MrKurtz

There is no proof that the visit was due to her googling anything: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142238

The claim is that the visit was due to her googling, which isn't proven. I want them to investigate the actual reasons instead of dealing with hearsay.

Why not? are you satisfied with speculation as an alternative to the truth? is this an excuse to not even ask questions?

Yes, someone should get to the bottom of this, but no one has, they are busy running speculative link bait.

There is no actual proof that this was due to web searches, also the picture the atlantic is using is misleading and terrible, and the article was silently changed after someone else pointed that the alleged visit wasn't actually from the FBI but from local law enforcement:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police...

The story boils down to: "a lady claims to get a visit from the feds after googling some stuff".

She herself says that:

They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don’t know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I’m not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to. https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724

This is lazy and exploitive reporting by all parties.

You're right the slides are pre default HTTPS gmail (2007/8).

But even then gmail is the only webmail service that offers server-to-server encryption, so data can still get intercepted when communicating with someone using yahoo mail or hotmail for example: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p...

Actually it's: "There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...

And I tend to believe him.

My understanding is that internet firms enjoy slightly more leverage, and that is why in contrast to telecos they are now petitioning the courts to reveal the scope of the orders.

You seem to forget that they are replacing AT&T.

I guess being cynical is understandable but you shouldn't over do it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...

Why would Google (or anyone) link to them directly? with fiber no less! this stuff is alarming enough no need for FUD.

This XKS business seems about intercepting non-encrypted traffic as the references to HTTP payload quoted in the article would suggest.

They are hardly even a broadband player, their coverage in miniscule.

Google Fiber is an experimental / policy altering service, its TOS as this point in time is inconsequential.

I'm not sure I understand the tone of that piece, it strikes me as yet another attempt at vilifying Google for the most trivial and altogether invalid reasons.

Google offers gigabit speeds in very select areas; coverage-wise they are hardly a blip on the map. Ostensibly the main strategic purpose of Google Fiber is proving that 1Gbps connections to consumers are possible and affordable, which in turn might shame the main players to up their game or result in municipal broadband initiatives and the like.

So now after scrutinizing a strictly worded and loosely enforced TOS agreement, the author (in a shameless display of feigned indignation) is invoking the plight of political dissidents?! this is absurd, the author ought to re-adjust his perspective and lay off the navel gazing.

I don't know what the future holds for Google Fiber but from afar it appears to be an experimental initiative that is still evolving, so disallowing enterprise grade servers at this point in time isn't the end of the world, keep in mind that doing similar things on competing services isn't even viable.

I think he's being cute. For me this quote sums up what PRISM is really about:

"Nobody wants a box in their network...[Companies often] find ways to give tools to minimize disclosures, to protect users, to keep the government off the premises, and to come to some reasonable compromise on the capabilities."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/how-the-u.s-fo...

Basically: in order to prevent the feds from installing boxes on their networks companies offer to do their own interception, which in my opinion is the far better alternative. "Direct access" isn't accurate.

The folks at Android Police posted about it weeks ago: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/11/second-all-access-ap...

It also was already patched. Good write up though.

Treehouse's comment is included in the post:

We teach Android at Treehouse as well, but Apple has refused to let us release the app while including Android content. At the time of review several other applications in the App Store included Android content, but in our case we were told it was against App Store guidelines to have Android content in our app.

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2013/07/25/tech-education-startup...

I seem to recall someone at google claiming that Apple had not yet approved the Maps app and it wasn't even submitted yet. [citation needed]

Some tech "reporter" heard that some Googler was concerned that Apple may reject the app: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/05/google-maps...