3 ms·

These companies could write a 500 bullet point list of every possible denial variation, and people would still say there's weasel wording. If they said not a s

These companies could write a 500 bullet point list of every possible denial variation, and people would still say there's weasel wording. If they said not a single packet of customer data is sent to the NSA, they'd say that's because it is laundered through the FBI first. Or, they'd say it could be sent by sneakernet. Or they'd say that it is sent to GCHQ so that the UK can snoop domestically on US citizens to avoid the NSA legal restrictions. It's simply not possible to construct a denial to which there is no "workround". At this point, no matter what the NSA or the companies say, or Congress says, no one will believe them. If we can't even get nuts to stop calling the moon landing a hoax, or the 9/11 truthers who think the building was a controlled detonation, there's no way this conspiracy will ever end, even if it turns out to be something much more mundane than first leaked.

jeremy6d 13y ago
This is the whole problem with lacking transparency. The trust is broken now, and the whole network operates on some level on the basis of trust.
laumars 13y ago
Sure you can: "We do not share your data without requesting your explicit consent before hand"
- gus_massa 13y ago
  From the Google privacy page: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ (Heavily redacted, to make it smaller and highlight the more relevant points.) Information we share [...] * With your consent [...] * For legal reasons We will share personal information [...] if we have a good-faith belief that [...] disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to: - meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request. - [...] In spite of what you want to do, you can't ignore a enforceable governmental request, so Google can't say "We never share anything with the government." . Most sites have similar privacy policies.
  - laumars 13y ago
    Well yeah, I wasn't arguing against that point. But that's separate from the point which the OP raised. I was merely stating that you can write a privacy policy which doesn't sound like you're trying to weasel out, and posted a very basic one-liner to demonstrate that point. I could also add the following to cover your point as well: "In the instance where a court order is raised to provide your information, we release only as much as we are legally obliged to and will inform you of the order" "In the instance where a gag order prevents us from notifying you of the requested data, then you are probably heading for Guantanamo Bay regardless of what information we leak :p"

jeremy6d 13y ago

This is the whole problem with lacking transparency. The trust is broken now, and the whole network operates on some level on the basis of trust.

laumars 13y ago

Sure you can: "We do not share your data without requesting your explicit consent before hand"

gus_massa 13y ago
From the Google privacy page: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/ (Heavily redacted, to make it smaller and highlight the more relevant points.) Information we share [...] * With your consent [...] * For legal reasons We will share personal information [...] if we have a good-faith belief that [...] disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary to: - meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request. - [...] In spite of what you want to do, you can't ignore a enforceable governmental request, so Google can't say "We never share anything with the government." . Most sites have similar privacy policies.
- laumars 13y ago
  Well yeah, I wasn't arguing against that point. But that's separate from the point which the OP raised. I was merely stating that you can write a privacy policy which doesn't sound like you're trying to weasel out, and posted a very basic one-liner to demonstrate that point. I could also add the following to cover your point as well: "In the instance where a court order is raised to provide your information, we release only as much as we are legally obliged to and will inform you of the order" "In the instance where a gag order prevents us from notifying you of the requested data, then you are probably heading for Guantanamo Bay regardless of what information we leak :p"