Google Gives the US Government Access To Gmail 445
schliz writes "Google condemns the Chinese Government for censoring its results, and Australia for planning to do the same. Meanwhile, its lawyers and security experts have told employees to 'be intentionally vague about whether or not we've given access to end-user accounts,' according to engineer James Tarquin, hinting that Google may be sharing its data with the US government. Perhaps Australia's most hated communications minister, Steven Conroy, could be right in his criticism of Google's privacy record after all."
If not China, why US? (Score:5, Insightful)
If China government cant get access to Gmail, what it makes it ok for USA? Especially to those accounts not owned by US citizens.
If China tried to get access to gmail accounts of those who tried to start revolts in China and that wasn't ok, what makes it ok for US government to get access to those who try to start revolts in US (aka terrorists)? After all, USA also has a long [wikipedia.org] track record of killing those it considers its enemies and even civilians [wikipedia.org] and journalists [slashdot.org], in addition to detaining people and ignoring their human rights [wikipedia.org] along with sexual abuse [thecurrentaffairs.com] and torture [wikipedia.org]. US does exactly the same to it's enemies than China. Like most of Chinese people, US people also deny this or say it's not as bad or try to justify it by saying they're enemies or "terrorists". In the end it's all the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Also - http://citizenx.org/wp-content/republican-fascism.jpg [citizenx.org] or http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2187/2368696288_c10d8e8a95_o.jpg [flickr.com]
Your pick of party.
I should probably get up off my ass and get my own mail server up and running.
Re: (Score:2)
http://mschaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fascist.jpg [wordpress.com]
It's not a mistake when I do it.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Has that been tested in court yet? ISTR some speculation about encryption keys being analogous to safe keys, where you cold make them try to break the encryption but they could charge you with an obstruction-related offence (although depending on what your emails were, that might be worthwhile. Also, for sent emails, you wouldn't be able to give up the key, and there are AFAIK (IANAL) no laws in the US requiring you to keep keys (although keeping the emails without the keys would be suspicious).
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:4, Insightful)
And are you seriously suggesting that the US at large is culpable for the actions of William Calley, Jesse England, and any other rapist, murderer, or degenerate who manages to make it into the uniformed service.
Careful using a broad brush when you paint your pictures, it smacks of an untrained eye and mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And are you seriously suggesting that the US at large is culpable for the actions of William Calley, Jesse England, and any other rapist, murderer, or degenerate who manages to make it into the uniformed service.
How do you know its not the same thing with Chinese army? They even have hundreds of thousands larger army so theres probably more such immoral persons.
Just like China, US also has detention camps and is one of few countries in the world who still have a death penalty (like China).
And just like China the US govt throws people in prison for criticizing the government. That's why Obama had Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck thrown in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. It is all the same and we need to condemn it whenever we see, no matter where. it's not okay simply because others are doing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference between giving access to US law enforcement and giving access to the Chinese government is like the difference between giving access to a police officer or a mafia criminal. The US government does criminal things sometimes, but the Chinese government IS criminal all the time, because it's a dictatorship. In the US, you can openly criticize the government, and if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate. In China a reform candidate can't even run, and the people aren't allowed to o
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think it is ok to overthrow a dictatorship by ANY means necessary. Specifically, I don't condone terrorism, which is targeting non-combatants.
Re: (Score:2)
There's absolutely no difference between a police officer obtaining information through illegal means and a mafia criminal doing the same. None.
At that point they're both criminals. In fact, I'd say the police officer is worse given that the mafia dude probably hasn't taken any sort of constitutional oath.
"If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over."
I would. We have due process for a reason. There's a big d
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:5, Insightful)
"if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate"
In most democratic countries, there are very healthy and active reform and fringe parties that regularly get a significant percentage of the popular vote. Where are these parties in the USA? News media don't even give them the time of day if they were to exist. It's not because nobody would vote for them... there are artificial barriers put up to creating any meaningful opposition to the existing two headed beast you call democracy. These barriers would be considered a horrible crime in any other democratic country, but for some reason USA'ers tolerate them, or rather, like the people of China, have no choice in the matter.
The main difference between USA and China is that the USA system is far better at managing it's people into thinking they are running the show. Look beyond the USA to see how democracy works.
Re: (Score:2)
The US gov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end it's all the same.
What exactly is 'all the same' between Chiba and the USA?
Like many people who sense that something is very wrong, you fail to articulate what it is.
What's wrong with the US and China is that they are both run by criminal organizations called 'states'.
Murray Rothbard explains what the state is and why it it's illigitimate wherever it runs; his book 'For a new Liberty' is a good place to start.
The state is the source of the majority of the social problems faced by humans. That is the unthinkable and unsayable
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:4, Interesting)
SCOTUS is supposed to hold the law as written in higher regard than previous ruling on it.
Otherwise none [wikipedia.org] of [wikipedia.org] the [wikipedia.org] terrible [wikipedia.org] supreme [wikipedia.org] court [wikipedia.org] decisions [wikipedia.org] could ever be overturned.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IMHO "the Supreme Court has made stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal," is the biggest argument against why the Court should not be the final arbiter over what the U.S. Constitution says.
- "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
- "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress.
Hoo boy would that be a bad idea! Our government is a balance. Legislative/Executive/Judicial, State/Fed. If individual states could undo any law, where is the balance there?
Re: (Score:2)
There is supposed to be a balance between the branches of the federal government. There is not supposed to be some equal balance between the federal government and the states and people; the federal government is supposed to have only the little bit of power given it by its constitution.
Giving the states the power to reject laws would be a good check on the federal government and would not disrupt the balance bet
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:4, Insightful)
The states used to have the power to reject laws before they were passed. They appointed their own representitives to the Senate. So if you think states should have more powwer again, lets repeal the direct election of Senators so state governments DO have a say again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I joined the Tea Party protests in December 2008
It's probably worth noting, just for the record, that the Tea Party protests/movement started in January 2009 at the earliest. You may have been protesting back in December 2008, but it wasn't the Tea Party.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Our government is a balance. Legislative/Executive/Judicial, State/Fed
Correct.
>>>If individual states could undo any law, where is the balance there?
Not correct. I did not say that. (Lately I'm starting to wonder if slashdotters lost their ability to read?) I said, quote, "If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional....." THEN the law would be nullified. If an individual state declared it unconstitutional, or even 24 states, the U.S. law would still be in full effect.
Only aft
Re: (Score:2)
Amen!
Any state should be able to nullify any federal law within its borders, but I definitely like the idea of a federal law being annulled throughout the land if >50% of states do so.
Repealing the 17th amendment would be an important correction, and an excellent way to start getting the states involved again.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress.
Would pretty much just make this -
stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal
happen again in certain states. If you remember correctly, some states didn't want to de-segregate until the military was sent in to force them to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet when I do the same it's "Europeans spew vitriol against America."
You've also suffered a rather critical observation failure if you're comparing the EU to US Government. EU is completely unable to force anyone do anything, due to not having any military forces. Unlike the US, we're
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's actually no rule for how a court comes up with its own decisions; at least none with the force of law. Stare decisis is a principle, but whether or not previous decisions by a given court are repeated (or even applicable to the case at hand) is left to the discretion of the individual judge(s) or justice(s). Honestly, as much as it's held to be a sacred standard, it's even more of a de facto description of the behavior of the courts than anything. A court does not wantonly change its methods unle
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise none of the terrible supreme court decisions could ever be overturned.
I find it interesting that you include two cases that haven't yet been overturned in your links, namely Wickard v. Filburn and Kelo v. New London. While Kelo, even though a horrible idea from a moral standpoint, could potentially be viewed as a reasonable interpretation of the law by some (the Fifth Amendment doesn't really say anything about when or why eminent domain could happen, only that one must be justly compensated when it does), Wickard is just a ridiculous abuse of law that has remained in effect
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Say what? The SCOTUS cited this law: The Constitution. They also quoted a couple of the founders in their decision, including James Madison who wrote the constitution. No citations??? They used plenty of citations.
I also find it odd that you disagree with the Court's decision, considering (1) that DC crime has *dropped* since handguns became legal again. (2) Or considering that the law is clea
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you may be quite arrogant, but there are democrats that support gun law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which weapons? If the supreme law gives the right to own weapons manufactured at the time it was passed, so be it
No. The 2nd amendment protects those weapons "in common use at the time" U.S. v. Miller (1939) and those weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" U.S. v. Miller (1939)
If your implication is that that supreme law gives people the right to hoard nuclear or biological weapons
No. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are not in common use at this time, are not part of ordinary military equipment and it would be difficult to argue that its posession by an individual could conceivably contribute to the common defense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Harry Reid and Joe Biden were two of the biggest supporters of warrantless wiretaps. Biden loves to brag that he pushed for them after the Oklahoma City bombings, long before anyone else.
Obama voted for the FISA bill, and extended the warrantless wiretaps.
Both parties have voted for warrantless wiretaps.
Re: (Score:2)
If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Precedence and case law < statutory law, which is < the US Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are aware that SCOTUS is primarily responsible for ensuring the Constitutionality of laws, right?
And that you don't need either case law or precedent to determine the Constitutionality of a law?
And that the DC handgun ban seems to be at odds with that Amendment which ends with "shall not be infringed"?
Or are you one of those who argu
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is forbidden from making laws restricting the freedom of speech.
Despite this, it's currently okay to place "time and place" restrictions on it.
SCOTUS determined that it's definitely crossing the line to include restrictions based on who is doing the speaking.
Would you prefer that the government be allowed to determine who may speak and who may not? If you would, then you may attempt to amend the Constitution.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "Google doesn't think China has laws"? They made just as much a show of obeying China's laws when they operate there, as they make of obeying U.S. laws when they operate here.
They also made a show of disagreeing with the principles on which some of those laws were based, and in the case of China they made a business decision that it was no longer worth access to the Chinese market. Anyone who claims this was solely based on their alleged disagreement with the principles behind Chinese law is being naive, but that's beside the point.
If Google didn't think China had laws, they would continue operating there and evade Chinese efforts at censorship and spying.
Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm migrating from GMail pretty soon, and logging out any time I do a search.
inb4 "You're overreacting" warblgharbl.
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:4, Informative)
Or even better, use www.scroogle.org
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you do that? Where are you going to go that the government kind use a legal means to get your data?
Do you connect to the internet? then you connect to a service that the government can legal get data from.
Based on you post, I would say you have neither a bookshelf or a diploma.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:4, Informative)
Do you live in the USA? You do realize that all data handling companies are subject to the same US laws, so move your email anywhere you want, the government can still get it at will.
Take mail hosting from prq.se [prq.se] (the company hosting WikiLeaks and earlier The Pirate Bay) and use SSL IMAP/POP3 to access it. Looks like a quite good package [prq.se] too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you live in the USA? You do realize that all data handling companies are subject to the same US laws, so move your email anywhere you want, the government can still get it at will.
It's easy enough to get a virtual or real server in Europe.
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just use the standard defense that works for members of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government: I can't recall. As in, "I can't recall my 64 character truecrypt password. Sorry. If I remember it at a later date I'll be sure to let you know."
Or you could just keep your mouth shut. To the best of my knowledge the US has not yet abrogated the right to silence in the same manner as the UK. And before someone links to the kiddie porn/border crossing case, save it. That guy was fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what proxies and tor are for....
hinting that Google may be sharing its data with (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words this is the opinion of someone who read an article which quotes someone as saying that he was told to do something suspicious. Good stuff.
Re: hinting that Google may be sharing its data wi (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words this is the opinion of someone who read an article which quotes someone as saying that he was told to do something suspicious. Good stuff.
Seriously.
This sounds like what you would expect from Glenn "Did X do Y? Why hasn't X denied doing Y?" Beck, not Slashdot. It sound like fun, let me try.
Your Rights Online: Slashdot Sells User Data to the Chinese Government.
An Anonymous Coward writes: Certain American corporations are potentially working with the Chinese Government to sell user data. Slashdot is a Corporation. Slashdot is an American Corporation. This Anonymous Coward takes it on good presumption that, therefore, Slashdot is colluding with the Chinese. Given the evidence that Slashdot has not denied selling user data to the Chinese, these suspicions can be nothing but true.
Journalists: Meet integrity. Integrity, meet journalists.
Summary and Title doesn't seem to match (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the summary say "May Be Sharing" while the Title indicates this has already happened?
Re:Summary and Title doesn't seem to match (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the headline is more scary that way.
Re: (Score:2)
In the discussions about China's hacking here on /. it was mentioned that the US government probably has a back door into Gmail. And Yahoo and the rest as well of course. This as there is supposedly some law over in the US that requires telecom companies to provide means for wiretapping. Originally meant for telephone only, this was rumoured to be extended to webmail providers, some posters even going as far as claiming that telcos (including webmail providers) must provide a direct back door for government
Re: (Score:2)
Eh. (Score:2)
I hate to say this doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't :/
You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it doesn't matter who or where you are. The government has guns, you do not. If they want something, they will get it. What separates, or is supposed to separate, this process in places like the USA, from places like China, is that there is supposed to be accountability for the government that gets that information. This is at the ballot box and also due to separation of branches.
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left, and, I think on that score the lefties were correct. What's interesting, though, is that the present administration seems to be adopting the same doctrine, but is making the "personality" argument, and really, once you start using personality arguments, rather than supportive of a legal process, you've shredded civil rights. To wit, just because Obama might be a nicer dictator for some people doesn't mean that he is still not a dictator. If it is bad for a President to do something when you voted against him, it is bad for a President to do it when you vote against, and vice versa.
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:5, Informative)
Look, it doesn't matter who or where you are. The government has bigger guns than you.
Fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Google could buy guns and have a million nerd volunteer army.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do corporations have the right to bear arms?
(Half-joking, but I believe the question is actually not settled, and not really litigated. The government can probably regulate how corporations may arm their employees and deploy those armed employees, but it's not clear what the limits on that power are.)
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:4, Informative)
The government can probably regulate how corporations may arm their employees and deploy those armed employees, but it's not clear what the limits on that power are.
Actually most corporations would be well within their rights to arm employees on their property. Very few states regulate the possession of weapons on private property. Those that do generally only regulate a small subset of weapons, typically handguns and so-called "assault rifles". Certain subsets of private property may be regulated by law (you can't legally possess a firearm at a mental health institution in most states) but for the most part it's up to the property owner to determine who can carry weapons.
You'll note that many small retail businesses in the United States opt to keep a firearm on the premises as a deterrent against robbery. With few exceptions (New York City) the state doesn't generally attempt to regulate this behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but I think there's some gray area. Many states consider an organized group of employees who're armed by the company to provide security for the company (as opposed to just employees who carry personal guns) to be "security guards", and some have extensive regulations on them. For example, in California, armed security guards have to obtain a license after passing a state-mandated training course--- so Google couldn't just arm all its engineers, unless it also got them all security-guard l
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly true, as a description of current law. What I was wondering is whether there are constitutional limits on how the government could change those laws. If a state wanted to outlaw armed private security forces, could it do so?
Re: (Score:2)
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left, and, I think on that score the lefties were correct.
Expecting the President to follow the law isn't a leftist belief. Replace "left" with "non-fascist" and you come closer to reality.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. My point was really that even conservatives, traditionally "the right" in America, would be just as upset with Bush's trampling of the constitution. Conservatives believe in small government, and the rule of law. On both counts Bush's warrantless wiretapping, etc, fails. Opposition to Bush came from both the left and the right. Those who supported him were something else entirely. If fascism is technically incorrect, we can just call them authoritarians. Calling them neo-conservatives d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you have these completely backwards.
Caesar's rise was to power was largely no more or less legal than most Roman standards at the time, in fact mirroring Pompey's earlier rise. He himself was subjected to several injustices before finally deciding to cross the Rubicon. In the end, as was typical of Roman politics, he who controlled the army controlled the state, and Caesar was appointed Dictator for life by a vote
Re: (Score:2)
That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left
... but up until that point the left was absolutely thrilled to have Bush around.
This is what Google, Facebook and Twitter are for. (Score:3, Funny)
The big brother government uses twitter to track what you are doing, uses facebook to investigate you and your friends, uses google to try and figure out what you think.
The FBI exists specifically as an intelligence agency to spy on American citizens. So when random people add you as a friend on facebook it could be the beginning of an FBI investigation.
And ignorance of the law wont hold up in court, so if you don't know whats in the 1000+ page healthcare reform bill, or the tens of thousands of pages of new laws which pass each year, you could already be breaking some esoteric law and committing a felony.
And thats all you need to do to get the FBI to investigate you. So you better not talk about anything criminal.
first word in article was "opinion" (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask Eric Schmidt (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how many times I've been criticized for pointing out that gmail TOS do not include anonymity - the government can just ask and google will roll over on you - it's nice to see others finally "getting it."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if the government uses legal means to ask for the data, they will get it. Just like ANY OTHER EMAIL PROVIDER. Do you think your ISP won't do the same?
There is no news here, just an opinion piece.
""If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"
and THAT is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I do actually [cnet.com] think so [techdirt.com]. These ISP's clear your traffic data and have gone to court to defend your privacy and won. Some mail providers do the same, and some utilize encryption so that they wouldn't even have access to your emails even if they needed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"
- sounds like the antithesis to freedom... just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"
First I thought I should give you an example or two what legal things some people do that they wouldn't want anyone to know about.
Then I read your signature and realized you probably know more examples than I do.
It Depends (Score:3, Insightful)
If a person is sending email to those suspected of contributing to terror groups then our government needs to be able to study those emails. That does not imply that the government has either the intention or the man power to be studying every trivial bit of email that we send or receive.
Re: It Depends (Score:4, Insightful)
If a person is sending email to those suspected of contributing to terror groups then our government needs to be able to study those emails. That does not imply that the government has either the intention or the man power to be studying every trivial bit of email that we send or receive.
1. "Terrorism" is a very loosely defined word in the US these days.
2. "The government" might not have the intention or manpower to snoop on Jane Harmless, but the disgruntled ex-husband in the local sheriff's department might. Especially if there is a handy fully automated subpoena tool available for all kinds of "law enforcement".
Re: (Score:2)
And I've seen #2 type shit in action WAY too many times.
Ugh. I'm suddenly reminded how much I loathe police.
Re: (Score:2)
If a person is sending email to those suspected of contributing to terror groups then our government needs to be able to study those emails.
And it's very convenient that "terror" is anything anybody in "our government" (down to and including the local sheriff) defines it as. The FBI has admitted that their agents have committed widespread abuses of the law in asking telcos and ISPs for data.
That does not imply that the government has either the intention or the man power to be studying every trivial bit of
Nice headline, Trollitor (Score:2, Informative)
Being intentionally vague about whether they share data is not the same thing as "Giving the US Government Access to Gmail"
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It cross-compares two different rights issues: censorship and privacy (specifically contrasting Google's rhetoric against government censorship with their compliance to discovery requests under US law). It isn't necessarily inconsistent to argue against censorship but not worry about privacy.
2. Google's compliance with US legal discovery requests (under PATRIOT and other laws) is used to imply that Google advocates breaching privacy. The fact that Google complies with the law isn't evidence that they agree with the law. Indeed they specifically say (and have demonstrated, as far as I can tell) that they fight discovery requests and only deliver private data when the request is necessary/legitimate.
3. The article is also contrasting governmental policies (censorship, etc.) with policies of a private company (Google). The article states "We have far less power over Google." which is true in some sense (Google is not beholden to democracy directly... though it is controlled through laws and through consumer pressure/choice). But this "we have less power over Google" has to be counter-balanced with "Google has far less power over us". If the government mandates censorship, then every citizen and company is affected. If Google mandates censorship on its own, consumers will flock to other services. The difference is huge, and actions taken by government are far more scary because they are far further reaching.
4. Also, no evidence of Google breaching privacy is actually provided. Certainly no evidence that there is a systemic problem; merely that Google is acknowledging that they will comply with US law.
Really the article is just a weak attempt to set-up some a non-existent conflict between Google's open stance against censorship, and their grudging compliance with US discovery laws that could infringe on privacy. But the argument is laughably weak. I'm not trying to give Google a free pass here... but let's focus on the real issues and not trumped-up hypocrisy charges.
Re: (Score:2)
jeez (Score:2)
A) Sharing information with the Government is not censoring. These are two different issues, and comparing them isn only used to appeal to emotion.
I am not defending either of them, just stating that they aren't really comparable.
B) They are talking about legal request for information.
itNews is just trying to drum up revenue.
data location (Score:2)
I most definitely don't store my critical data using remote email, despite the temptation, however, I do know colleagues that do. I shall pass this information on.
google=evil, time to move on
Kills any business use (Score:3, Interesting)
Last year Google gave a presentation to the government I work for (which is not in the US). They made a big pitch as a sizable part of that presentation to try to convince us to move off Exchange and to the commercial Gmail offering. There's some pretty good reasons why that's a good idea.
Unfortunately, stuff like this kills the idea entirely. There is absolutely no sales pitch that will convince people here that we really want to turn over our government email to the US government. (Hell, with the way things are going now we don't even allow people to take laptops with anything on them across the border, even if they're encrypted.)
Get yer pitch fork out (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost sounds like the guy who submitted the "story" works for Microsoft. "Google *may* be sharing data with govt. Time to get super mad at Google!"
Sensationalist stuff like this really pisses me off. CmdrTaco posted the story and sure got some ad impressions as a result. But man, do you really have to sink this low?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe just for subpoenas? (Score:2)
"We have far less power over Google." (Score:2)
Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Winterford that it is actually possible to not use Gmail. In fact, it is possible to not use any Google services at all. Furthermore, he can make that decision on an individual basis: no need to convince a majority of fellow voters to go along with him as he must do in order to change his government.
They can have it if they want it (Score:2)
How to get at least decent email privacy (Score:4, Funny)
Use PGP or some other encryption method of the content itself. ONLY connect to your mail servers via SSL--no exceptions, ever. Store NOTHING on the local machine, be it your iPhone, your laptop, your desktop. Build your own OS that connects to your mail server and build your own mail client software so that you know there are no possible backdoors. Build your own mail server the same. Routinely re-encrypt your entire remote mail store with the highest end encryption available. Don't store keys with the mail store. Don't save ANY mail logs. If you do, encrypt them just as tightly.
Next, only mail with people that use comparable basic levels of security.
Finally, don't mail anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just Google (Score:2)
FTFA:
"The Patriot Act introduced by President Bush - which allows US authorities to search telecommunications and email communications to fight the 'war on terror' - was not designed by Google. But complying with it places the company in an awkward position."
This places ALL email providers, even me, in this untenable situation. If we wish to ensure our users' privacy, we have no real choice but to shut down. Or change the law.
Google, Yahoo!, Hotmail, etc. will have a hard time lobbying for a change in the
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the government, not Google (Score:2)
Google is just like the all the other companies in the US. If they don't comply with the government, their business will become very difficult.
Why do people think this is Google's fault? We should be blaming the government for having the power and authority to force companies in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't it a shame that Google, once regarded as a leader in privacy, seems to have gone and sold its soul? "Don't Be Evil" seems to be more and more fluid in its meaning, and suddenly Google is looking like another Microsoft. What happened to "The Good Guys"? I'll be sure to cancel my gmail account very soon, such a shame.
Google has never been leader of privacy. "Don't Be Evil" is PR. Google is a marketing company - to begin with your privacy is gone. Microsoft is at least selling you software and has no reason to violate your privacy. The Good Guys? They developed Google and started making money. And you know, Google is a publicly traded company with shareholders who can tell the company to do anything they like.
Re: (Score:2)
And you know, Google is a publicly traded company with shareholders who can tell the company to do anything they like.
You had an intelligent post till right there. Everyone knows that Larry & Sergei have complete voting control over Google until they sell their stock (which granted, will be sooner than later).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think even google can process hundreds of petabytes *DAILY*. NSA might want to, but they don't have anywhere near the processing power (nobody does) to even piece together the individual data packets together in their original form much less identify the individual end-points accurately (people behind NAT,proxies,etc) or decrypt voice/email communication packets.
Re: (Score:2)