Now gotta wonder if Google has succumbed to government pressure to do the same.
I'm really hoping and trusting they haven't.
I'm really hoping and trusting they haven't.
"Experts said it was likely that the NSA or FBI had approached other Internet companies with the same demand, since they evidently did not know what email accounts were being used by the target. The NSA usually makes requests for domestic surveillance through the FBI, so it is hard to know which agency is seeking the information.
Reuters was unable to confirm whether the 2015 demand went to other companies, or if any complied.
Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft Corp, two major U.S. email service providers, did not respond to requests for comment."
It's not a hard question to answer. You either are or are not searching all emails in realtime at the behest of the NSA.
A spokeswoman for Microsoft, Kim Kurseman, e-mailed Ars this statement, and also declined further questions: “We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo.”
For its part, Google was the most unequivocal. Spokesman Aaron Stein e-mailed: "We've never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: 'no way.'"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/fbi-demands-signa...
It's easy to answer if you're not. If you are, you can't answer (at least not truthfully).
But I suppose that the order forbids "disclosure", and that statement is arguably disclosure...
"Alphabet Inc's Google and Microsoft Corp, two major U.S. email service providers, did not respond to requests for comment."
Isn't that pretty much saying "I'm sorry, we are unable to answer your question"? If they weren't doing the same thing as Yahoo, they could say so.
It's basic PR for big brands to avoid getting quoted in the messes their competitor gets into.
And as much as you might think this is a huge problem, it's a bigger problem with companies aren't restrained by government orders. Imagine if Exceleon politely declined to allow nuclear inspections.
Exhibit 1: http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/
Exhibit 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html
That cheap-oil-for-your-private-planes deal with Pentagon is one small evidence [1]. The other is Matt Cutts working for (on a temporary basis) the Defense Department's branch of USDS [2]
[1]: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238646045790697...
[2]: http://fedscoop.com/former-google-spam-chief-heads-to-usds
As for Microsoft, well, no debate there.
a perk they apparently shouldn't have been getting and was cut off by the pentagon is evidence the pentagon has front door access to Google?
> The other is Matt Cutts working for (on a temporary basis) the Defense Department's branch of USDS
What, do you think he really needed a job so the web search spam guy gave access to user accounts in exchange for getting to work in government contracting?
Really need to work on your circumstantial evidence.