3 ms·

Interesting how they're doing this Q&A in the same format and on the same site as Snowden's Q&A the other day. That looks like a much smarter move than putting

Interesting how they're doing this Q&A in the same format and on the same site as Snowden's Q&A the other day. That looks like a much smarter move than putting up questions on some internal Q&A tool where people might suggest that they have a motive to censor questions. For everybody reading into the ambiguity of terms like "direct access", Google seems to be trying really hard to remove any uncertainty about their position: "There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box."

anon1385 13y ago
It think the 'direct access' issue is an irrelevant distraction for most of the Guardian's readers since NSA don't need any kind of warrant to access the data of non-US persons. For non-US users what is the meaningful difference between 'direct access' and a system that just approves every NSA request? I would ask: how many requests for data on non-US persons has Google denied? They want to give the impression that they fight requests on behalf of their users, but I have trouble imagining how that would actually work. In my mind it goes more like this: NSA> We need all the emails for the non-US user of account jihadi_joe@gmail.com Google> We can see that user has a non-US IP but what evidence do you have against that user? NSA> That is classified. Hand over the data. Google> Okily-dokily.