Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnea | Hacker News Reader

Pegasus might make handy click bait, but NSO Group doesn't get a tiny fraction of the data that Goggle Corp gathers.

But, since pretty much everyone in the US is allowing goggle to continue it's massive violation of the 4th amendment, it's not really news worthy.

View on HN

Users typically agree to send their data to Google.

With NSO and Pegasus the purchaser agrees, but the intended victim (the one being exploited) never agreed to send their data to whomever purchased Pegasus from NSO or the NSO.

So it doesn't really matter if NSO has less data than Google. It matters _HOW_ the NSO Group/ customer got the data which 99.9% is against the wishes of the victim.

This is a silly comparison. Were basically comparing the use of data to conduct political repression to the use of data to recommend content relevant to your own interests.

Google isn't a branch of the US government, so the 4th amendment doesn't apply. If you want adtech surveillance to be regulated, lobby for GDPR-style regulation in the US.

If the US Gov has access to the data Google collects without issuing a warrant, which they do according to the Snowden leaks, then the distinction is meaningless as far as the intent of the 4th amendment goes

Yes, the separation of state and industry has long been eroded in the US. Yet people are still under the illusion that democracy exists.

The US government obtained that data by illegally tapping into Google's data centers, which means the government was still the entity violating the 4th amendment.

If you want to criticize Google's data collection, fine, but doing it in terms of the 4th amendment is just nonsensical. If you want to criticize companies for collecting data that could subsequently be illegally collected by the government, then every single company that collects any PII/private information could be criticized on the same basis.

It's not like they hacked into Google's servers without their knowledge or consent, they were given access to the data. Obviously those who knew about it at Google were under gag orders, but one would hope that somebody involved would have the balls to leak the government's blatantly unconstitutional and illegal demands to the press regardless. Those gag orders wouldn't have held up in court if anybody at one of the PRISM companies had the conscience to go rogue. Every company involved in PRISM can be rightfully accused of colluding with the government to violate the basic 4th amendment rights of millions of people, knowingly and willingly.

I didn't get the impression that MUSCULAR (intercepting Google's inter-datacenter links, distinct from PRISM) involved Google's cooperation.

> It's not like they hacked into Google's servers without their knowledge or consent, they were given access to the data.

This is not true. The NSA hacked Google without their consent.

The relevant slide from the Snowden leak is here:

https://i.imgur.com/7IHE6sG.png

> Snowden leaks: Google 'outraged' at alleged NSA hacking

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24751821

There's a word for that: FASCISM, and both parties enabled it:

-Bush Jr. set up the surveillance system using a classified executive order

-Obama gave access to it to 16 Law Enforcement agencies (via EO) and didn't renew the Smith-Mundt Act to legalize psychological warfare on U.S. Citizens

-Trump could have shut it down by the same Executive Order system , but instead did nothing but whine and remove a single Top Security clearance from Brennan. He also ordered the DHS to create lists of journalists and media influencers to target for surveillance.

-Biden weaponized social media against us to silence us and ostracize us from society.

Huh?

I take it, you've missed the Twitter Files completely?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com