suspicion that a crime has been committed is perfectly reasonable. Collecting information on everyone in order to search for illegal activity feels like a serious violation of privacy. We can debate about the kind of information they can get through NSLs only being "metadata", etc., but that's the crux of the issue for me.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      There is no evidence they collect information on "everyone". Everyone has denied the firehose feed hypothesis, even the NSA. Verizon didn't deny it, proving that there's no gag order, nor did the NSA. So we have Verizon admitting a metadata firehose, but everyone else denying it, which seems to suggest the tech companies are telling the truth.
      - coolj 13y ago
        I hope so. But we have no insight into how much information was put in the "locked mailboxes." From what we do know, it's reasonable to assume the NSA has been gathering as much information on as many people as is/was legally permissible.
- pyre 13y ago
  | they need to admit that these reports are true Assume for a moment that the reports aren't true, or are exaggerated. Are they supposed to lie to you in a way the hurts them just to appease you?
- cromwellian 13y ago
  What do you call the Google Transparency Report document then? They have been admitting it and documenting it, to the best of their ability (when not gagged). Google has been fighting these in court, they have declared their opinions against the practical, they have been lobbying against these laws. They've done everything they legally can do, unless Larry Page wants to risk being put into federal prison. The PRISM leak started as this dramatic claim that NSA is hoovering up all of the person data of everyone in the cloud. Now this has been mostly retracted to tech companies sending them data on individual accounts as requested by lawful court order, which is what they've been doing, in public view, unclassified, for years, and admitting it -- that they respond to lawful requests on a case by case basis. What more do you want? The denials are about as vehement as they can get. The NSA denies the "firehose feed" hypothesis as well.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  Exactly. This kind of technically correct, but utterly unhelpful resposnse reminds me of the Adolf Eichmann trial. Where have they been the last 10 years? Where are their values and spines at? You see, if you don't stand up, you still get counted. "Little Brother is watching you, too"
dkulchenko 13y ago
I'm struggling to make sense of all this. On the one hand, the denials from the companies in question are becoming more and more genuine and convincing - on the other, the NSA PowerPoint did leak which very clearly states the companies' involvement and no one's thus far denied its validity. Who's lying?
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  Probably neither. It is just my guess, but it seems like the NSA slides overstate how much access they have (after all, this is a $20MM project) and the journalists took them at their word/pushed the sensational angle. The tech companies are understating how much they work with the government. No one is strictly lying, but their various interests are conflicting.
  - eightyone 13y ago
    I have a hard time Glenn Greenwald would stake his reputation on this without having more concrete proof. I think that there is still a lot more information to be let out. They are slowly leaking more and more every day so that the story stays in the news. It's a clever tactic. I'm curious why Greenwald isn't going to release the "highly detailed technical materials on how they eavesdrop" that he claimed he had on Twitter. [1] Perhaps it would give up his source? Or maybe it just contains too much national security information or whatever? I'm not sure. [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016 Ninja edit: Also as another commenter pointed out, that $20-million figure could be for just one specific part of the program or what have you.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Uh, Glenn has said even more stupid stuff IMO in the context of the Pfc. Manning case so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. In fact I'd argue that Glenn's reputation is based more on being a "civil liberties watchdog" and far far less on actually being right in his reporting. So in that regard he's simply padding his rep even further.
guelo 13y ago
The NSA slides are highly damaging to American service providers, thus they are trying to be as forceful as possible in these statements. There are already European government officials calling for the discontinuation of American services and for the development of European alternatives. Making the matter worse is American official's arrogant short-sighted reassurances that the surveillance is for foreigners only. As the NSA called it "our home-field advantage", that these dominant global Internet companies are located here, could quickly be lost thanks to the hubris of our government.
- RWeaver 13y ago
  Definitely, I'm on the lookout for any kind of service that operates in a country with transparent law enforcement and accountability. I trust Google not to share my sensitive information (product strategies, negotiating positions) with competitors on request, I can't trust some random agent who knows he won't be held accountable if he looks up and sends that information to his cousin. There's the potential here to 'disrupt' the whole of silicon valley.
  - techsupporter 13y ago
    > I'm on the lookout for any kind of service that operates in a country with transparent law enforcement and accountability. And Diogenes thought he had it bad when looking for an honest man. That the U.S. did this is completely despicable and I'm furious at my government--especially, the guy I voted for who ran on a platform of stopping this--for continuing to pull these stunts. I look out over the panoply of countries with "modern, well-formed" legal systems, and I keep seeing the same abuses: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2027377.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2027377.stm - "The [United Kingdom] National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) will decrypt computer data and intercepted internet and e-mail traffic as part of a drive against cyber-crime..." http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/constitutional-concerns-german-intelligence-under-fire-for-spying-on-parliamentarians-a-812511.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/constitutional-c... - "German Intelligence Under Fire For Spying on Parliamentarians..." http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click... - "[The] telephone and internet data of every Australian will be retained for up to two years and intelligence agencies would be given increased access to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter..." Plus, if you're a foreigner (e.g. an American using Australian services), what incentive does the "other" country have to care about you? No one has complained, in this whole debate, about one country spying on the citizens of another country. This uproar happened because the U.S. NSA admitted to gathering data on domestic people under the guise of doing "foreign" surveillance. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical.
nhangen 13y ago
I still can't get past 'yahoo.tumblr.com' Seems like a paradox. Mind blown. Something about this feels like it carries more weight, probably because it comes from the legal department and not from a CEO.
- notatoad 13y ago
  i think the reason this statement feels like it carries more weight is that it doesn't read like a mad libs where the CEO has filled in their company name in the required blanks.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    Yahoo's is almost exactly the same as what Google posted.
fiatmoney 13y ago
I don't care about whether a given company "volunteers information" (or has it compelled), or whether it's via "lawful means" (which means, we got a secret court order or an NSL for everyone). What I want to know is, of the N users you serve in Country X, how many have had information turned over to a third party? If you qualify it as "any third party", I really doubt the proscriptions over disclosing specific FISC or NSL orders apply. They do receive orders to turn over information for all sorts of reasons, some of which are totally legitimate. Unless the number is "100%".
- wycats 13y ago
  The word "infinitesimal" appears in this document.
  - fiatmoney 13y ago
    Many words, and no numbers.
outside1234 13y ago
A clear statement. Thank you Yahoo!
Father 13y ago
All the organizations in question have a permanent smut on their record. The angle I'm missing in this discussion is that this is a business opportunity for something new and better. Acquiring new users for a search engine, social network, etc was damn near impossible because you couldn't compete with the resources, quality and brand. Now they have a flaw; privacy. Maybe the homogeneous landscape of the tech industry can get shaken up. Kim Dotcom is creating an anonymous email service and I'm curious to see what other alternatives for common tech pops into existence in the wake of this. Changing a government will take a lot of time; but a business outside the reach of US legislation could pop up tomorrow.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
quackerhacker 13y ago
Lately all these PR statements from the companies involved are so carefully structured that they can be interrpreted 2 clear ways. 1) Face Value. Don't look into the wording and just see that so many companies "accused," are not involved. 2) Semantics. Look at the wording for hidden meanings, possibility of a gag order, and these companies are (in reference to this article) involuntarily involved. I think they are general so the person reading it will take it as they want. I posted a "what will you do now," post on here [0], because that's really what this comes down to. I agree with most that I've ALWAYS assumed we were all monitored, but as I've said many times....it's not what they know, it's what they can prove in court (that's why I'm thankful CISPA got blocked...it was kinda like legalizing what was already going on to be able to use what they know in court). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842556
- lhl 13y ago
  For those interested, there is a dissection of Yahoo!'s statement by Chris Soghoian (privacy and security research, policy expert/technologist @ the ACLU): http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2013/06/analyzing-yahoos-prism-non-denial.html http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2013/06/analyzing-yahoos-prism-n... Like the other official/legal postings so far, the verbiage in this post is carefully crafted to mean the opposite of what it says.

84 points by llambda 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Wow bet Yahoos glad they took a little longer than Facebook and Google to 'set the record straight'. This statement definitely carries much higher conviction language that related statements, interesting to note the absence of Marissa Mayer from the statements. I would guess that it just gives a little more PR distance in case things blow up further.

coolj 13y ago

These companies are making themselves look really bad to anyone paying attention. Nobody is reporting that they joined a program to volunteer illegal access to user data, so these assurances are canards. What is being reported is that the NSA has been running a secret program to legally collect user data from these companies. If these companies want my respect, they need to admit that these reports are true, declare their opinion against the practice, and state their position on legal reform to make such practices illegal.

HoochTHX 13y ago
Spot on.
md224 13y ago
Sincere question: was it not common knowledge that these companies would hand over user data if compelled to do so by the government? What exactly is new about this revelation?
- coolj 13y ago
  I'm not sure how others feel, but for me the systematic nature and the scope of collection are what get my hackles up. Requesting specific information on a specific individual because of the suspicion that a crime has been committed is perfectly reasonable. Collecting information on everyone in order to search for illegal activity feels like a serious violation of privacy. We can debate about the kind of information they can get through NSLs only being "metadata", etc., but that's the crux of the issue for me.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    There is no evidence they collect information on "everyone". Everyone has denied the firehose feed hypothesis, even the NSA. Verizon didn't deny it, proving that there's no gag order, nor did the NSA. So we have Verizon admitting a metadata firehose, but everyone else denying it, which seems to suggest the tech companies are telling the truth.
    - coolj 13y ago
      I hope so. But we have no insight into how much information was put in the "locked mailboxes." From what we do know, it's reasonable to assume the NSA has been gathering as much information on as many people as is/was legally permissible.
pyre 13y ago
| they need to admit that these reports are true Assume for a moment that the reports aren't true, or are exaggerated. Are they supposed to lie to you in a way the hurts them just to appease you?
cromwellian 13y ago
What do you call the Google Transparency Report document then? They have been admitting it and documenting it, to the best of their ability (when not gagged). Google has been fighting these in court, they have declared their opinions against the practical, they have been lobbying against these laws. They've done everything they legally can do, unless Larry Page wants to risk being put into federal prison. The PRISM leak started as this dramatic claim that NSA is hoovering up all of the person data of everyone in the cloud. Now this has been mostly retracted to tech companies sending them data on individual accounts as requested by lawful court order, which is what they've been doing, in public view, unclassified, for years, and admitting it -- that they respond to lawful requests on a case by case basis. What more do you want? The denials are about as vehement as they can get. The NSA denies the "firehose feed" hypothesis as well.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
Exactly. This kind of technically correct, but utterly unhelpful resposnse reminds me of the Adolf Eichmann trial. Where have they been the last 10 years? Where are their values and spines at? You see, if you don't stand up, you still get counted. "Little Brother is watching you, too"

dkulchenko 13y ago

I'm struggling to make sense of all this. On the one hand, the denials from the companies in question are becoming more and more genuine and convincing - on the other, the NSA PowerPoint did leak which very clearly states the companies' involvement and no one's thus far denied its validity. Who's lying?

Kylekramer 13y ago
Probably neither. It is just my guess, but it seems like the NSA slides overstate how much access they have (after all, this is a $20MM project) and the journalists took them at their word/pushed the sensational angle. The tech companies are understating how much they work with the government. No one is strictly lying, but their various interests are conflicting.
- eightyone 13y ago
  I have a hard time Glenn Greenwald would stake his reputation on this without having more concrete proof. I think that there is still a lot more information to be let out. They are slowly leaking more and more every day so that the story stays in the news. It's a clever tactic. I'm curious why Greenwald isn't going to release the "highly detailed technical materials on how they eavesdrop" that he claimed he had on Twitter. [1] Perhaps it would give up his source? Or maybe it just contains too much national security information or whatever? I'm not sure. [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343470800784982016 Ninja edit: Also as another commenter pointed out, that $20-million figure could be for just one specific part of the program or what have you.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Uh, Glenn has said even more stupid stuff IMO in the context of the Pfc. Manning case so it wouldn't surprise me one bit. In fact I'd argue that Glenn's reputation is based more on being a "civil liberties watchdog" and far far less on actually being right in his reporting. So in that regard he's simply padding his rep even further.

guelo 13y ago

The NSA slides are highly damaging to American service providers, thus they are trying to be as forceful as possible in these statements. There are already European government officials calling for the discontinuation of American services and for the development of European alternatives. Making the matter worse is American official's arrogant short-sighted reassurances that the surveillance is for foreigners only. As the NSA called it "our home-field advantage", that these dominant global Internet companies are located here, could quickly be lost thanks to the hubris of our government.

RWeaver 13y ago
Definitely, I'm on the lookout for any kind of service that operates in a country with transparent law enforcement and accountability. I trust Google not to share my sensitive information (product strategies, negotiating positions) with competitors on request, I can't trust some random agent who knows he won't be held accountable if he looks up and sends that information to his cousin. There's the potential here to 'disrupt' the whole of silicon valley.
- techsupporter 13y ago
  > I'm on the lookout for any kind of service that operates in a country with transparent law enforcement and accountability. And Diogenes thought he had it bad when looking for an honest man. That the U.S. did this is completely despicable and I'm furious at my government--especially, the guy I voted for who ran on a platform of stopping this--for continuing to pull these stunts. I look out over the panoply of countries with "modern, well-formed" legal systems, and I keep seeing the same abuses: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2027377.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2027377.stm - "The [United Kingdom] National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) will decrypt computer data and intercepted internet and e-mail traffic as part of a drive against cyber-crime..." http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/constitutional-concerns-german-intelligence-under-fire-for-spying-on-parliamentarians-a-812511.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/constitutional-c... - "German Intelligence Under Fire For Spying on Parliamentarians..." http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click-you-make-theyll-be-watching-20120711-21wfg.html http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/every-click... - "[The] telephone and internet data of every Australian will be retained for up to two years and intelligence agencies would be given increased access to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter..." Plus, if you're a foreigner (e.g. an American using Australian services), what incentive does the "other" country have to care about you? No one has complained, in this whole debate, about one country spying on the citizens of another country. This uproar happened because the U.S. NSA admitted to gathering data on domestic people under the guise of doing "foreign" surveillance. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical.

nhangen 13y ago

I still can't get past 'yahoo.tumblr.com' Seems like a paradox. Mind blown. Something about this feels like it carries more weight, probably because it comes from the legal department and not from a CEO.

notatoad 13y ago
i think the reason this statement feels like it carries more weight is that it doesn't read like a mad libs where the CEO has filled in their company name in the required blanks.
- gohrt 13y ago
  Yahoo's is almost exactly the same as what Google posted.

fiatmoney 13y ago

I don't care about whether a given company "volunteers information" (or has it compelled), or whether it's via "lawful means" (which means, we got a secret court order or an NSL for everyone). What I want to know is, of the N users you serve in Country X, how many have had information turned over to a third party? If you qualify it as "any third party", I really doubt the proscriptions over disclosing specific FISC or NSL orders apply. They do receive orders to turn over information for all sorts of reasons, some of which are totally legitimate. Unless the number is "100%".

wycats 13y ago
The word "infinitesimal" appears in this document.
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  Many words, and no numbers.

outside1234 13y ago

A clear statement. Thank you Yahoo!

Father 13y ago

All the organizations in question have a permanent smut on their record. The angle I'm missing in this discussion is that this is a business opportunity for something new and better. Acquiring new users for a search engine, social network, etc was damn near impossible because you couldn't compete with the resources, quality and brand. Now they have a flaw; privacy. Maybe the homogeneous landscape of the tech industry can get shaken up. Kim Dotcom is creating an anonymous email service and I'm curious to see what other alternatives for common tech pops into existence in the wake of this. Changing a government will take a lot of time; but a business outside the reach of US legislation could pop up tomorrow.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

quackerhacker 13y ago

Lately all these PR statements from the companies involved are so carefully structured that they can be interrpreted 2 clear ways. 1) Face Value. Don't look into the wording and just see that so many companies "accused," are not involved. 2) Semantics. Look at the wording for hidden meanings, possibility of a gag order, and these companies are (in reference to this article) involuntarily involved. I think they are general so the person reading it will take it as they want. I posted a "what will you do now," post on here [0], because that's really what this comes down to. I agree with most that I've ALWAYS assumed we were all monitored, but as I've said many times....it's not what they know, it's what they can prove in court (that's why I'm thankful CISPA got blocked...it was kinda like legalizing what was already going on to be able to use what they know in court). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842556

lhl 13y ago
For those interested, there is a dissection of Yahoo!'s statement by Chris Soghoian (privacy and security research, policy expert/technologist @ the ACLU): http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2013/06/analyzing-yahoos-prism-non-denial.html http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2013/06/analyzing-yahoos-prism-n... Like the other official/legal postings so far, the verbiage in this post is carefully crafted to mean the opposite of what it says.