4 ms·

This really resonates with me: "Mozilla is dedicated to offering users privacy and transparency and we are honored to be an organization that users trust." Tha

by koip49 13y ago

This really resonates with me: "Mozilla is dedicated to offering users privacy and transparency and we are honored to be an organization that users trust." Thank god for Mozilla, they are one of the few tech companies I still trust in these troubled times. I like to think if the NSA asked for direct access to their servers (such as Google were revealed to have granted), Mozilla would have no shortage of whistle-blowers.

Symmetry 13y ago
I thought the way the NSA got direct access to Google's servers was by running taps into Google fiber optics?
- koip49 13y ago
  That's what Google tried to claim once Snowden forced their hand, but the leaked PRISM documents contradict their official stance. I know which I choose to believe.
  - myko 13y ago
    > but the leaked PRISM documents contradict their official stance. Mind posting a source confirming this? It's just that I don't believe you is all.
    - koip49 13y ago
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-... There are a lot of Google employees on HN who try to suppress information whenever anyone posts sources. Pretty pitiful. "Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program." The PR response from Google is irrelevant, just attempting a cover up.
      - Symmetry 13y ago
        That was written before the October leaks that showed what's actually going on.
      - mburns 13y ago
        So you come to a conclusion and then ignore any contradictory evidence, because it all must be part of the conspiracy. Seems level-headed and reasonable.
  - Symmetry 13y ago
    The PRISM documents (not the same as the PRISM program) proved that the NSA had access to Google's servers. Google claimed that they didn't give the NSA access, and at the time many people assumed they were lying. But a later Snowden leak showed that the NSA was tapping Google's fiber in a way consistent with the extra information we knew they were getting for PRISM, so Google appears not to have lied about that after all. The codename for the tap is apparently MUSCULAR[1]. Google is still totally turning over tons of data to the NSA under PRISM[2], but that goes through Google's lawyers and the court system so bad as it is, direct server access is much worse. [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/new-docs-show-nsa-taps-google-yahoo-data-center-links/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/new-docs-show-nsa... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
- cpeterso 13y ago
  Why didn't Google encrypt the fiber traffic between their data centers? I understand that private fiber links are supposed to be "secure", but telecoms like AT&T have a history of letting the NSA tap their networks.

by koip49 13y ago

Symmetry 13y ago

I thought the way the NSA got direct access to Google's servers was by running taps into Google fiber optics?

koip49 13y ago
That's what Google tried to claim once Snowden forced their hand, but the leaked PRISM documents contradict their official stance. I know which I choose to believe.
- myko 13y ago
  > but the leaked PRISM documents contradict their official stance. Mind posting a source confirming this? It's just that I don't believe you is all.
  - koip49 13y ago
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-... There are a lot of Google employees on HN who try to suppress information whenever anyone posts sources. Pretty pitiful. "Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program." The PR response from Google is irrelevant, just attempting a cover up.
    - Symmetry 13y ago
      That was written before the October leaks that showed what's actually going on.
    - mburns 13y ago
      So you come to a conclusion and then ignore any contradictory evidence, because it all must be part of the conspiracy. Seems level-headed and reasonable.
- Symmetry 13y ago
  The PRISM documents (not the same as the PRISM program) proved that the NSA had access to Google's servers. Google claimed that they didn't give the NSA access, and at the time many people assumed they were lying. But a later Snowden leak showed that the NSA was tapping Google's fiber in a way consistent with the extra information we knew they were getting for PRISM, so Google appears not to have lied about that after all. The codename for the tap is apparently MUSCULAR[1]. Google is still totally turning over tons of data to the NSA under PRISM[2], but that goes through Google's lawyers and the court system so bad as it is, direct server access is much worse. [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/new-docs-show-nsa-taps-google-yahoo-data-center-links/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/new-docs-show-nsa... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
cpeterso 13y ago
Why didn't Google encrypt the fiber traffic between their data centers? I understand that private fiber links are supposed to be "secure", but telecoms like AT&T have a history of letting the NSA tap their networks.