7 ms·

In a way, it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. I'm not mak

by jarin 12y ago

In a way, it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. I'm not making any assertions about Google's trustworthiness, but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping.

ksk 12y ago
> it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you. >but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping. True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Indeed. This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. Google's cloud is the most dangerous thing in the world, because it's the most tempting target in the world. All of the data about practically everyone in one place.
  - Legion 12y ago
    > This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      I trust the inevitability that Google's basket will eventually have the same fate. And it will be much much worse than anything we have seen so far.
      - spacemanmatt 12y ago
        Perhaps, but show me a better basket today.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Again. Multiple baskets will always be smarter than a single basket with everything in it.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        Always? Really? So a bunch open, unprotected baskets in plain view are better than a single closed, locked and hidden basket? I'm glad you're not in charge of my security. As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Hey look, sure enough the "How dare you criticize Google?" downvoters are in full force. :)
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The substantive difference is what, though? A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? To the kind of adversary you're worried about, those resources are nothing.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    If all those providers are not in the same jurisdiction it might actually be quite a tall barrier.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Not if they want you bad enough. Examples: Assange, Dotcom. And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
  - ksk 12y ago
    >A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Once we're talking subpoenas, the game is kind of up. At that point we're talking about how to most effectively flee the law.
  - ksk 12y ago
    Well, subpoenas are issued prior to someone being judged guilty. And, I don't know if you agree, but "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very poor justification for any kind of invasion of privacy. As I'm sure people are aware :- 1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc. Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Are you trying to justify evading a subpoena? "I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
      - ksk 12y ago
        You can't evade a subpoena. A recipient could contest it, though. >"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence" You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar. However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  If only it took a subpoena. Aren't the likes of Verizon and AT&T giving it up for free?

by jarin 12y ago

ksk 12y ago

> it might be better to have all your stuff going through one provider you trust than through several providers of varying trustworthiness. On the other hand, it only takes one subpoena to get everything about you. >but they have taken steps to encrypt your information going between data centers in order to prevent NSA snooping. True, but that doesn't help if someone is worried about Google's snooping?

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Indeed. This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. Google's cloud is the most dangerous thing in the world, because it's the most tempting target in the world. All of the data about practically everyone in one place.
- Legion 12y ago
  > This is an "all your eggs in one basket" issue. And that's an incredibly valid concern, but at the same time, when you look at the other baskets and they're falling apart and have holes in the bottom, it's easy to see why people put those eggs where they do.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    I trust the inevitability that Google's basket will eventually have the same fate. And it will be much much worse than anything we have seen so far.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      Perhaps, but show me a better basket today.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Again. Multiple baskets will always be smarter than a single basket with everything in it.
        fpgeek 12y ago
        Always? Really? So a bunch open, unprotected baskets in plain view are better than a single closed, locked and hidden basket? I'm glad you're not in charge of my security. As others have said, the single-basket concern is perfectly valid. The reason you're getting pushback because you have a single-minded focus on that one concern and vehemently deny the possibility that there might be tradeoffs. That comes across as an irrational attachment to a single issue, even if what you're really trying to say is that your assessment that enough other baskets have hit a good-enough baseline that diversification is a good strategy. The latter is something you could have a productive conversation about. As for the former, you can insist that multiple baskets are the only thing that matter until you're blue in the face, but I doubt you will convince anyone.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Hey look, sure enough the "How dare you criticize Google?" downvoters are in full force. :)
Karunamon 12y ago
The substantive difference is what, though? A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? To the kind of adversary you're worried about, those resources are nothing.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  If all those providers are not in the same jurisdiction it might actually be quite a tall barrier.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Not if they want you bad enough. Examples: Assange, Dotcom. And that's assuming perfectly legal might is all you're worrying about...
- ksk 12y ago
  >A lawyer has to charge another billable hour to hit your other 5 providers? Sure but first, they would have to actually find out who those providers are. Without a central service like Google tracking everything you do online, it would be extremely hard to link 5 different email accounts to one person and then to forum user MMARules22 who has been posting on an anti-GMO forum. Google also makes it easier for people to subpoena private information in a lawsuit and then leak potentially embarrassing items to the media.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Once we're talking subpoenas, the game is kind of up. At that point we're talking about how to most effectively flee the law.
- ksk 12y ago
  Well, subpoenas are issued prior to someone being judged guilty. And, I don't know if you agree, but "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" is a very poor justification for any kind of invasion of privacy. As I'm sure people are aware :- 1. Google DNS tracks all domain queries 2. Chrome basically key logs everything you type into the search bar. 3. Android tracks calls, messages, IMs, emails.. 4. Google Fiber has the potential to track even more content If there were lets say 20 different services, there would be NO way to connect email account foo@email.com with a forum posting from member RedSpike93 to a search for "escorts in miami". Google engineers have already been fired for stalking teens, accessing private info, etc. Heck, its kind of unbelievable that not too long ago, Netscape was sued for "only" tracking what users downloaded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communicatio....
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Are you trying to justify evading a subpoena? "I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence"
    - ksk 12y ago
      You can't evade a subpoena. A recipient could contest it, though. >"I haven't been judged guilty yet, so the courts have no right to gather evidence" You can only know that the requested information is evidence of something when you actually receive it. That is a very high bar. However, anything can be subpoenaed as long as it has some vague notion of relevance. Under that less-stricter criteria, a general "electronic communication" subpoena sent to Google includes a much larger set of data, most of which, is useless, but might contain embarrassing information that could be leaked to the media to smear someone.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
If only it took a subpoena. Aren't the likes of Verizon and AT&T giving it up for free?