4 ms·

The 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

by rsync 13y ago

The 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 ago
Both sides knew? Do you have a source for that?
- kuioe 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-... 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 ago
    Either 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 ago
Is there any actual evidence that Google knew about the NSA's tapping of their fiber before the news broke?
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Didn'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 ago
I 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...
  - rdl 13y ago
    The whole point of my comment was drawing a parallel between when China spied on Google (and Google's response, and this one lacking element), and what happened after NSA.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      Right. Clearly, like they did with China, Google should just stop doing business in the US.

by rsync 13y ago

ChrisClark 13y ago

Both sides knew? Do you have a source for that?

kuioe 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-... 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 ago
  Either 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 ago

Is there any actual evidence that Google knew about the NSA's tapping of their fiber before the news broke?

Karunamon 13y ago
Didn'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 ago

I 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...
- rdl 13y ago
  The whole point of my comment was drawing a parallel between when China spied on Google (and Google's response, and this one lacking element), and what happened after NSA.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Right. Clearly, like they did with China, Google should just stop doing business in the US.