3 ms·

Going out on a limb here, as I posted a pretty lengthy comment on Nation State attacks in the past [1], but does this Google/NSA relationship qualify as terrify

Going out on a limb here, as I posted a pretty lengthy comment on Nation State attacks in the past [1], but does this Google/NSA relationship qualify as terrifying? Google finds out it has been targeted by a Nation State, who is actively siphoning off user data and company crown jewels, so they enter into an agreement with the NSA to share information about the attack, and develop technology and methods to prevent future attacks. I would argue that Google must share knowledge of Nation State APTs with the US Government, and other Silicon Valley firms, once they found out the scope included Symantec, Yahoo, and Adobe, Northrop Grumman, etc. NSA/Google/Facebook/Apple/Microsoft/Amazon should be trying to advance countermeasures and leveling up the industry as a whole, because they arguably have some of the most exposed attack surfaces, host most of our data, and have the financial resources and in house expertise to deal with it best. I would be terrified if Google did not have a relationship where it shared intrusions of this scope with the US Government. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8316430

profoundly 12y ago
Do you have a working relationship with Google?
- WestCoastJustin 12y ago
  No.
azakai 12y ago
You've interpreted the data in the most positive way possible. Yes, that is one of many ways in which things could have unfolded. But as the article says, this is all secret. We don't know what exactly Google and the NSA built together in that first agreement shortly after the Chinese hacking scandal. And we don't know what else has happened since then. Maybe it's all innocuous stuff, as you said. Maybe it isn't. To just assume it is all good or all bad seems unjustified by the amount of actual facts that are public.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  The problem is, of course, most people will assume "all bad" because of the ongoing narrative.
  - adventured 12y ago
    It's a really bad narrative. Given the extreme, illegal erosion in privacy at the hands of the State, it sure seems a lot safer to bet on "all bad" or "pretty bad" when it comes to these tech giants doing deals with the NSA.
- etha 12y ago
  It does happen to be a positive interpretation, but there's no reason to think that's why it was chosen, since it's also the simplest explanation.
  - meowface 12y ago
    I also think it's the most likely explanation. It is not advantageous for Google's executives to collaborate in the tracking of US citizens; it adds a lot more work and it makes for absolutely awful PR. I'd also like to think that they possess some moral compass (even if it's a bit slanted) which lets them understand the difference between wide scale "anonymized" tracking for the purpose of advertising and giving all that data to a bunch of humans to scrutinize and judge for the purpose of spying.
    - whyever 12y ago
      It only makes for awful PR if the public knows about it. What do you mean by anonymized tracking? Isn't building a profile on every user necessary for targeted advertising?
      - meowface 12y ago
        >What do you mean by anonymized tracking? Isn't building a profile on every user necessary for targeted advertising? Yes. Anonymized wasn't the right word, perhaps "behind the curtains"? Google employees aren't actually making, looking at, or (not 100% sure of this last one) "splitting" and filtering the data to learn things about you. The process, beginning to end, is automated. This is in stark contrast to the NSA, where when they get a "hit" they will carefully and personally inspect you, your interests, and your activities.
tesq 12y ago
Money is the oil that runs the firms. Kickbacks, favorable contracts, consulting opportunities, (legal) protection and maybe business intelligence from the most well funded vehicle on Earth? It's a cushy deal.

profoundly 12y ago

Do you have a working relationship with Google?

WestCoastJustin 12y ago
No.

azakai 12y ago

You've interpreted the data in the most positive way possible. Yes, that is one of many ways in which things could have unfolded. But as the article says, this is all secret. We don't know what exactly Google and the NSA built together in that first agreement shortly after the Chinese hacking scandal. And we don't know what else has happened since then. Maybe it's all innocuous stuff, as you said. Maybe it isn't. To just assume it is all good or all bad seems unjustified by the amount of actual facts that are public.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
The problem is, of course, most people will assume "all bad" because of the ongoing narrative.
- adventured 12y ago
  It's a really bad narrative. Given the extreme, illegal erosion in privacy at the hands of the State, it sure seems a lot safer to bet on "all bad" or "pretty bad" when it comes to these tech giants doing deals with the NSA.
etha 12y ago
It does happen to be a positive interpretation, but there's no reason to think that's why it was chosen, since it's also the simplest explanation.
- meowface 12y ago
  I also think it's the most likely explanation. It is not advantageous for Google's executives to collaborate in the tracking of US citizens; it adds a lot more work and it makes for absolutely awful PR. I'd also like to think that they possess some moral compass (even if it's a bit slanted) which lets them understand the difference between wide scale "anonymized" tracking for the purpose of advertising and giving all that data to a bunch of humans to scrutinize and judge for the purpose of spying.
  - whyever 12y ago
    It only makes for awful PR if the public knows about it. What do you mean by anonymized tracking? Isn't building a profile on every user necessary for targeted advertising?
    - meowface 12y ago
      >What do you mean by anonymized tracking? Isn't building a profile on every user necessary for targeted advertising? Yes. Anonymized wasn't the right word, perhaps "behind the curtains"? Google employees aren't actually making, looking at, or (not 100% sure of this last one) "splitting" and filtering the data to learn things about you. The process, beginning to end, is automated. This is in stark contrast to the NSA, where when they get a "hit" they will carefully and personally inspect you, your interests, and your activities.

tesq 12y ago

Money is the oil that runs the firms. Kickbacks, favorable contracts, consulting opportunities, (legal) protection and maybe business intelligence from the most well funded vehicle on Earth? It's a cushy deal.