The post is dated May 27, is Google planning to announce a new feature for Apps this week and this is some sort of a preemptive PR attack?
1,345 karma · joined May 20, 2013
The post is dated May 27, is Google planning to announce a new feature for Apps this week and this is some sort of a preemptive PR attack?
In the case of activity timestamps (which I'm sure legally don't get the same protection as content) they would be sent by the companies to the FBI/NSA not have their actual servers monitored by them.
- The "direct access" claim is replaced with "FBI interception unit" which is "government equipment on private company property to retrieve matching information from a participating company" that detail isn't mentioned in slides but provided in annotations.
- The case format notation points to "real-time notification" when a target logs in or sends emails/IM/VOIP etc:
"Depending on the provider, the NSA may receive live notifications when a target logs on or sends an e-mail, or may monitor a voice, text or voice chat as it happens (noted on the first slide as "Surveillance").
The "Depending on the provider" bit is interesting as it suggests that there are potentially different levels of "participation".
- "On April 5, according to this slide, there were 117,675 active surveillance targets in PRISM's counterterrorism database." can a FISA order cover a target across service providers or each provider requires its own order? the number of targets could dramatically be revises downwards depending on that.
I'll assume you are not trolling and just misinformed so I'll address your 'elephants':
- Google already said that there are no "links": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...
- Statistical analysis of Google closures shows that they deprecate products at below industry pace, so your impression about that is also wrong: http://www.gwern.net/Google%20shutdowns
Is no one else paying attention to anything beyond the "slides" in this story?!
Also Gmail is the only webmail that offers server-to-server encryption: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p...
And as mentioned in another comment you can delete messages over IMAP.
So in the future make sure you do some research as to avoid spreading false information.
The other companies aren't going this far and I think they deserve a credit for what they're doing.
And I disagree with commend you link to, the solution isn't limiting data collection, sure it makes you a target but more data equals a better product. It's an issue of government overreach not engineering decisions.
The most worrisome and misunderstood part of these reports is the "direct access" bit: can the government arbitrarily query company servers? their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and yes also the secretive FISA requests.
So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and their scope they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access.
As for the development being reported here: I think it has merit seeing how this clearly falls under the first amendment, but I'd like a lawyer to chip in.
[edit: clarity]
It's beyond quid pro quo, it's how software improves and evolves, and it is to the benefit of everyone: you, other users, vendor.
It's almost as insane as that piece in Slate claiming that Hadoop is evil because it enabled large scale data analysis (http://www.salon.com/2013/06/14/netflix_facebook_and_the_nsa...). Technology is not the issue.
This newly found aversion to tracking and measurement is a stupid knee-jerk reaction to the news.
Let's try and keep the speculation to a minimum.
Just read the damn thing, it's not long.
Canada has it: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6870/125/
Sweden has it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5852497 http://peterfleischer.blogspot.se/2007/05/sweden-and-governm...
Edit: also as someone already commented here: they do mention that the data is 'not comprehensive'.
Is it either privacy or usability?!
It's fundamentally an issue with the law: if they can't even feature FISA orders in their transparency report then their hands are pretty much tied. One could only hope that these reports will result in a change in the law itself.