4 ms·

I'm still waiting on proof from Snowden as to Apple/Google/Facebook's direct, illegal cooperation with the NSA. So far, all I've seen proof of is compliance wit

I'm still waiting on proof from Snowden as to Apple/Google/Facebook's direct, illegal cooperation with the NSA. So far, all I've seen proof of is compliance with warrants(which admittedly are questionable, but Google has a direct financial gain in fighting them, not helping them), claims that they've fought them, and evidence that the NSA is both tapping the trunk as well as decrypting SSL'd communications.

Apachez 12y ago
This might give you a hint? http://thehackernews.com/2014/05/ios-apple-iphone-data-protection-email-attachment.html http://thehackernews.com/2014/05/ios-apple-iphone-data-prote... Apple iOS 7 Updates Silently Remove Encryption for Email Attachments Thursday, May 01, 2014
- quaunaut 12y ago
  From what I'm reading in other places this seems more like an oversight than malicious intent. It was present in iOS 7, then broke in later versions. The e-mails themselves are still fully encrypted, and the iPhone data itself can be encrpyted, the main trouble seems to be what's transmitted during sync, since the actual researcher[1] claims a valid workaround is simply disabling mail synchronization. 1. http://www.andreas-kurtz.de/2014/04/what-apple-missed-to-fix-in-ios-711.html http://www.andreas-kurtz.de/2014/04/what-apple-missed-to-fix...
eurleif 12y ago
> Google has a direct financial gain in fighting them Wait, what? Google has a direct financial gain in fighting warrants? How do you figure?
- quaunaut 12y ago
  In fighting overbroad warrants, via the National Security Letters. Having NSLs at all significantly increases consumer distrust in Google, and gives them literally zero gains in return. It even costs them work, if you're looking at the small stuff. They don't get anything out of it. Edit: Clarified what NSL means.
  - eurleif 12y ago
    NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Also, fighting them takes work too. Much more work (done by more highly-paid individuals) than complying with them. The PR angle may make it a net gain, but I don't think there's a slam-dunk case for that being true. What about consumers who believe NSLs are a necessary tool to fight terrorists?
    - quaunaut 12y ago
      > NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Are we sure that's all NSL's cover? I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval. Regardless, while the two(a subpoena and a warrant) are different, in this case their nature is more than a bit similar, considering subpoenas generally are used to produce information, whereas warrants are to be able to reasonably search for information- which on a server, the two are only differentiated by who is accessing the data and how.
      - eurleif 12y ago
        >I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). NSL power is defined by law, and is limited to metadata, not content. I suspect what they meant is that specific details about whose information is being requested, and how many requests are received, can't be released. >Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval. An administrative subpoena is a type of subpoena that does not need to be signed by a judge. An NSL is a type of admin subpoena that the FBI uses for national security matters, but the FBI uses admin subpoenas in other investigations, too. Many other federal agencies also have admin subpoena power, and some states grant it to their agencies as well.
- odonnellryan 12y ago
  My opinion would be: We trust them with our data, if they prove untrustworthy (ultimately) we'd stop using their service/giving them the data they need. Some already have stopped, of course.
- whoismua 12y ago
  They absolutely do not want anyone asking about user info, or their "store everything here forever so we can index and show ads next to it" is in trouble. On the other hand, Google doesn't want to piss off the Feds or the Military Industrial Complex. They spend a lot of money and have friends in high places.
samstave 12y ago
Yeah, so basically nothing with respect to the most egregious violation of every single tenet of what the US is marketed to the globe supposedly is! So, Cool - its great that Snowden hasn't proved shit to make anyone believe the reality is the inverse of what one may think it to be. Look, the will of our politicians must only be the whole of the Law! So, we're good here....
leoc 12y ago
Snowden never made a claim of illegal cooperation. Glen Greenwald more or less did, but he was wrong.
- quaunaut 12y ago
  Yes he has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo Go to 4 minutes into that video. It's his first interview post-reveal, in Hong Kong. "Beyond that we've got Prism, which is a demonstration of how the US Government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, they all get together with the NSA, and provide the NSA with direct access to the back ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the cloud. And even just to send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give the NSA direct access that they don't need to oversee so they can't be held liable for it. I think that's a dangerous capability for anyone to have, but particularly for an organization that's demonstrated time and time again that they'll work to shield themselves from oversight."
  - leoc 12y ago
    Thank you, I stand corrected. That's the first time I've seen Snowden make the direct-access claim. Disappointing to see that it wasn't only Greenwald who didn't read the PRISM document carefully.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      The NSA did have direct access to internet/telephone carrier traffic - http://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/ http://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/ Do we know everything now? Certainly not. NSA has resources that nobody knows about and I'm 100% certain that they have direct access to your data in ways that nobody has ever imagined.
holri 12y ago
It does not matter for the OP if Google's behavior is illegal or not. Ethic is independent from law.
- quaunaut 12y ago
  I suppose, but his arguments are primarily couched in the notion of 'what nefarious thing can be used with your private data', of which Google's committed a grand number of... zero, bad things with. And as far as any evidence whatsoever has shown, they've actually fought FOR your privacy from the government. Are you trusting them with it? Most definitely. But you're using their services, that trust is implicit. The same way that it's implicit that your bank has your money, or that your phone carrier holds your calls. To ask them to absolve themselves of any ability to snoop is literally to cancel out their reason for existence.
  - holri 12y ago
    For targeted advertising a real name policy is not necessary.
- panarky 12y ago
  OP says "we never saw Google shut down its service in protest" Do you remember this headline? "Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship" [1] Google withdrew from the largest, fastest-growing gold-rush market because censorship violated their principles. Show me one other large company in any industry that has taken a stand like this. Not Microsoft. Not Cisco. Not Bloomberg. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html
api 12y ago
This isn't just about the NSA, PRISM, etc. It's about surveillance as a business model and as the core purpose of the service. Mass surveillance by advertisers and potentially much creepier private sector entities (astroturf PR firms, think tanks, political parties, ideological pressure groups, insurers, private "intelligence" firms, etc.) is just as violating and potentially worse in the long term than surveillance by the NSA and its kin. The surveillance-based "free" business model is not our friend.

Apachez 12y ago

This might give you a hint? http://thehackernews.com/2014/05/ios-apple-iphone-data-protection-email-attachment.html http://thehackernews.com/2014/05/ios-apple-iphone-data-prote... Apple iOS 7 Updates Silently Remove Encryption for Email Attachments Thursday, May 01, 2014

quaunaut 12y ago
From what I'm reading in other places this seems more like an oversight than malicious intent. It was present in iOS 7, then broke in later versions. The e-mails themselves are still fully encrypted, and the iPhone data itself can be encrpyted, the main trouble seems to be what's transmitted during sync, since the actual researcher[1] claims a valid workaround is simply disabling mail synchronization. 1. http://www.andreas-kurtz.de/2014/04/what-apple-missed-to-fix-in-ios-711.html http://www.andreas-kurtz.de/2014/04/what-apple-missed-to-fix...

eurleif 12y ago

> Google has a direct financial gain in fighting them Wait, what? Google has a direct financial gain in fighting warrants? How do you figure?

quaunaut 12y ago
In fighting overbroad warrants, via the National Security Letters. Having NSLs at all significantly increases consumer distrust in Google, and gives them literally zero gains in return. It even costs them work, if you're looking at the small stuff. They don't get anything out of it. Edit: Clarified what NSL means.
- eurleif 12y ago
  NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Also, fighting them takes work too. Much more work (done by more highly-paid individuals) than complying with them. The PR angle may make it a net gain, but I don't think there's a slam-dunk case for that being true. What about consumers who believe NSLs are a necessary tool to fight terrorists?
  - quaunaut 12y ago
    > NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Are we sure that's all NSL's cover? I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval. Regardless, while the two(a subpoena and a warrant) are different, in this case their nature is more than a bit similar, considering subpoenas generally are used to produce information, whereas warrants are to be able to reasonably search for information- which on a server, the two are only differentiated by who is accessing the data and how.
    - eurleif 12y ago
      >I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). NSL power is defined by law, and is limited to metadata, not content. I suspect what they meant is that specific details about whose information is being requested, and how many requests are received, can't be released. >Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval. An administrative subpoena is a type of subpoena that does not need to be signed by a judge. An NSL is a type of admin subpoena that the FBI uses for national security matters, but the FBI uses admin subpoenas in other investigations, too. Many other federal agencies also have admin subpoena power, and some states grant it to their agencies as well.
odonnellryan 12y ago
My opinion would be: We trust them with our data, if they prove untrustworthy (ultimately) we'd stop using their service/giving them the data they need. Some already have stopped, of course.
whoismua 12y ago
They absolutely do not want anyone asking about user info, or their "store everything here forever so we can index and show ads next to it" is in trouble. On the other hand, Google doesn't want to piss off the Feds or the Military Industrial Complex. They spend a lot of money and have friends in high places.

samstave 12y ago

Yeah, so basically nothing with respect to the most egregious violation of every single tenet of what the US is marketed to the globe supposedly is! So, Cool - its great that Snowden hasn't proved shit to make anyone believe the reality is the inverse of what one may think it to be. Look, the will of our politicians must only be the whole of the Law! So, we're good here....

leoc 12y ago

Snowden never made a claim of illegal cooperation. Glen Greenwald more or less did, but he was wrong.

quaunaut 12y ago
Yes he has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo Go to 4 minutes into that video. It's his first interview post-reveal, in Hong Kong. "Beyond that we've got Prism, which is a demonstration of how the US Government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, they all get together with the NSA, and provide the NSA with direct access to the back ends of all of the systems you use to communicate, to store data, to put things in the cloud. And even just to send birthday wishes and keep a record of your life. And they give the NSA direct access that they don't need to oversee so they can't be held liable for it. I think that's a dangerous capability for anyone to have, but particularly for an organization that's demonstrated time and time again that they'll work to shield themselves from oversight."
- leoc 12y ago
  Thank you, I stand corrected. That's the first time I've seen Snowden make the direct-access claim. Disappointing to see that it wasn't only Greenwald who didn't read the PRISM document carefully.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    The NSA did have direct access to internet/telephone carrier traffic - http://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/ http://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/ Do we know everything now? Certainly not. NSA has resources that nobody knows about and I'm 100% certain that they have direct access to your data in ways that nobody has ever imagined.

holri 12y ago

It does not matter for the OP if Google's behavior is illegal or not. Ethic is independent from law.

quaunaut 12y ago
I suppose, but his arguments are primarily couched in the notion of 'what nefarious thing can be used with your private data', of which Google's committed a grand number of... zero, bad things with. And as far as any evidence whatsoever has shown, they've actually fought FOR your privacy from the government. Are you trusting them with it? Most definitely. But you're using their services, that trust is implicit. The same way that it's implicit that your bank has your money, or that your phone carrier holds your calls. To ask them to absolve themselves of any ability to snoop is literally to cancel out their reason for existence.
- holri 12y ago
  For targeted advertising a real name policy is not necessary.
panarky 12y ago
OP says "we never saw Google shut down its service in protest" Do you remember this headline? "Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship" [1] Google withdrew from the largest, fastest-growing gold-rush market because censorship violated their principles. Show me one other large company in any industry that has taken a stand like this. Not Microsoft. Not Cisco. Not Bloomberg. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html

api 12y ago

This isn't just about the NSA, PRISM, etc. It's about surveillance as a business model and as the core purpose of the service. Mass surveillance by advertisers and potentially much creepier private sector entities (astroturf PR firms, think tanks, political parties, ideological pressure groups, insurers, private "intelligence" firms, etc.) is just as violating and potentially worse in the long term than surveillance by the NSA and its kin. The surveillance-based "free" business model is not our friend.