Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Eric Schmidt, Jared Cohen Say Google Data Now Protected From Gov't Spying

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the now-how-to-effectively-test? dept.

Privacy 155

An anonymous reader writes "Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen were [part of a] wide-ranging session at SXSW today and they revealed that Google's data is now safely protected from the prying eyes of government organizations. In the last few days Google upgraded its security measure following revelations that Britain's GCHQ had intercepted data being transmitted between Google datacenters, Schmidt said that his company's upgrades following the incident left him 'pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government's prying eyes.'"

cancel ×

155 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Liar (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435829)

Eric Schmidt likes to lie........don't believe anything from his mouth!!

Re:Liar (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435931)

That's being a little harsh.

He says what the letters from Obama tell him to say.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437035)

Is it Scroogling time again already?

I thought Microsoft's two minutes of hate had already been done for today.

Re:Liar (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 5 months ago | (#46435991)

Eric Schmidt likes to lie........don't believe anything from his mouth!!

Oh, come, come, that cannot be true. I think what you mean is "he lies when the truth will do."

Re:Liar (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 5 months ago | (#46437477)

Not so much a lie as leaving out a bit of the truth, "Google data now protected from 'FREE' government spying", see just one word accidental left out and really even when the word is left out it is accurate, as it is only 'SPYING' when they don't pay for access. When Google sell you data, the means by which they make their profit, the government is just buying like any other marketing agency. The government just wants to send government marketing representatives to your door to provide you with offers if you are the right targeted group. Something to hide and willing to spy on your fiends and neighbours or just perhaps that you need some friendly advice to know how to speak right or to vote right. Just looking after you and your families interests, wouldn't want to them or yourself to come to any harm.

Now that is exactly what mass spying has always been about, control.

Re:Liar (1)

phrostie (121428) | about 5 months ago | (#46436085)

Is he given incentive to lie?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436417)

Or perhaps this [gizmodo.com]

Re:Liar (0)

DaMattster (977781) | about 5 months ago | (#46436191)

There is a very broken, hazy line between marketing and lying.

Re:Liar (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 5 months ago | (#46436401)

There is a very broken, hazy line between marketing and lying.

I thought they were synonyms...

Re:Liar (4, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 5 months ago | (#46436723)

There is a very broken, hazy line between marketing and lying.

I thought they were synonyms...

If you are trying to sell something it's marketing. Otherwise it's lying.

Re:Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437763)

The really good ones leave marketing and market themselves while working to get an Academy Award. When doing it for the story, it's acting. Otherwise, it's lying.

Re:Liar (1)

antdude (79039) | about 5 months ago | (#46437055)

He is a human. All humans lie. :(

Re: Liar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437177)

Cylon bastard!

Safe just from prying eyes? (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46435833)

Sure, the data might be safe from a government's prying eyes, but will it be safe from a government who kindly asks for the data, with the company acquiescing between it wants to maintain its lucrative business links with the authorities?

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (3, Interesting)

thaylin (555395) | about 5 months ago | (#46435857)

Sure, the data might be safe from a government's prying eyes, but will it be safe from a government who kindly pays for the data, with the company acquiescing between it wants to maintain its lucrative business links with the authorities?

FTFY

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (4, Insightful)

Frobnicator (565869) | about 5 months ago | (#46435985)

Sure, the data might be safe from a government's prying eyes, but will it be safe from a government who kindly pays for the data, with the company acquiescing between it wants to maintain its lucrative business links with the authorities?

FTFY

...that also has the power to jail anyone, including corporate executives, for undisclosed national security reasons and undisclosed duration if they fail to cooperate?

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436429)

They have the power to, but they wouldn't dare. Those huge corporation make the government a lot of money. That is worth more to them.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2)

cnkurzke (920042) | about 5 months ago | (#46436837)

The former CEO of QWest kindly disagrees. His life was ruined (including 10yrs in jail) for not following orders from the NSA. http://www.atlassociety.org/br... [atlassociety.org]

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436919)

I think this is a less biased account
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437369)

Highly unlikely, seeing as how NSA intelligence manipulators can and will modify that link to their liking.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#46438013)

Four years, actually. It hasn't been ten years since 2007, when he was convicted, nor has it been a decade 2009 when he exhausted his appeals and turned himself in. And no one is disputing that he dumped tens of millions of dollars worth of his stock right before the government backed out of contracts. It sounds like he was actually guilty of insider trading even though he was a good guy in terms of saying no to the NSA.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436671)

but some how failed to force the large corporations to pay their fair amount of taxes for some reasons.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437633)

Sure, the data might be safe from a government's prying eyes, but will it be safe from a government who kindly pays for the data, with the company acquiescing between it wants to maintain its lucrative business links with the authorities?

FTFY

...that also has the power to jail anyone, including corporate executives, for undisclosed national security reasons and undisclosed duration if they fail to cooperate?

Apple chose to stay out of the PRISM program for years, and they never jailed Steve Jobs.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46435889)

Geez, "between it wants" should read "because it wants".

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

fred911 (83970) | about 5 months ago | (#46435925)

Have we seen any "evil" that wasn't via warrant yet?

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436025)

Yes, and plenty of direct evidence that they're doing things illegally and then faking up a legal investigation based on that evidence. Which is, itself, illegal.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

slack_justyb (862874) | about 5 months ago | (#46435935)

Not just getting friendly with local government, but I'm pretty sure Google will take the always wonderful stance of "secure forever". Time is always on the government's side and given enough time, all static security is rendered useless.

Unless Google plans to review their "security" on a pretty regular basis. Someone with enough money and enough time (pretty much any country's government and a few private citizens too) will eventually break into what is pretty much the Fort Knox (having large amounts of information, not the security part) of people's information.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46436439)

They don't need perfect security. All they need is security that's more expensive to penetrate than to pay them to hand over the data.

Re: Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436535)

Um, Google employees many people who's only job is to review their security.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436005)

Safe from eyes is an issue, with the NSA asserting that collecting allllll the data for computer analysis is perfectly fine and they only need permission to have a human look at it.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (5, Interesting)

louarnkoz (805588) | about 5 months ago | (#46436009)

Governments can indeed ask for some data, using subpoena or in the case of the US "National Security Network." But for that, they have to actually ask, and the request has to be targeted, naming for example a specific individual. The NSA and the GCHQ were not content with that, they wanted to grab "everything," so instead of the legal channels they used a hack. The hack was to spy on the internal network of Google, and of other services as well, because these internal exchanges were not encrypted.

According to Eric Schmidt, now they are. This is absolutely good news. It is also exactly what the Electronic Frontier Foundation is asking web services to do. You can check the relative state of Google and other services according to the EFF at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org] .

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436127)

Why don't they just encrypt everything with a password the user provides and they don't store?
Even better: put all that javascript to good use and do the encryption and decryption on the client.
Of course people will be able to see who you send your messages to, but that is unavoidable I think.

Re: Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436199)

Google's business model is based on selling data about you. They won't give users the ability to encrypt that data. And if they can see the data, so can the government.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436173)

Of course not! They can just jail them.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436309)

The rule of law! Why don't anybody think of the rule of law!?

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | about 5 months ago | (#46436663)

With the current government (and the last couple also) the "rule of law" is dead.. not just on life support, but dead and begining to smell....

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? Or bad Joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436337)

Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen were [part of a] wide-ranging session at SXSW today and they revealed that Google's data is now safely protected from the prying eyes of government organizations.

Now what about the accusations that they were willfully co-operating behind closed doors with spying agencies? I like how the press really kept up with anything. Not only did they not bother to find that out, they didn't bother to see what safety/warnings systems are in place for a possible "tap in" of there lines. Were talking Jane and Joe public here what do they know? And would they even care?

I'm 50/50 on what possibly took place behind the public's back, let alone these BS "request letters". Someone out there that's either a journalist, or involved in the underground should really look into all of it. Not that you could believe any of it, but it would make things more interesting.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46436433)

They don't play preferences with governments.

They sell your data to everyone willing to pay.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (2)

AnonymousCoward1998 (3568819) | about 5 months ago | (#46437065)

As long as they want to keep paying near zilch in taxes, they will comply. Besides, they don't need prying eyes when they have direct access.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (3, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#46437967)

Sure, the data might be safe from a government's prying eyes, but will it be safe from a government who kindly asks for the data, with the company acquiescing between it wants to maintain its lucrative business links with the authorities?

Governments can ask, and Google will say "No, please come back with an order."

Governments can order, and Google will comply, as long as the order was issued by proper authority, isn't excessively broad, etc. And then Google will add the order, and the number of accounts it affects, to the next transparency report.

That's not perfect, but it's much, much better than the government being able to snarf all the data with no accountability at all.

Re:Safe just from prying eyes? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#46438005)

Governments can ask, and Google will say "No, please come back with an order."

How do you know Google will say, "No, please come back with an order?" What if Google only tells the public that it insists on the government presenting a lawfully issued court order, but in fact it secretly gives the government whatever information wants? Speculation that Google is deeply implicated with the US government has been going around for over a decade now.

Whew, privacy crisis averted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435855)

Well that was close. Everybody forget about all the leaks and headlines for the past months.

I doubt the government will try spying on us AGAIN!

Yeah right (3, Insightful)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about 5 months ago | (#46435859)

Seriously is there anyone that would actually believe such a statement?

Re:Yeah right (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435899)

Of course. You just have to read carefully.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436271)

Seriously is there anyone that would actually believe such a statement?

Doubtful, any encryption used is already known to be compromised by the NSA.

Re:Yeah right (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436285)

the NSA employees working for google wont...

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437977)

the NSA employees working at google wont...

FTFY.

Re:Yeah right (1, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46436363)

Let's assume that he's only talking about unauthorized data leakage, not cases where he gives the data away. Because we know he does that.

In that case, should we believe him? The answer is no. If you want to make sure your data is safe, you need to close all exploits in your code (we're just talking about the easy part here, not the social engineering). If someone says, "I'm pretty sure my code is safe" you know he's wrong, because he hasn't gone through the effort necessary to make the code secure. It's essentially the same as saying, "our code is bug free because we don't know of any bugs." Well.....

Re:Yeah right (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46436447)

Of course. It's in their own best interest to ensure governments have to pay for the data like everyone else.

Re:Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437187)

Propaganda to try and avoid loss of profit, due to an unwillingness to trust American companies. So, this is basically damage control. "No really, we are safe now, store stuff in our cloud, we will keep it for you, and our government won't look at it now, because everything is different now, we suddenly improved... no really, we aren't just another government contractor, privatized defense, I mean we just are helping people, no really, we aren't evil, good... we are good, don't do evil" -Google mantra

Re:Yeah right (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about 5 months ago | (#46437659)

Seriously is there anyone that would actually believe such a statement?

Yes, they are called "Cloud Users". These people are as dumb as dumb gets.

Re:Yeah right (3, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#46437969)

Seriously is there anyone that would actually believe such a statement?

I do, but as a Google engineer involved in security and privacy infrastructure I'm in a position with much greater than normal visibility into exactly what is done and how.

Yeah right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435867)

I'd be dubious if I believed they really cared about protecting us. I don't.

Just a detail missing (1)

zufar (603583) | about 5 months ago | (#46435869)

He did not mention which government.

PRISM program (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435913)

Buffoons, do you really think that we've already forgotten PRISM? That wasn't "hacking" by GHCQ or NSA. It was cooperation with them.

Nonsense (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | about 5 months ago | (#46435943)

>"they revealed that Google's data is now safely protected from the prying eyes of government organizations. "

That is nonsense. The NSA could probably STILL access the information if they want to (and likely will) or Google can be compelled to reveal it with a super secret demand order, or even a regular warrant.

No information that is ever collected is ever "safe" from prying eyes. And even Google having the information is certainly nothing to be comfortable about. They have ENOUGH information about consumers already... certainly enough to be creepy.

Re:Nonsense (2)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#46438007)

The NSA could probably STILL access the information if they want to

Sure, they could resort to rubber-hose cryptanalysis, targeting key Google employees. If it were to come out, though, it would make the Snowden leaks look very, very mild. As one of said key Google employees (I work on security infrastructure), I've been given to understand that if I am ever approached in any way by the government, I am to immediately consult with Google legal counsel, and that any request that I not talk to counsel would be illegal (I think it would violate the constitutional guarantee of due process).

or Google can be compelled to reveal it with a super secret demand order, or even a regular warrant.

Certainly, as long as the order or warrant is issued by the appropriate court, is not excessively broad, etc., and then Google will add it to the statistics for the transparency report.

No information that is ever collected is ever "safe" from prying eyes.

In an information-theoretic sense that is undoubtedly true. In that sense, though, I'd argue that nothing that touches a networked computer is safe.

And even Google having the information is certainly nothing to be comfortable about.

YMMV, of course, but I actually am pretty comfortable with it. Of course, I have visibility into how Google manages user data, which helps. There is the possibility that a future version of Google may behave differently, but I think that possibility is at least a decade or two away, because I think it would take that long for the company's culture to change enough to make it possible.

They have ENOUGH information about consumers already... certainly enough to be creepy.

Perhaps. I think the general belief about what data Google has overstates the reality by a wide margin, and further even where it's accurate it overstates Google's (current) ability to actually make use of the data.

In any case, if you're concerned with it, Google provides you with the tools to opt out. I encourage you to use them. Personally, I turned on web history, location history, route all of my email through gmail, use Hangouts for SMS, etc., etc. I find the value I get from the services to outweigh the risk I perceive. If you see that balance differently, you should act accordingly.

Remove access from Google eyes also (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435967)

How many Google employees are undercover agents from the US gov? The Chinese ? The Andorran ?
How many Google employees are using their access to the data for their personal use (like NSA's loveint, for example)
How to protect from Google exploiting that data to undermine competitors, get unfair advantages ?

What these megacorps is saying is not that they protect people's data, they say they feel above government and decide
what could and what could not be disclosed, what could and what could not be exploited.

There is no reason to believe that Google is a saner or more acceptable Big Brother than the NSA.

ah COMMON! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46435999)

really? People believe that? This is ridiculous. I thought is was understood how Google got so big so fast now. Even if it would not be true, the method Snowden exposed go far beyond what could anyone do, they essentially hacked hardware maker and have code for them in the very chips they make, they can infiltrate and modify codes of software makers before it is released and they did it, this is not even science fiction now, we know it's far beyond what the wildest conspiracy theorist were proposing. How can someone claim they are protected against that? What proof can they bring that it won't happen again? Even without human error or social engineering they can.

Link in case you forgot or don't want to see shit for what it is: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html

this is a lie.. (1)

strstr (539330) | about 5 months ago | (#46436017)

Because he cannot even disclose his backdoor deals with the government to provide access willingly.

Also black operations methods to intercept the data via satellite and radar still exist, by observing computer and electro emissions from cables over long-range. They call this technique Van Eck Phreaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]

Observe the TEMPEST emissions standards of NSA/DOD themselves, to get an idea of what signals can be remotely observed (virtually any signal can be, and they're very paranoid about unshielded cables, unshielded monitors, and unshielded computer systems): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

On top of that, surveillance methods using radar and satellite mind reading are wide spread, allowing them to extract passwords, what you see and hear and think and dream, and more. All the information we use to secure the data centers and our personal accounts is available and unsecure in our minds, giving them direct access using the TAMI system, "Thought Amplifier and Mind Interface," patented by Robert Malech in 1974, deployed by the NSA and DOD in 1976, and owned by EDO Corporation (now defunct and owned by ITT Corporation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org] Yes, understandably, they don't need access to Google to steal our Google data, they can get it from our minds or by remotely watching us, as well. But lets say they want to prank and hack Google, yeah they can do that.

Robert Malech's patent is defunct but the patent and knowledge and systems obviously passed down through EDO Corporation to ITT Corporation, and Raytheon today owns other types of radar and directed-energy and remote imaging patents related. Malech's original patent, at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]

Raytheon's radar remote imaging and remote targeting patent for technology very similar, but perhaps covers more of the electronic systems targeting (in addition to human targeting, for slow-kill and other directed-energy abuses, plus systems hacking/tampering): http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... [uspto.gov]

More details brought to light by CIA, DOD, and US DOJ whistleblower Dr. Robert Duncan who helped invent the system, personally programming the software for various Navy systems and US DOJ satellite systems for "tracking heart rate, breathe, and license plates from space." He has a PhD and several degrees from Harvard, Darthmouth, MIT, and has also worked for several fortune 500s. He has personally seen brain images from TAMI and helped invent these weapons systems. Details and his interviews/books at: http://www.oregonstatehospital... [oregonstatehospital.net]

Dr. Robert Duncan's biography here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/... [coasttocoastam.com]

Buy Dr. Robert Duncan's books:

Project: Soul Catcher: Secrets of Cyber and Cybernetic Warfare Revealed : http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ... [amazon.com]

How to Tame a Demon: A short practical guide to organized intimidation stalking, electronic torture, and mind control : http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ... [amazon.com]

Re:this is a lie.. (1)

strstr (539330) | about 5 months ago | (#46436041)

Google should ask their engineers if they shielded their complex or not. Shielded all cables. Installed tinfoil hat, with mylar, and nu metal and an ion shield around their staffs brains. And whether or not the computers and screens are shielded. If not, all the Google data is very much still available to the NSA. lmfao.

but not safe from.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436075)

However it's still not safe from the prying eyes of Google.

Not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436079)

Even if data inside Google's domain is secure, it is still not secure on the way there...

More lies I would suspect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436117)

Then why on earth would NSA code be inserted into Android.

http://www.businessweek.com/ar... [businessweek.com]

bah

Re:More lies I would suspect (1)

strstr (539330) | about 5 months ago | (#46436143)

OMG, there's code in Microsoft Windows too, called NSAKEY, letting them bypass all Windows secret features and install NSA signed software code. lmfao: http://www.washingtonsblog.com... [washingtonsblog.com]

Re:More lies I would suspect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436171)

security features* not secret features*

lol

TFA (1)

DaMattster (977781) | about 5 months ago | (#46436177)

From the article, “pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government’s prying eyes.” Well, pretty sure just doesn't cut it for me.

Re:TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436565)

Would you rather he lie to you, or do you really believe that anyone could ever say that anything is 100% secure?

The Pudding, where is the pudding ? (1)

giorgist (1208992) | about 5 months ago | (#46436187)

I am sure that his whole industry is based on provable metrics. So the prood is in the pudding my friend ... how can we know what you claim is true. 'pretty sure' does not go very far.

"Pretty sure"? Why should we believe this? (3, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 5 months ago | (#46436195)

and they revealed that Google's data is now safely protected from the prying eyes of government organizations.

Does anyone actually believe this? First off we know that all the government has to do is issue a National Security Letter [wikipedia.org] and Google will fold like a dish cloth. Eric Schmidt isn't about to go to jail to protect you. Second, he has every reason to publicly proclaim our data is "safely protected" in order to protect his business regardless of whether it is true. Third, he cannot possibly promise that even if he genuinely believes it because he can't prove it. Fourth, even if he could somehow be sure he's keeping the government snoops out, he won't provide anyone the access necessary to verify it.

There are things they could say that I would believe but him being "pretty sure" that our data is safe just isn't really credible.

Re:"Pretty sure"? Why should we believe this? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 months ago | (#46436463)

I'm not a fan of Google's, but I'm not sure why people are unwilling to recognize this is a significant step in the right direction.

Before Google took the steps necessary to ensure communications between data centers was secured, the government could (and apparently did) just slurp up everything and troll for information. Now, at least they'll need some sort of court order, which means they'll need at least a modicum of an idea what they are targeting.

The entire government system is still deeply - maybe even fatally - flawed. Even if Obama's reforms actually take place, there's still far too much power left in the hands of the secret courts and the spy agencies. But fixing this horrible, unconstitutional mess will take time and effort. Correcting (or, in this case, interfering with) even one aspect of it is welcome news.

Re:"Pretty sure"? Why should we believe this? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46436713)

They say they need a court order. How do we know they havn't just issued some secret National Security Letter or FISA warrant that says 'let us sift through everything, and we'll throw you in jail if you ever tell anyone this request was made?' This assurance is better than nothing, yes - but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to be secure from prying government eyes human or automated, you just can't trust any service provider any more. The only way to be sure is to verify security at both endpoints of any conversation, and encrypt on the assumption that all intermediary hosts and routers are compromised or monitored.

Time for Google to find a new home (1)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about 5 months ago | (#46436739)

Away from the power of the US government. Then we might, possibly, believe these comments. Till then, use American tech companies last, or to provide misinformation to them...

yeah right.. (1)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 5 months ago | (#46436237)

...unless, of course, they ask kinda nicely for it.

then we just hand it over.

3 Weeks (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 5 months ago | (#46436315)

That's about how long the NSA will take to crack it; and move on.

At rest, arguably...in flight, yeah right. (1)

The Last Gunslinger (827632) | about 5 months ago | (#46436345)

Assuming you believe this line, they're only providing countermeasures against data at rest or moving within their networks.

Does anyone remember that whole "trusted proxy" thing that's creeping into the HTTP 2.0 draft spec?

Is anyone else familiar with the MITM capabilities of a Blue Coat ProxySG device, and how widely deployed they are amongst ISPs?

Re:At rest, arguably...in flight, yeah right. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46436727)

The trusted proxy panic was really a scare about nothing. It's just a way to allow for HTTP(S)2 interception by a proxy which the client machine explicitly trusts and authenticates - something which is already very common practice in the corporate lan as a means of keeping the employees off of porn/facebook.

right...because the easter bunny is the new admin (1)

quantic_oscillation7 (973678) | about 5 months ago | (#46436379)

right! and we are supposed to believe that just because they're saying so? is google going to break the law to support what they're saying?

and who protects us from google?
if they are so interested in protecting their users why not encrypt every user data with a key that only the user controls?

Re:right...because the easter bunny is the new adm (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46436743)

Google's primary business is advertising. All the services they provide are there to service that business, either by allowing them to serve up more advertisments or by collecting data they can use to target those adverts with greater precision.

April 1... (Sqore, 100,000) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436455)

...is next month.
Almost had me there...

And we believe that why? (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 5 months ago | (#46436527)

Sure, spying without the cooperation of Google may have gotten a bit more expensive, but that is the best-case scenario.

Gag Orders (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 5 months ago | (#46436689)

While gag orders exist, we can believe nothing from an American, or a company domiciled in America, or a country beholden to America.

Sorry.

Re: Gag Orders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436805)

A gag order is different than compelling a company to lie. There is no evidence that has ever occurred.

Re: Gag Orders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436867)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (2)

hazeii (5702) | about 5 months ago | (#46436759)

This would be the same Eric Schmidt who said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."? [huffingtonpost.com]

And now we're expected to believe him, when he says he's keeping us safe from letting anyone know what we're doing?

He killed a lot of trust with the original comment.

He just killed a whole lot more.

Re: Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436825)

So the first time when he told you the government was sitting on you years before the snowden leaks you stopped trusting him? And note that you know he was telling the truth and you maybe should have paid attention to his warnings you trust him even less?

That's some pretty flawless logic.

Re: Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436841)

Spying, not sitting. Damn you Swype!

Re: Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (2)

hazeii (5702) | about 5 months ago | (#46437001)

I thought the point was clear, but to attempt to make it more so:

Eric Schmidt stated if there was stuff we didn't want people to know, we shouldn't be doing it. (this was way before the Snowden leaks).

He made it a clear position - don't do anything you don't want to be made public (search back for the old discussion on here about it, as I recall he didn't come out of it well).

So now he's saying the opposite - that we can trust him with stuff we don't people to know (i.e. everything Google knows about us).

Our opinions in how much trust to him are clearly divergent.

Re:Eric "you shouldn't be doing that" Schmidt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437853)

This would be the same Eric Schmidt who said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."? [huffingtonpost.com]

And now we're expected to believe him, when he says he's keeping us safe from letting anyone know what we're doing? He killed a lot of trust with the original comment. He just killed a whole lot more.

He's also the same guy who said in self righteous indignation that guns should be banned from the citizenry; then a few minutes later breathlessly stated how the ubiquitous cell phone will improve humanity and government accountability.

"Imagine how the tragedy of millions being beheaded in Somalia could have been averted if everyone there had had a cell phone." [Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, 2013]

Anyone find it worrying that the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436799)

Anyone find it worrying the data being transmitted between areas WASN'T secure in the first place?

It is like sending a letter without an envelope, that is basically what they just said.
Of course, this is slashdot and as always, I am too lazy to read the article.

Be nice if they added encrypted email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46436935)

Maybe only good to other gmail users, but it's something.

Google = R+D department of the NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437063)

Intelligence agencies LIE to the public. It is codified as one of their most potent weapons. Google was created to design the software and hardware systems required to collect, store, index, process, mine, search and access the unthinkable masses of digital data arising and available in the modern age. One can read about the history of the dreadful pre-Google installations used by the NSA and other intelligence agencies.

Today, having 'tamed' the problem of electronic intelligence gathering, Google has set its sites on introducing ROBOT TANKS into America's future battlefields. Google's 'Streetview', aerial photography of every Human settlement on the Earth, face recognition algorithms, self-driving systems, and many other Google projects all exist to solve problems faced by autonomous robotic tanks. Now Google is spending endless billions buying up every military robot research company. I would imagine Google's zionist owners plan to have America using Google designed killing machines within 20 years, and to groom the public to accept the same within 10 years.

Any public statement made by Google's zionist owners or senior managers (each of whom are proud to attend the most extremist events in Israel) can be assumed to be a lie intended to 'groom' you.

And let me remind you, the NSA and GCHQ have both been forced to make VERY public statements saying that under no circumstances must legal action in court refer to intelligence gathered by these spies. They state that allowing the public to know the extent to which information gathered about them by the spy agencies is put to use threatens a political back-lash that could force a ban on much of their activities. So, the owners of Google KNOW the intent of the US government in the near future is to HIDE the fact that NSA intelligence is used against the people of America, and so what the people don't know can be equated (falsely) with the idea that it doesn't actually happen.

AT&T likewise deny they work with the NSA, and yet over and over, employees of this company have detailed the extent to which NSA equipment is built into AT&T infrastructure, allowing DIRECT collection of ALL data passing through AT&T lines. So, when the AT&T boss looks you sheeple in the face and says "there is no government equipment tapping our lines", are you going to allow the known lie to change your understanding, just because the lie is spoken?

It gets worse for you sheeple. You can read the actual US laws that FORCE people who 'co-operate' with the NSA to lie about the fact, if asked. There is no mystery about why and when they lie. It is written down in black-and-white in the books that describe current US laws. So why do the owners of Slashdot, KNOWING that the owners of Google lie, give the lies such public exposure? Because the owners of Slashdot know many of you are so thick, you'll believe the lies. Do you really enjoy being treated in such a despicable way?

Re:Google = R+D department of the NSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437855)

Man, you almost had a fucking point, till you spouted random unrelated bigotry against Israel.

Protip: when you have an agenda, and you're trying to make a point, leave your agenda out of it until much later on. Or when it's substantiated.

The other side of the coin. (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 5 months ago | (#46437195)

Now if we can just protect it from Google spying.

He might as well claim ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437259)

... that they are now above the law. The fascist NSA can put you in jail if you do not do as they say, it's that simple.

Dangerous Moves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437367)

The next Director of the National Security Agency will demand of the President of the United States of America the death of Eric Schmidt.

The President of the United States of America will grant the request ASAP.

The "Googleplex" will be the first target of Military Drones armed with neutron enhanced nuclear munitions within and on USA soil for the first time in USA history.

"Good night ... Google", Obama will say to Schmidt in a phone call 1 minute ahead of the conflagration.

FU

Famous last words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46437425)

I'm guessing the scoop is that they implemented crypto on their circuits between data centers---something they promised to do after the Snowden deal hit the fan---and should have done ages ago. What it means now is that the NSA can't passively scoop data from the links, they will now simply have to hack Google's server infrastructure to collect the data, or supply them with TAO-compromised hardware as part of their equipment replacements, or ask for a secret court order under a secret law from a secret judge in a secret court to be served to secret employees in the secret division within Google. Or they could use a $5 wrench on the guy with the server keys while he is in a locale with questionable legal jurisdiction, such as...say...an airport.

Nobody in Europe is going to believe that B.S. about being safe.

So its now safe for... (1)

3seas (184403) | about 5 months ago | (#46437625)

all the terrorists to communicate thru......Now all they have to do is convince the spying government terrorist of it... collect datat for a couple years then leak the hell out of it.... Then we won't have a spying problem anymore.

The only way to be safe from leaks on the internet is to not make whatever not accessible on or from the internet.

Famous last words (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 5 months ago | (#46437817)

'pretty sure that information within Google is now safe from any government's prying eyes.

It doesn't work if their last round of spying got them the root password, and the backdoors planted.

They can still infiltrate the companies' datacenter employee staff with their own operatives.

And another mechanism at their disposal -- is, of course, lawful orders together with gag orders.

Safe? (2)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 5 months ago | (#46437875)

Now, if only my data was safe from Google's eyes...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>