3 ms·

Google is the only company to deny having FBI/NSA devices on their network. When Spylockout asked Apple's general counsel about devices on their network, we co

by zmanian 12y ago

Google is the only company to deny having FBI/NSA devices on their network. When Spylockout asked Apple's general counsel about devices on their network, we could not get a denial. Apple also made iMessage e2e encrypted for a reason... I'm really supportive of Google's efforts to genuinely protect user privacy. I think they are correct if they believe the only ultimate guarantee of user privacy is end to end encryption in the current legal environment in the US.

lern_too_spel 12y ago
Here's Apple's denial: http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ http://www.apple.com/apples-commitment-to-customer-privacy/ I would be surprised if any of the companies allowed FBI equipment to have direct access to all their users' data. Not only is it a bad idea from a privacy perspective, but it is a terrible idea from an engineering perspective as well.
- zmanian 12y ago
  If I was going to start this thread over again, I'd have done a better job differentiating between the concepts of in the data center and in the server. Also I'd do a better job of discussing Section 215 of the Patriot Act which is in transparency reports and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments which in not. Thanks for improving my arguements for next time :-)
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    FISA requests started appearing in transparency reports this year. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/shedding-some-light-on-foreign.html?m=1 http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/shedding-some-light-o... Neither the FBI nor the NSA have code related to data requests running in any of these companies' servers either, so the in-server versus in-datacenter distinction does not make a difference.