3 ms·

Ah, well, glad that is cleared up. "We never give the government direct access to our systems, nor do we have a server set up for them to obtain copies. Inste

Ah, well, glad that is cleared up. "We never give the government direct access to our systems, nor do we have a server set up for them to obtain copies. Instead, we just use scp to send the data directly to the government's systems! Trust us, we respect your privacy while we do this -- it's even encrypted!"

cromwellian 13y ago
Google never said it doesn't send data on user accounts when proper legal warrants are served, it publishes these facts in the yearly Transparency Report. What people were worried about, a "dragnet" that allows arbitrary access and intercept of any user data by the NSA turns out to be false. Unless you think you can use SFTP to upload, in real time, all traffic on Google services.
- felisGoodman 13y ago
  If the NSA can request data on 'suspects' at will from Google, how is that functionally different from a dragnet? Arbitrary data could be collected via phone records, then email/user data could be requested from Google/Facebook based on 'suspicious activity'. I bet that the bombshell disclosure will be that these 'proper legal warrants' are actually just arbitrary requests justified via the Patriot Act or similar.
  - eightyone 13y ago
    I wonder why Greenwald and the Guardian haven't released more information yet. Maybe they are waiting for all the tech news to die down? Are there any other major things happening this week?
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    I don't know what the official definition of dragnet is, but when PRISM first came out, the hyperbolic, dramatic media interpretation was that of a firehose -- NSA gets a feed of everyone's data and can search it at will. Now the scenario is: They must obtain NSL/FISA orders, Google reviews them, then the data on their target is released. Is that a dragnet? What if when Google wins the right to publish statistics on NSL/FISA requests, it turns out to be just a few hundred per year, or less than regular search warrants, like when a guy is suspected of killing his wife. Would that change your opinion? It seems that the pitchforks came out on the original WashPo/Guardian scenario, and if that turns out to be wrong, people will keep moving the goal posts and not put the pitchforks away. Some people just want to believe that the tech companies are greedy, unscrupulous, entities.
- cracell 13y ago
  Google continuing to deny that their is a dragnet is not evidence that their is no dragnet. If there was a dragnet it is very likely that they legally are not allowed to admit it as per terms of the court order. There's nothing Google could say or do to clear their name on this. The NSA, Congress or the Executive branch need to detail the level of access and the form of access that the NSA has to Google's information in order to clear Google's name. Even that unfortunately has to be taken with a large grain of salt. There's simply too much information pointing towards mass surveillance with assistance from US companies to believe what the companies themselves say. This is a shitty position for Google to be in but consumers didn't put them in it, the US government did by admitting to the PRISM slides being correct without detailing how the companies mentioned on them are involved.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    > If there was a dragnet it is very likely that they > legally are not allowed to admit it as per terms of > the court order. In the US, gag orders may compel silence but to my knowledge may not compel private citizens to claim they are not under a gag. > The NSA, Congress or the Executive branch need to > detail the level of access and the form of access > that the NSA has to Google's information in order > to clear Google's name. Just to be clear: you believe that Google's press release is untrustworthy, but you would trust an NSA press release about the extent of NSA surveillance?
    - cracell 13y ago
      An NSA release that is confirmed by another party such as Senator Wyden, Rand Paul, ACLU or EFF. Realistically I'm not sure what the NSA would share with anyone that could be conclusive. But a logical explanation of how the NSA gets into data without corporate cooperation and that explanation matching up with the timeline presented on the one slide would be a great start. For instance, you could argue that the PRISM timeline is simply showing once the NSA had filters in place to identify and capture general internet traffic headed to and from those specific companies. But this has a large hole in that why would Google, a company who's search queries would be highly valued, come so far after Microsoft on the timeline. So an explanation that addresses the large questions like that. As opposed to the current situation which is a credible leak that makes Google look very bad, an executive branch that is defending the information in the leak as being legal and Google flat out denying any involvement.
rasterizer 13y ago
How else would one comply with data requests?
- mpyne 13y ago
  Print out a bunch of QR codes and FedEx it, I guess.

cromwellian 13y ago

Google never said it doesn't send data on user accounts when proper legal warrants are served, it publishes these facts in the yearly Transparency Report. What people were worried about, a "dragnet" that allows arbitrary access and intercept of any user data by the NSA turns out to be false. Unless you think you can use SFTP to upload, in real time, all traffic on Google services.

felisGoodman 13y ago
If the NSA can request data on 'suspects' at will from Google, how is that functionally different from a dragnet? Arbitrary data could be collected via phone records, then email/user data could be requested from Google/Facebook based on 'suspicious activity'. I bet that the bombshell disclosure will be that these 'proper legal warrants' are actually just arbitrary requests justified via the Patriot Act or similar.
- eightyone 13y ago
  I wonder why Greenwald and the Guardian haven't released more information yet. Maybe they are waiting for all the tech news to die down? Are there any other major things happening this week?
- cromwellian 13y ago
  I don't know what the official definition of dragnet is, but when PRISM first came out, the hyperbolic, dramatic media interpretation was that of a firehose -- NSA gets a feed of everyone's data and can search it at will. Now the scenario is: They must obtain NSL/FISA orders, Google reviews them, then the data on their target is released. Is that a dragnet? What if when Google wins the right to publish statistics on NSL/FISA requests, it turns out to be just a few hundred per year, or less than regular search warrants, like when a guy is suspected of killing his wife. Would that change your opinion? It seems that the pitchforks came out on the original WashPo/Guardian scenario, and if that turns out to be wrong, people will keep moving the goal posts and not put the pitchforks away. Some people just want to believe that the tech companies are greedy, unscrupulous, entities.
cracell 13y ago
Google continuing to deny that their is a dragnet is not evidence that their is no dragnet. If there was a dragnet it is very likely that they legally are not allowed to admit it as per terms of the court order. There's nothing Google could say or do to clear their name on this. The NSA, Congress or the Executive branch need to detail the level of access and the form of access that the NSA has to Google's information in order to clear Google's name. Even that unfortunately has to be taken with a large grain of salt. There's simply too much information pointing towards mass surveillance with assistance from US companies to believe what the companies themselves say. This is a shitty position for Google to be in but consumers didn't put them in it, the US government did by admitting to the PRISM slides being correct without detailing how the companies mentioned on them are involved.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  > If there was a dragnet it is very likely that they > legally are not allowed to admit it as per terms of > the court order. In the US, gag orders may compel silence but to my knowledge may not compel private citizens to claim they are not under a gag. > The NSA, Congress or the Executive branch need to > detail the level of access and the form of access > that the NSA has to Google's information in order > to clear Google's name. Just to be clear: you believe that Google's press release is untrustworthy, but you would trust an NSA press release about the extent of NSA surveillance?
  - cracell 13y ago
    An NSA release that is confirmed by another party such as Senator Wyden, Rand Paul, ACLU or EFF. Realistically I'm not sure what the NSA would share with anyone that could be conclusive. But a logical explanation of how the NSA gets into data without corporate cooperation and that explanation matching up with the timeline presented on the one slide would be a great start. For instance, you could argue that the PRISM timeline is simply showing once the NSA had filters in place to identify and capture general internet traffic headed to and from those specific companies. But this has a large hole in that why would Google, a company who's search queries would be highly valued, come so far after Microsoft on the timeline. So an explanation that addresses the large questions like that. As opposed to the current situation which is a credible leak that makes Google look very bad, an executive branch that is defending the information in the leak as being legal and Google flat out denying any involvement.

rasterizer 13y ago

How else would one comply with data requests?

mpyne 13y ago
Print out a bunch of QR codes and FedEx it, I guess.