6 ms·

Google’s Schmidt: NSA Spying on Data Centers ‘Outrageous’

36 points by Libertatea 13y ago

frank_boyd 13y ago
I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts hardware provided by the NSA. So his outrage is even more hypocritical than the EU's leaders'. Also, if he was really "outraged", he'd band together with the other tech giants and actively and visibly fight the NSA: If somebody has the power and reach to get the public behind a cause, it's the tech giants. As long as they don't fight the NSA and do it in a manner that's transparent for the public and honest, I call: Pure PR bullshit as usual.
- Oletros 13y ago
  > I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts hardware provided by the NSA Any link for that?
  - frank_boyd 13y ago
    I read it in another Guardian article at the time, but: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/prism-slides-nsa-document http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/pri... slide #3: "Collection directly from the servers of these US Service Providers: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, Youtube, Apple." "directly from the servers of these US Service Providers" means "with help from these US Service Providers"
    - skj 13y ago
      Or, it means they tapped the lines between servers. This assertion of meaning without evidence is a waste of time. Please make sure to replace "means" with "causes me to think" in the future.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > "directly from the servers of these US Service Providers" means "with help from these US Service Providers" Or it means "with the court-ordered forced help of these companies".
    - Oletros 13y ago
      When they talk about "directly from the servers..." they are talking about PRISM and yes, it is data sent from the companies regarding federal requests. It has nothing to do with the claim " Google has NSA hardware in their datacenters"
DanBC 13y ago
I have trouble sympathising with Schmidt when he's earlier said that Internet privacy is an illusion, even though he's suffered from intrusive reporting. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html > "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... > Unfortunately, Schmidt's statement makes it seem as if Google, a company that claims to care about privacy, is not even concerned enough to understand basic lessons about privacy and why it's important on so many levels -- from protection against shallow embarrassments to the preservation of freedom and human rights. > Gawker was quick to point out the personal hypocrisy of Schmidt's dismissive stance, noting that for about a year, Schmidt blacklisted CNET reporters from Google after the tech news company published an article with information about his salary, neighborhood, hobbies, and political donations -- all obtained from Google searches. Techdirt noted additionally that Schmidt's statement is painfully similar to the tired adage of pro-surveillance advocates that incorrectly presume that privacy's only function is to obscure lawbreaking: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."
- cottonseed 13y ago
  Consistent interpretation: Google is up to no good.
  - skj 13y ago
    Actually consistent interpretation: people choose to interpret things however they like, to make the narrative that makes them the happiest.
- magicalist 13y ago
  Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand (what on earth does sympathy have to do with it, especially for Eric Schmidt? it's user data the NSA is copying) Meanwhile, I'll point out once again the rest of what he said, in which he warned everyone of the dangers of cloud computing due to the powers enabled by the Patriot Act. But no, no one wanted to talk about that. Too easy to go for the sound bite. > Q: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" > Schmidt: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."
fulafel 13y ago
I got the impression that Schmidt was the most privacy-concerned guy in the Google management triumvirate, reading Steven Levy's Google book. So his thoughts might not be an accurate reflection on how the company will react.
hengheng 13y ago
Did Google lose business over the fiber spying? Their reaction is similar in its hypocrisy to German chancellor Merkel.
Maarten88 13y ago
What strikes me is that this time, Microsoft seems to not be mentioned in relation to this type of spying. Just Yahoo and Google. I can't imagine NSA finding Microsoft datacenter traffic less interesting. Does Microsoft have better encryption between data centers?
- bowmessage 13y ago
  I bet Microsoft is just much more cooperative with the government so they don't need to do that kind of spying.
Geee 13y ago
Too bad he isn't in charge any more. Been downhill for Google since he left the position ...

36 points by Libertatea 13y ago

I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts hardware provided by the NSA. So his outrage is even more hypocritical than the EU's leaders'. Also, if he was really "outraged", he'd band together with the other tech giants and actively and visibly fight the NSA: If somebody has the power and reach to get the public behind a cause, it's the tech giants. As long as they don't fight the NSA and do it in a manner that's transparent for the public and honest, I call: Pure PR bullshit as usual.

Oletros 13y ago
> I remember that report (one of the earlier ones) that said that Google hosts hardware provided by the NSA Any link for that?
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  I read it in another Guardian article at the time, but: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/prism-slides-nsa-document http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/pri... slide #3: "Collection directly from the servers of these US Service Providers: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, Youtube, Apple." "directly from the servers of these US Service Providers" means "with help from these US Service Providers"
  - skj 13y ago
    Or, it means they tapped the lines between servers. This assertion of meaning without evidence is a waste of time. Please make sure to replace "means" with "causes me to think" in the future.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > "directly from the servers of these US Service Providers" means "with help from these US Service Providers" Or it means "with the court-ordered forced help of these companies".
  - Oletros 13y ago
    When they talk about "directly from the servers..." they are talking about PRISM and yes, it is data sent from the companies regarding federal requests. It has nothing to do with the claim " Google has NSA hardware in their datacenters"

DanBC 13y ago

I have trouble sympathising with Schmidt when he's earlier said that Internet privacy is an illusion, even though he's suffered from intrusive reporting. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10413473-56.html > "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmid... > Unfortunately, Schmidt's statement makes it seem as if Google, a company that claims to care about privacy, is not even concerned enough to understand basic lessons about privacy and why it's important on so many levels -- from protection against shallow embarrassments to the preservation of freedom and human rights. > Gawker was quick to point out the personal hypocrisy of Schmidt's dismissive stance, noting that for about a year, Schmidt blacklisted CNET reporters from Google after the tech news company published an article with information about his salary, neighborhood, hobbies, and political donations -- all obtained from Google searches. Techdirt noted additionally that Schmidt's statement is painfully similar to the tired adage of pro-surveillance advocates that incorrectly presume that privacy's only function is to obscure lawbreaking: "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."

cottonseed 13y ago
Consistent interpretation: Google is up to no good.
- skj 13y ago
  Actually consistent interpretation: people choose to interpret things however they like, to make the narrative that makes them the happiest.
magicalist 13y ago
Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand (what on earth does sympathy have to do with it, especially for Eric Schmidt? it's user data the NSA is copying) Meanwhile, I'll point out once again the rest of what he said, in which he warned everyone of the dangers of cloud computing due to the powers enabled by the Patriot Act. But no, no one wanted to talk about that. Too easy to go for the sound bite. > Q: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" > Schmidt: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."

fulafel 13y ago

I got the impression that Schmidt was the most privacy-concerned guy in the Google management triumvirate, reading Steven Levy's Google book. So his thoughts might not be an accurate reflection on how the company will react.

hengheng 13y ago

Did Google lose business over the fiber spying? Their reaction is similar in its hypocrisy to German chancellor Merkel.

Maarten88 13y ago

What strikes me is that this time, Microsoft seems to not be mentioned in relation to this type of spying. Just Yahoo and Google. I can't imagine NSA finding Microsoft datacenter traffic less interesting. Does Microsoft have better encryption between data centers?

bowmessage 13y ago
I bet Microsoft is just much more cooperative with the government so they don't need to do that kind of spying.

Geee 13y ago

Too bad he isn't in charge any more. Been downhill for Google since he left the position ...