4 ms·
How about a magic trick? Watch this hand, which is issuing specific requests for data. Ignore the other hand that was snooping on (until Google started encryp
by harshreality 13y ago
How about a magic trick?
Watch this hand, which is issuing specific requests for data.
Ignore the other hand that was snooping on (until Google started encrypting last year) Google's inter-datacenter links, almost all Yahoo! traffic since they only enabled ssl for non-premium accounts last year, most Hotmail/Outlook.com traffic since their defaults had ssl disabled until recently (last year?), and anything else we can (everything of interest that's not encrypted or that we can break[1]).
Ignore that restrictions on spying on our own citizens are weakened since they're not citizens to the other 4 "5 eyes" countries, and in some situations they can share back that data or they can query it for us.
Ignore that we don't consider collecting metadata on phone calls to be a 4th amendment violation. Because knowing if you called Bill Ayers or an abortion clinic or an HIV clinic is not private personal data at all.
Ignore that the data we collect, although nominally for national security purposes, is being used in criminal prosecutions having nothing to do with national security, and that we encourage law enforcement agencies to use "parallel construction" to avoid revealing the true source of the data that jumpstarted their investigations. Since we've been caught doing this, the Dept of Justice is now revealing in court when this occurs, but please ignore that these domestic criminal cases may not have been possible at all without the mass data collection we do for "national security" purposes.
Ignore our attempts to compromise internet infrastructure and subvert public cryptographic standards.
Ignore that the DNI lied to Congress. Ignore, ignore, ignore.
[1] RC4 maybe; see https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/398059565947699200 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/398059565947699200
- rsync 13y agoThe google-inter-datacenter links is nothing but plausible deniability. You will not see the end of "breaches" like this, since both sides knew what was going on (even if joe-sysadmin at google was "shocked, shocked!").
- ChrisClark 13y agoBoth sides knew? Do you have a source for that?
- kuioe 13y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-... It's reached the point where Google defenders on HN need to state their employer, given the evidence we now know it's ridiculous.
- Karunamon 13y agoEither the NSA is trustworthy or they are not. What do you think they are? I wouldn't believe this statement anymore than I'd believe the one of any other common criminal. Everything they say fits some kind of agenda.
- zevyoura 13y agoIs there any actual evidence that Google knew about the NSA's tapping of their fiber before the news broke?
- Karunamon 13y agoDidn't you get the memo? This is the NSA fearmongering game, where all accusations are taken at face value [1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7070283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7070283
- rdl 13y agoI don't think this is the case. OTOH, I'm surprised Google, after being the victim of known hacking by an intelligence agency (in pursuit of a religious extremist group, presumably), consisting of malware, targeted malware/spearphishing, attacks on staff (presumably inserting trusted staff into Google in various roles), etc., didn't include bulk encryption within its network as a way to compartmentalize things. They certainly pulled out of the world's largest Internet market, locked down their employee workstations across the board (essentially banning Windows, IIRC), adopted 2FA internally, and generally have better internal security than banks or virtually any large enterprises. On the customer-facing side, they're leading in cert pinning, "ssl everywhere", etc. So not doing bulk encryption between datacenters was an oversight -- it's technically expensive to implement, which was probably a major factor. (In case it's not obvious, this isn't Google v NSA)
- saraid216 13y ago> OTOH, I'm surprised Google [...] didn't include bulk encryption within its network as a way to compartmentalize things. You mean this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-encrypts-data-amid-backlash-against-nsa-spying/2013/09/06/9acc3c20-1722-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-enc...