Hacker News Reader

The point is, Google as a company opposes giving the data, it fights it tooth and nail. It does not have a policy of cuddling up to governments to curry favor by handing over data, and most of the NSA conspiracy theories are completely unfounded.

Sure, the government can use kangaroo courts and send goons to get the data, but there is nothing special about Google in this regard. They can also send G-Men to get your bank accounts, school records, health records, telephone records, safeway history, DMV records, IRS tax records, credit card accounts, library or blockbuster rentals, and tons of vital information about your behavior that Google does not have.

Nothing has changed, so if you want to stop this from happening, demand better government. Sitting around whining about Google, and then when push comes to shove, not doing your duty as a citizen, is not going to change anything.

If Google disappeared tomorrow, you'd face the same privacy issues, because simply living in a civilization creates a public paper trail, it is unavoidable. All that's different is that it's digital now, and we're networked.

Chances are you make phone calls over unencrypted mobile. The NSA could, at their perogative, intercept and transcribe every phone conversation you have. They don't even need Google. People need to fight to restore civil libertarian protections by rolling back the Patriot Act, NSLs, NDAA, and other stuff that's happened since 9/11. Trying to demonize Google will be ineffectual to the root cause.

My point about Google culture is that any attempt to put a Carnivore-style tap on a Google data center would run a very high risk of whistleblowers making it public. AT&T isn't exactly known for their Googley culture, but Mark Klein blew the whistle on the NSA/SBC/AT&T firehose tap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

> The point is, Google as a company opposes giving the data

That's great and much better than some of the other tech companies who silently hand it over.

However Google doesn't oppose collecting the data, it doesn't seem to worry about the implications of that for oppressive regimes or future radical laws enacted after the next big terrorist attack. Are there real objections within the company to the real name policy? Is it addressed by management?

Demanding better government is, of course, important. I spend a lot of time and money doing it - working with citizen lobbying groups, contacting my representatives and attending meetings. But you can't demand better government and ignore how one of the biggest corporate collectors of personal data is acting, and changing.

"A single unified beautiful product" - linked to your real identity (to set a positive tone "like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to enter") - and one that doesn't interoperate with other products because they're "milking off of just one company for their own benefit".

That seems to be the core of Google these days and it's very different from the company many Googlers joined.

> It doesn't matter if employees would tolerate it: phone company employees wouldn't tolerate it either but the cell phone and location records of every American were too much for the authorities to resist - the great majority of phone company employees have no idea about the data that is handed over to government.

Some of them do, but shut up about it. It is a fact that AMDOCS (an Israeli owned company with alleged Mossad links) does outsourced billing for most major telcos in the US and many in Europe.

What I don't get is: it is theoretically possible to build at least some technologies that offer anonymity together with personalization. Google don't seem to do it.

Is it because they tend to support the government position that we need this data to fight terrorism? Or because they think that I'd they'll use such technology, the government will change the rules forcing them to use the less private tech? Or just plain profit maximizing - do the easiest thing that will bring the most money?