4 ms·
This is an incredibly fanciful interpretation of language. If these reports are correct then Google is simply outright lying. If you have to strain to read a
by skwirl 13y ago
This is an incredibly fanciful interpretation of language. If these reports are correct then Google is simply outright lying. If you have to strain to read a statement to mean the exact opposite if what it plainly says and that opposite is the truth, then what practical difference is there between that statement and a lie?
Statements from Google:
we have not joined any program that would
give the U.S. government—or any other
government—direct access to our servers.
Our legal team reviews each and every request,
and frequently pushes back when requests are overly
broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press
reports that suggest that Google is providing
open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period.
Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the
broad type of order that Verizon received—an order
that appears to have required them to hand over
millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised
to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion
that Google is disclosing information about our
users’ Internet activity on such a scale is
completely false.
We cannot say this more clearly -- the government does
not have access to Google servers--not directly, or via
a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we
received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in
the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise.
Google participates in that allows the kind of access
that the media originally reported. Note that I
say "originally" because you'll see that many of
those original sources corrected their articles after
it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate.
There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no
indirect access, no back door, no drop box.
We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely
telling the truth about all of this. Our business
depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive
officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to
the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move.
If by what has now been “revealed” you mean the allegation
that Google is allowing the NSA unfettered access to user
data or that we’re handing over data willy-nilly to the
government, again, that’s just not true. It’s not
rhetoric, it’s just a fact.
QUESTION: Without giving any specifics which might put you
in violation of such an order, are you legally bound to \
lie about anything to the public? (Yes or no is fine)
ANSWER: Nope. No gun to my head.
I’m really troubled if you’ve lost trust in us because of
this idea that we’re collaborating in a broad surveillance
program. We’re not, and that’s why we are pushing back so
hard on these allegations.
I really don't know how you could say NO more strongly. How would you say it? It is manifestly apparent at this point that there is no possible way that you could say it without someone who wants to believe otherwise reading whatever they want out of it.
- uptown 13y agoOr the precursor to their more-formal statement: "What the ...?" Posted: Friday, June 07, 2013 Dear Google users— You may be aware of press reports alleging that Internet companies have joined a secret U.S. government program called PRISM to give the National Security Agency direct access to our servers. As Google’s CEO and Chief Legal Officer, we wanted you to have the facts. First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday. Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish. Posted by Larry Page, CEO and David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer
- yk 13y agoIn your examples, Google again just talks about 'servers.' There is no language which indicates that there is no wiretapping equipment in their datacenters, except for There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box. Which is clearly wrong, since there is a indirect access to user data ( via court order). [1] However at this point Google is trying to prove a negative, that it does not knowingly participates in covert surveillance of its users. ( With the added complexity, that AdWords analytics should qualify as surveillance.) So Google will have a very hard time to convince me. However a published privacy policy, verified by a third party, would go quite a long way. [1] http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?hl=en_US http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?h...