5 ms·

Dvorak's article is a regurgitation of previous HN discussions on this topic. I have said in the previous HN post and I will say it again here: don't pile on M

by mikevm 13y ago

Dvorak's article is a regurgitation of previous HN discussions on this topic. I have said in the previous HN post and I will say it again here: don't pile on Microsoft alone. These spying policies make every US-based services company untrustworthy to whomever privacy is important. Come to think of it, I'm not sure whether you can rely on European services either because it seems that gov't surveillance is widespread. On the other hand, maybe if we do pile on Microsoft, and stop using their products for this reason alone (even though Google, Apple and others are in the same boat), it will force them and their lobbyists to influence their gov't shills to put a stop to these programs.

yuhong 13y ago
Yea, remember that PRISM is designed to target foreign communications, so if you are an American, you might be actually safer.
- disputin 13y ago
  I don't follow US news - is that what they're telling the voters?
  - yuhong 13y ago
    I think it is documented even in the leaked slides.
- mtgx 13y ago
  That's kind of the same argument for European businesses and governments to not use Microsoft/American products. At least if they did it within EU, they would be accountable, and the laws prohibit most of it. But the US spying is unaccountable to Europeans, so they can do whatever they want. The only proper answer to that is to stop using American products (at least until the US government can prove with extreme oversight from Europeans and Latin Americans and others, that they aren't abusing their spying power anymore).
- ygra 13y ago
  Or they don't have to go to those lengths to intercept national communications ;)
- bad_user 13y ago
  That's bullshit. The problem that people like you don't seem to understand is that online communications can be secure, unless the companies owning the servers themselves cooperate and companies have to cooperate if they have to do so by law. It's only the US that has such a huge budget for spying on people's communications and the US is also part of a select handful of countries going to such great lengths to suppress the freedom of speech about it. If I were to start a company in Romania (which is part of EU btw), the NSA can suck my dick as there's absolutely nothing they could do to make me cooperate and keep my mouth shut while doing it.
  - yuhong 13y ago
    True, but I am talking about the practical risk based on what is known about the spying.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      What really bothers me about this is not the actual spying - I always assumed that governments do engage in whatever spying they can get away with. What really bothers me about this is that U.S. companies and individuals have to keep their interactions with the NSA a secret, while obeying whatever demands the NSA has, including the installing of back-doors. Trust is a fragile thing and we rely on trust for conducting business and for living our lives. My trust in U.S.-based companies has been shaken. Even if the affected companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple) want to be trustworthy for their customers, they can be coerced by law to obey whatever the NSA demands and they must also keep it a secret, with absolutely no transparency - they aren't even allowed to say "yes, the NSA demanded some things and we unfortunately complied". Even worse, they can be coerced into making public statements that are full of lies. I can no longer trust any U.S. based company again. For example, right now I'm using Skype. But what if the Skype client has a backdoor allowing one to open and listen to my mike any time they want (it's a proprietary blob, we'll never know). What if this backdoor gets hacked and used by people that are not part of the U.S. government? So in spite of the best intentions of the people working on Skype and the NSA; even if I've got "nothing to hide", Skype is all of a sudden a security liability and nothing (short of an open-source client that I can compile and run) can prove otherwise, because Microsoft isn't allowed to be open about it. And I can no longer rely on the fragile trust I've had for Microsoft, because Microsoft can be coerced into being untrustworthy. See how it goes? We'll see how this unfolds over the next years, however the damage done to U.S. companies will prove to be massive.
- falk 13y ago
  You're accidentally mixing PRISM with the most recent leaks that say Microsoft has given the NSA ways to bypass encryption methods and so forth.
- adventured 13y ago
  It was merely claimed that PRISM was designed to target foreign communications. That was entirely a lie. From day one their system has been targeting Americans. The proof is overwhelming at this point. There's often a critical distinction between what gets claimed and what actually occurs in government. With a government that is so undeserving of trust, that's a very important distinction to keep in mind.
twentyfourseven 13y ago
Let's boycott the hell out of Microsoft. They gleefully sold out their users to the NSA.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  As long as you also "boycott the hell" out of: Yahoo Google Facebook PalTalk YouTube Skype AOL Apple Who have also been mentioned as complicit in this whole scandal. Just to be fair :-) By the way, I actually agree with you and have been slowly switching all my home stuff to linux and trying to get away from Google Dependence (although I type this in Chrome on a Win 8 laptop... damn work computer)
  - phaemon 13y ago
    If you think a company has behaved badly, why are you under any obligation to be fair to them? It might be extremely difficult to boycott every company involved, so why not choose one to make an example of? The idea that you must boycott all or none appears irrational.
    - vacri 13y ago
      A boycott is supposed to carry a sheen of justice, and this suggests at least a nod towards being fair.
      - phaemon 13y ago
        It's as though you're being bullied by two people, and when you try to deal with one of them, you're accused of being unfair because you can't deal with both! It sounds very much as though it was the bullies who decided what was "fair" in this instance.
        vacri 13y ago
        The boycott request was a call to community action. You're reframing it as a single individual's struggle for survival, which isn't the same thing.

by mikevm 13y ago

yuhong 13y ago

Yea, remember that PRISM is designed to target foreign communications, so if you are an American, you might be actually safer.

disputin 13y ago
I don't follow US news - is that what they're telling the voters?
- yuhong 13y ago
  I think it is documented even in the leaked slides.
mtgx 13y ago
That's kind of the same argument for European businesses and governments to not use Microsoft/American products. At least if they did it within EU, they would be accountable, and the laws prohibit most of it. But the US spying is unaccountable to Europeans, so they can do whatever they want. The only proper answer to that is to stop using American products (at least until the US government can prove with extreme oversight from Europeans and Latin Americans and others, that they aren't abusing their spying power anymore).
ygra 13y ago
Or they don't have to go to those lengths to intercept national communications ;)
bad_user 13y ago
That's bullshit. The problem that people like you don't seem to understand is that online communications can be secure, unless the companies owning the servers themselves cooperate and companies have to cooperate if they have to do so by law. It's only the US that has such a huge budget for spying on people's communications and the US is also part of a select handful of countries going to such great lengths to suppress the freedom of speech about it. If I were to start a company in Romania (which is part of EU btw), the NSA can suck my dick as there's absolutely nothing they could do to make me cooperate and keep my mouth shut while doing it.
- yuhong 13y ago
  True, but I am talking about the practical risk based on what is known about the spying.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    What really bothers me about this is not the actual spying - I always assumed that governments do engage in whatever spying they can get away with. What really bothers me about this is that U.S. companies and individuals have to keep their interactions with the NSA a secret, while obeying whatever demands the NSA has, including the installing of back-doors. Trust is a fragile thing and we rely on trust for conducting business and for living our lives. My trust in U.S.-based companies has been shaken. Even if the affected companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple) want to be trustworthy for their customers, they can be coerced by law to obey whatever the NSA demands and they must also keep it a secret, with absolutely no transparency - they aren't even allowed to say "yes, the NSA demanded some things and we unfortunately complied". Even worse, they can be coerced into making public statements that are full of lies. I can no longer trust any U.S. based company again. For example, right now I'm using Skype. But what if the Skype client has a backdoor allowing one to open and listen to my mike any time they want (it's a proprietary blob, we'll never know). What if this backdoor gets hacked and used by people that are not part of the U.S. government? So in spite of the best intentions of the people working on Skype and the NSA; even if I've got "nothing to hide", Skype is all of a sudden a security liability and nothing (short of an open-source client that I can compile and run) can prove otherwise, because Microsoft isn't allowed to be open about it. And I can no longer rely on the fragile trust I've had for Microsoft, because Microsoft can be coerced into being untrustworthy. See how it goes? We'll see how this unfolds over the next years, however the damage done to U.S. companies will prove to be massive.
falk 13y ago
You're accidentally mixing PRISM with the most recent leaks that say Microsoft has given the NSA ways to bypass encryption methods and so forth.
adventured 13y ago
It was merely claimed that PRISM was designed to target foreign communications. That was entirely a lie. From day one their system has been targeting Americans. The proof is overwhelming at this point. There's often a critical distinction between what gets claimed and what actually occurs in government. With a government that is so undeserving of trust, that's a very important distinction to keep in mind.

twentyfourseven 13y ago

Let's boycott the hell out of Microsoft. They gleefully sold out their users to the NSA.

Intermernet 13y ago
As long as you also "boycott the hell" out of: Yahoo Google Facebook PalTalk YouTube Skype AOL Apple Who have also been mentioned as complicit in this whole scandal. Just to be fair :-) By the way, I actually agree with you and have been slowly switching all my home stuff to linux and trying to get away from Google Dependence (although I type this in Chrome on a Win 8 laptop... damn work computer)
- phaemon 13y ago
  If you think a company has behaved badly, why are you under any obligation to be fair to them? It might be extremely difficult to boycott every company involved, so why not choose one to make an example of? The idea that you must boycott all or none appears irrational.
  - vacri 13y ago
    A boycott is supposed to carry a sheen of justice, and this suggests at least a nod towards being fair.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      It's as though you're being bullied by two people, and when you try to deal with one of them, you're accused of being unfair because you can't deal with both! It sounds very much as though it was the bullies who decided what was "fair" in this instance.
      - vacri 13y ago
        The boycott request was a call to community action. You're reframing it as a single individual's struggle for survival, which isn't the same thing.