Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zigurd | Hacker News Reader

The answer CAN be "all of the above." Just because the NSA went beyond any agreement they may have with Google, and Google is genuinely pissed off about that, doesn't mean Google (or any other major technology company in the US) hasn't cooperated with the government regarding surveillance.

It is certain that telecom carriers participated willingly in the massive collection of telephone network CDRs from way back when these were on mag tape.

So far, every time someone has asked "What if the government is using X for surveillance?" the answer has eventually been yes. 100% of the time. Nothing is out of bounds. And that includes making partners victims if it is part of the mission to collect everything. Belgium, for example, is both a partner, somewhere in the hierarchy of partners outside of the Five Eyes, and a victim of GCHQ hacking. Being a partner doesn't spare you and being a victim isn't indicative you're not a partner.

View on HN

I don't dispute that there was some collusion or collaboration, but at the same time, I don't condemn people on an incomplete pictures. Period.

For all we know, PRISM was more-or-less a euphemism for "we had a shallow collaboration that we used to pivot into a larger compromise of their networks".

Conversely, I'm going to have to agree with 'tptacek and his (probably not popular) opinion on Google and their influence on privacy and security at large.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8949256

So I stand by my decision to not condemn them until we learn more about the nature of their collaboration with the NSA's plot to deteriorate human rights the world over. Not because I love Google and think they can do no evil, but because I believe in charitable debate and skeptical inquiry.

> I believe in charitable debate and skeptical inquiry.

I believe in the odds. And the odds are that any technology that has a high potential to significantly add to surveillance capabilities has been exploited for that purpose either by hacking it or convincing (strong-arming if needed) the technology provider to cooperate.

I don't deny that Google does a lot of great things in general, and in security research specifically. That would be denying the plain facts. But I also do not think that has any impact at all on the relationships the government builds with (or forces upon) large corporations regarding national security.

When the chips are down, the NSA and other TLAs are going to get what they want. Now that tptacek is part of a larger transnational security company, he may find that out firsthand.

Joke's on you: he left Matasano.

What exactly was it that you thought Matasano did, that the NSA might have ever leaned on them for anything? People on HN have historically had really weird ideas of how my work intersects with privacy. Matasano is a software engineering service.

Matatsano was probably too small. Didn't it get bought by a larger firm?

You didn't answer my question. What exactly do you think it is NSA wants firms like Matasano to do? Stop being evasive. Say something specific, so we can actually address the innuendo.

It seems much more likely that NSA would lean on your consulting practice: you build telephony and communications software. Obviously, I don't think NSA leans on companies like yours either.

I never mentioned Matadano. I specifically refered to the "larger transnational security company" that acquired Matasano. If that's not correct regarding Matasano, I'm sorry. But I'm not being evasive in any way.

I'll let you know when I scale up to where I get a glimpse into the abyss.

I ran the professional services division for one of the largest companies in the same space as Matasano.

I'd love to hear what you think the NSA might have persuaded us to do?

I worked for the "multinational" for two years after the acquisition and I'm curious about NSA's evil influence too. Tell us more, Zigurd? Seriously: just a theory about what could have been happening would be great.

Since your indignation is fully intact, "one of the largest companies..." would not be RSA, right?

RSA isn't in remotely the same space as Matasano, nor would it be "one of the largest" if it were in that space.

As I rock back and forth in my chair, silently repeat the serenity prayer, and try to remain charitable; what sort of work do you think Matasano (or NCC, Accuvant, or VerizonBusiness, my former employer) does?

The comment at the top of the thread is about Google. Not everything is about you.

I think you should tell that to the person who brought me up.

Sorry Thomas, I only referenced you because I thought the post in question was worth sharing in this context.

No?

Where did you read that? They're still alive and kicking.

'tptacek left it to start a new company. As far as I can tell, Matasano is quite successful and many of its employees are highly regarded hackers and engineers.

Some of what they do:

    * cryptopals.com
    * microcorruption.com
    * cryptoservices.github.io

See also: the 'whoishiring threads every month.

EDIT: You should probably respond to his post instead of mine.

Well, he is correct that Matasano was acquired by NCC Group. But as a rank-and-file Matasanoan since before the acquisition, I can't say I've noticed a huge impact on the day-to-day.

Okay, I wasn't aware previously. Thank you for correcting my ignorance.

I think we all know Matasano were the masterminds behind Regin.

I meant besides Regin.

You'd be surprised.

And yes I know what Matasano did. Which is why I say you'd be surprised.

"Does", not "did". But I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

Right, "does" - I forgot they just nested their namespace after going to NCC, sorry.

If you had to make a guess, you'd probably guess correctly, but we'll just end this thread here (don't guess). FWIW I'm not supporting Zigurd's statements, which sound crazy.

I'm more confused now than before you commented.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com