4 ms·

People are upset with Google because they trusted an ever increasing amount of their personal data to a company who's mantra is, "Don't be evil", only to discov

by beloch 13y ago

People are upset with Google because they trusted an ever increasing amount of their personal data to a company who's mantra is, "Don't be evil", only to discover Google was facilitating snooping from a third party whistle blower. Google has asked its users to trust their good intentions. The revelation that nobody at Google was willing to speak out before Snowden can only be viewed as a deep failure of ethics on an organization-wide level. Trust is necessary for Google's business model. This letter represents a truly minimal attempt at self-preservation. If you truly want to regain you users' trust then you need to be transparent. Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests? Who decided to meekly comply rather than taking a stand? Name names. What is going on that we still don't know about? Silence is support.

res0nat0r 13y ago
>only to discover Google was facilitating snooping from a third party whistle blower. This directly contradicts what he is mentioning above. When you are compelled to do something, it doesn't mean you are facilitating. It means you are being forced. > Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests? Has anyone up until the last month when the press decided to take up the Snowden case 24x7 actually asked Google if this was going on? Books about this subject and the NSA goings on have been published for 5+ years now. Maybe no one cared enough to pay attention? Or it was known and ignored until now because no one thought it newsworthy? That doesn't mean Google was keeping it secret.
- angersock 13y ago
  The issue is that if your motto is "Don't be evil.", you can't later pretend it was "Don't be evil (unless you're forced to do so)." Especially for a company that big, you'd expect some backbone.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Google has been fighting it. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/ for example. Just because not every fight is public doesn't mean they aren't happening. Yahoo fought for 5 years before their fight became public.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  My issue is that they continued to tell people that they could be trusted. If you are being forced to do something, fine, but don't keep on telling others that you can be trusted. Microsoft is an even worse offender here, with their recent marketing campaigns slamming Google for privacy while they themselves were apparently being 'forced' to disrespect their users privacy. Don't claim something that you know that you cannot provide, even if you want to provide it.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    >My issue is that they continued to tell people that they could be trusted. If you are being forced to do something, fine, but don't keep on telling others that you can be trusted. Trusted...how? I guess we need to define trusted. Google isn't selling your email history to the highest 3rd party bidder for extra money. They are complying with the law, handing over specific info for specific legal requests from the US government.
- joering2 13y ago
  > It means you are being forced. Could you please elaborate what it means to be "forced" in a democratic, free, law-abiding country? Do you mean CEO of Google had a gun at their face? Do you mean they were treated to get electricity cut off? Internet cut off? Engineers thrown in jail without fair trial? Please kindly tell me what it means where a free democratic government is "forcing" you to comply with a secret unethical, most likely unlawful and surely unconstitutional request?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel You can be compelled by the US government to do things you might not like to do. Google can either comply since they are a US based company, or not. The benefits of compliance outweigh the downsides of not complying. >secret unethical, most likely unlawful and surely unconstitutional request? There has been no evidence that what the NSA is doing is illegal. It has congressional oversight and approval.
    - marvin 13y ago
      What would be the likely result if Larry Page made a blog post detailing all the information they are petitioning the government to allow revealing, and then went directly to the media with the same information? It would be a bold act of civil disobedience, but obviously none of the CEOs of any of these companies have had the balls to do it. I'm thinking that the US Government would have a much harder time prosecuting a high-profile, wealthy CEO over a systems administrator no one had heard of until a month ago. And the media attention would be harder to derail.
      - joering2 13y ago
        Exactly my point. If Google does work with NSA in secret, then shame on Page and Brin for "doing evil". I cannot imagine how strong and adverse message gov would send out into the world shall they choose to harshly prosecute someone of a Google or Microsoft's CEO caliber.
      - 13y ago
- just2n 13y ago
  If I was being compelled to violate the 4th Amendment rights of my customers, I'd massively and securely erase any data that isn't vital to my service, or if that conflicted with the rights of my customers given being compelled by a secret court, I'd simply shut down my business. That's what I'd expect any company which espouses a "do no evil" policy to do. Literally, if you are doing evil, especially if you are being compelled to do so, take whatever action is necessary to prevent further evil from being done. As for the letter in the article, I find it completely insufficient. Asking for the ability to disclose how many secret compulsions are made against these companies isn't useful information for us. Further, it doesn't actually fix the problem. There shouldn't be secret requests being made. It should all be done under normal warrants, with exceptional cases that actually require secrecy decided by a judge, not the NSA. In this way, when your information is collected but isn't pertinent to national security, Google can actually inform you.
  - apass 13y ago
    Exactly. Mozilla can't give this kind of info because they don't collect it. They're responsible.
gavinlynch 13y ago
Oh please. I want the public to know about the massive, invasive, and very likely unconstitutional programs the Executive, Legislative and Judicial systems of my government have signed off on. We need to Fight the Good Fight. But let's not be intentionally naive or ignorant. Google should have prefaced their "Don't Be Evil" mantra with a small-print "Unless a secretive Total Information Awareness-esque system of massive surveillance of raw and curated data is demanded of us in the form of a secretive judicial court in FISC whose base intentions were corrupted, that we are totally unable to challenge because the consortium of all 3 major branches of government are preventing us from seeking legal recourse"???? Right. As you were saying about models of trust and all that nebulous nonsense... Carry on.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
munificent 13y ago
> Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests? Who decided to meekly comply rather than taking a stand? Google didn't fail to tell the truth here, they (and others) were legally prohibited from doing so. You have to understand if Google were to simply put up a page saying, "We've complied with 1234 NSA requests", people will be thrown in prison.

by beloch 13y ago

res0nat0r 13y ago

>only to discover Google was facilitating snooping from a third party whistle blower. This directly contradicts what he is mentioning above. When you are compelled to do something, it doesn't mean you are facilitating. It means you are being forced. > Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests? Has anyone up until the last month when the press decided to take up the Snowden case 24x7 actually asked Google if this was going on? Books about this subject and the NSA goings on have been published for 5+ years now. Maybe no one cared enough to pay attention? Or it was known and ignored until now because no one thought it newsworthy? That doesn't mean Google was keeping it secret.

angersock 13y ago
The issue is that if your motto is "Don't be evil.", you can't later pretend it was "Don't be evil (unless you're forced to do so)." Especially for a company that big, you'd expect some backbone.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Google has been fighting it. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/ for example. Just because not every fight is public doesn't mean they aren't happening. Yahoo fought for 5 years before their fight became public.
jlgreco 13y ago
My issue is that they continued to tell people that they could be trusted. If you are being forced to do something, fine, but don't keep on telling others that you can be trusted. Microsoft is an even worse offender here, with their recent marketing campaigns slamming Google for privacy while they themselves were apparently being 'forced' to disrespect their users privacy. Don't claim something that you know that you cannot provide, even if you want to provide it.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  >My issue is that they continued to tell people that they could be trusted. If you are being forced to do something, fine, but don't keep on telling others that you can be trusted. Trusted...how? I guess we need to define trusted. Google isn't selling your email history to the highest 3rd party bidder for extra money. They are complying with the law, handing over specific info for specific legal requests from the US government.
joering2 13y ago
> It means you are being forced. Could you please elaborate what it means to be "forced" in a democratic, free, law-abiding country? Do you mean CEO of Google had a gun at their face? Do you mean they were treated to get electricity cut off? Internet cut off? Engineers thrown in jail without fair trial? Please kindly tell me what it means where a free democratic government is "forcing" you to comply with a secret unethical, most likely unlawful and surely unconstitutional request?
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compel You can be compelled by the US government to do things you might not like to do. Google can either comply since they are a US based company, or not. The benefits of compliance outweigh the downsides of not complying. >secret unethical, most likely unlawful and surely unconstitutional request? There has been no evidence that what the NSA is doing is illegal. It has congressional oversight and approval.
  - marvin 13y ago
    What would be the likely result if Larry Page made a blog post detailing all the information they are petitioning the government to allow revealing, and then went directly to the media with the same information? It would be a bold act of civil disobedience, but obviously none of the CEOs of any of these companies have had the balls to do it. I'm thinking that the US Government would have a much harder time prosecuting a high-profile, wealthy CEO over a systems administrator no one had heard of until a month ago. And the media attention would be harder to derail.
    - joering2 13y ago
      Exactly my point. If Google does work with NSA in secret, then shame on Page and Brin for "doing evil". I cannot imagine how strong and adverse message gov would send out into the world shall they choose to harshly prosecute someone of a Google or Microsoft's CEO caliber.
    - 13y ago
just2n 13y ago
If I was being compelled to violate the 4th Amendment rights of my customers, I'd massively and securely erase any data that isn't vital to my service, or if that conflicted with the rights of my customers given being compelled by a secret court, I'd simply shut down my business. That's what I'd expect any company which espouses a "do no evil" policy to do. Literally, if you are doing evil, especially if you are being compelled to do so, take whatever action is necessary to prevent further evil from being done. As for the letter in the article, I find it completely insufficient. Asking for the ability to disclose how many secret compulsions are made against these companies isn't useful information for us. Further, it doesn't actually fix the problem. There shouldn't be secret requests being made. It should all be done under normal warrants, with exceptional cases that actually require secrecy decided by a judge, not the NSA. In this way, when your information is collected but isn't pertinent to national security, Google can actually inform you.
- apass 13y ago
  Exactly. Mozilla can't give this kind of info because they don't collect it. They're responsible.

gavinlynch 13y ago

Oh please. I want the public to know about the massive, invasive, and very likely unconstitutional programs the Executive, Legislative and Judicial systems of my government have signed off on. We need to Fight the Good Fight. But let's not be intentionally naive or ignorant. Google should have prefaced their "Don't Be Evil" mantra with a small-print "Unless a secretive Total Information Awareness-esque system of massive surveillance of raw and curated data is demanded of us in the form of a secretive judicial court in FISC whose base intentions were corrupted, that we are totally unable to challenge because the consortium of all 3 major branches of government are preventing us from seeking legal recourse"???? Right. As you were saying about models of trust and all that nebulous nonsense... Carry on.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

munificent 13y ago

> Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests? Who decided to meekly comply rather than taking a stand? Google didn't fail to tell the truth here, they (and others) were legally prohibited from doing so. You have to understand if Google were to simply put up a page saying, "We've complied with 1234 NSA requests", people will be thrown in prison.