15 votes

Google Responds To "PRISM" On Their Blog




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dear Google...... FYI

The government does not need your direct access. They're sniffing [intercepting] your data queries in real-time with their datacenter parked right on top of a national Fiber backbone for the major carriers. The Data Center is fed with additional telco feeds from all over the country being routed there.

They don't need a back door, they already have one that you don't even know about.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I, imo, will break this down:

1. "First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers."

'Joining' may not be necessary. 'Direct'. What about INDIRECT.

2. "the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers."

Maybe not 'datacenters', but there are in fact other means within your company's infrastructure. Btw, you keep using that term 'direct'.

3. "We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday."

I have not either, but lo and behold, it still exists.

4. "we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law."

And what law(s) is that? The Law of the Land? Otherwise, laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

5. "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."

On 'such a scale'. So, 'scales' are utilized for measurement/reference. That will surely lighten the blow.

6. "Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws"

Confines of what 'current laws'? The Law of the Land? What do we actually know and not know, who interprets theses so-called laws, how do attorneys and judges interpret these so-called laws. As stated above, any law repugnant to the Constitution which is the Law of the Land is null and void. The Constitution has been completely violated.

7. "We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible."

'whenever possible'. So, transparency is truly not transparent at all.

8. "And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety"

Yep, so we are told.

Josie The Outlaw http://www.josietheoutlaw.com/

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Tech Notes

Is Google telling the "truth" if the following is true...

The Government has a formal legal agreement with Google (etc.) to only hand over court ordered things.

The Government has an electronic request process. The government sends over a request via an API to Google and Google then responds to the requested info immediately, like 1 second. (Think HFT).

Google then loads the requested data to a server in Israel and the government does its work (or its contractor does the storage and work out of the country.)

So the government can send over 1 billion electronic requests a day and Google gives them every byte of information without any access or back door access to Google servers because they came in through the court ordered front door and only to specific requests (all 1 billion requests that day).

To Seal the Deal the government can build a wedge or split at the front end of the process and scoop all the raw data, once again not using a back door but the front door.

Now all you F5 users and admins out there... Think about all the neat stuff F5 has added over the last 5 years, certificate hosting of SSL, awesome debug interfaces, redundant failover that does practically simultaneous processing of everything so that you can send every byte to a different location for redundancy... We are talking off the shelf processing here to scoop up everything if someone wanted to.

And a final thought. Has anyone at the DOD or NSA ever thought to look at the software and firmware stuff on all those Chinese built and programed firewalls and routers that they have installed all over their secured networks ? How about all those BOOTP bios chips made in China and Russia?

Remember what the Law said:

The law made it illegal for companies/libraries/any entity to tell their customers about the fact that the Feds were having them collect and submit data to the government.

I'm not defending the companies for doing it, but that was the messed up thing about the law. Legally they could be arrested/disappeared/worse for telling their customers that this stuff goes on.

Seriously...it feels like it's going to hit the fan very soon.

Bumblehive

Utah Data Center

Background

The Utah Data Center, code-named Bumblehive, is the first Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative (IC CNCI) data center designed to support the Intelligence Community's efforts to monitor, strengthen and protect the nation. NSA is the executive agent for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and will be the lead agency at the center.

The steady rise in available computer power and the development of novel computer platforms will enable us to easily turn the huge volume of incoming data into an asset to be exploited, for the good of the nation.

http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

"The steady rise in available

"The steady rise in available computer power and the development of novel computer platforms will enable us to easily turn the huge volume of incoming data into an asset to be exploited, for the good of the nation."

Their words betray them, that, or their incompitent in regards to informing the people ACCURATELY

almost too similar

to what Mark Zuck said in his response on facebook. The similarities are striking.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds"

Found this! Thanks for the lead!

Its lawyer speak....i dont

Its lawyer speak....i dont trust lawyer speak when answers are whats wanted.......i want to know to what extent did they even bother to find out what they say is true.....if we were talking about one man, one company, one employee.....fair enough, but we're not, and incase ive not said this before(i have), trust issues

Lawyer Tech Speak With a Trick

I picked up a lot of technical flags that were the equivalent of Lawyer Speak.

I saw OC3 (think elephant) sized technical holes in the response.

"We did not send all the data down interface 123 using Ipv4... because we sent it down interface 456 via IPv6 "

"We did not give them back door access to servers..." because we have a sophisticated distributed server environment and give them front door access as they are just another node in our system .

They were to specific with their denials to not rule the concept out.

The similarity of the responses is just over the top.

That is like creepy similar

I would like to see this comparison go viral. Looks like the industry has the same moral compass as the Obama administration.

...

Mr. Binney noted the order’s serial number, which indicates it is the 80th issued by the FISA court so far this year. The court likely has approved similar orders for the other major U.S. telecom providers, he said, “and they have to be renewed every 90 days.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/7/the-national-...

80 orders have been issued by the FISA court in less than 6 months.

Startpage

I would encourage anyone to start using Startpage search engine. It is basically doing Google searches through Startpage as a proxy.

https://startpage.com/

They are good searches and they have a no-sh1t privacy policy. They take it VERY seriously. Furthermore they are coming out with a privacy conscious web based email service called Startmail. I am serving as beta tester and my understanding is the testing is supposed to take place some time this summer.

I use a similar thing

called PrivateLee

www.privatelee.com

same deal, your IP doesn't get used for the search. Not aware of any mail service coming along though.

Grand Opening! www.AmmoPit.com Ammunition by and for Liberty Lovers

statements on issues like

statements on issues like these are'nt gonna cut it.....internal investigations on all parties involved is minimum at best, in case nobodies noticed, we have a MAJOR, and rightly so....TRUST ISSUES!!!

Im afraid thats what happens, when the people dont have the ability to verify statements

And if you speak true google, to the best of your ability, from the person who says it, investigate on whether the US government has unauthorised access to your information, implications be damned....if trust is something you want back

edit
hell, you might end up improving your security, which benefits all
And by the by, i for one do not recognise governments authority to STORE, SPY, OR COHERCE, companies to hand over information pertaining to those who have not voluntarily given said information.....i do not for one second, also believe that CORPORATIONS have that right either......WHAT SO EVER.......so please be aware how volatile the situation is

It's pretty clear that no

It's pretty clear that no party to an arrangement with government should be trusted on the good faith of their statements alone. Parse Google's words here very carefully. The post was, after all, crafted jointly with their chief lawyer.

Add'l sources to consider:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/07/the_prism_spi...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-com...

I applaud their post

but I think that ultimately it comes down to whether we believe them or not. How can you really trust what Google says when your own elected officials lie to the very people they serve.