We do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy!
We do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy!
Lest people think this is a joke, this is EXACTLY what the telecoms did under Bush that lead to Congress passing retroactive telecom immunity. Predictable outrage this time looks to me like outrage then, and I have no reason to believe that we won't see a similar legislative response.
That said, in Google's case I believe them. This is the company that is going to court to stop the government from trying to get information about Google users with warrantless national security letters.
FB on the other hand, I would expect to see providing technical support to the FBI about how to use their in house tools to more quickly analyze the dumps...
A very telling fact was that Obama was one of those voting for it as well. That told me at least who Obama was. I was never fooled by his hope and change rhetoric, that one action said all I wanted to know before he even started running for pres.
Here is Sen Obama's 2008 reason for flip flopping on the issue:
---
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.
---
But what was the alternative? McCain missed that vote, but had been strongly for telecom immunity all along, and was much more vocal about it than Obama. Hillary Clinton's husband Bill ran Echelon and Carnivore, the odds she would be different were low to nil.
Incidentally in this case it is worth noting that Obama stayed in the letter of his promise. There was a warrant. Whether that warrant was properly obtained, or should be legal is a different question. But there actually was a warrant from the rubber-stamp FISA court.
| FB on the other hand, I would expect to see
| providing technical support to the FBI about
| how to use their in house tools to more quickly
| analyze the dumps...
According to Mark Zuckerberg:
"Having two identities for yourself is an example
of a lack of integrity"
I'm surprised that he didn't beg the government to peruse his data to weed out all these 'phonies' that are polluting his perfect system.
Yes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology. It's not like this contingency wouldn't have been planned for - they all knew the gravity of their decision to enter into this. Those statements were likely provided to them by the Justice Department when they first came on board with PRISM in the event that the program ever came to light. A creative US Attorney likely concluded that this would be a legally defensible statement, even if it is wholly misleading.
> Yes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology.
Yap, it seems as if they got a set of "talking points". They can use certain words and phrases and still given some technicality get away with telling "truth" while effectively also telling lies.
Some say how NSL (national security letters) are pretty draconian and imply personal liability for disclosure. And that is true perhaps but at the same time these agencies do want to get some cooperation and are perhaps willing to "help out" their co-conspirators so PR departments I imagine get a cheat-sheet -- "use these phrases as responses".
Furthermore it seems apple fb google etc leapt at the chance to loudly deny using white listed talking points, knowing full well that the story was unfolding. They want the public to know they are gagged.
Exactly. Everybody can obviously read these companies' very carefully worded denials for themselves and see that there's enough wiggle room to drive a bus through.
Even if they are getting all this data(and they most likely have access), I find it highly improbable that the govt has access to the human resources (R&D/Engineering) required, to produce something useful.
Just think about the teams they have to put together to build even reasonably useful tools.
The same government that invented the nuclear bomb and provided feedback that protected DES's S boxes from differential cryptanalysis before it was publicly known to exist?
I think you give it too little credit.
The government does a bad job with citizen-facing software engineering. It's not clear that the same is true for defense and intelligence applications.
The difference was that there weren't better jobs for those people back then, and there was a real world war back then and we were kinda obviously the good guys.
People with the skills to do the data mining needed at this scale already have better jobs at Google or on Wall Street. Are they really going to take a pay cut, worse benefits and "government job" bureaucracy for the privilege of spying on their friends and family?
I have family in military intelligence and the situation they are in right now is their branch of the armed service thinks they are just going to send their officers of below average mathematical talent to big data boot camp and expect them to just pick this stuff up, as if it's the same thing as learning Russian or flying a drone. Although the I'm as disappointed as everyone in that so many in the government seem think domestic spying is the wave of the future, I'm skeptical that the real motivations are anything beyond business as usual defense sector pork.
Sure but the big difference today is the internet. Good luck trying to hire an Oppenheimer today and setting up Los Alamos in secret.
Take a look at successful teams that already work with "big data" like at Wolfram Alpha or IBM's Watson. It is not at all easy to build such teams today. There aren't enough PhD's around, unless you are outsourcing to China. And then to step it up a level to Google's requirements we enter personal chefs and segway territory. I cant find the quote but Eric Schmidt has said multiple time what is hampering progress is not the lack of cash or infrastructure but talent.
More than the privacy issues I have to wonder about the waste. Cause getting the data and the infrastructure to handle it is the "easy" part. Extracting actionable intelligence I doubt highly they will succeed. Will turn into a big cash sink, that no one will talk about as the costs need to be justified...until they cant be.
Think about the smartest people we have in the valley... whomever you want to arbitrarily put on that list.
Every single person I have dealt with at a three letter agency is that caliber of smart. They have entire buildings full of them. Sure you have tons of other mid-grade government paper pushers, but the sheer scale of smart people was overwhelming.
How do they convince all of them to stay and deal with the bureaucracy vs going to somewhere like google and having tons of benefits and likely double or triple the salary? Or starting their own company doing whatever they find interesting?
Most get recruited right out of college, many people take the job on strong recommendation from an advisor or professor. The perks aren't on Google scale, but the pay is better than you'd expect and the feeling of purpose and patriotism is something no valley company can really match.
Once you are on the inside, you have daily interactions with technology that is 10 years ahead of anything on the outside, which is really hard to walk away from. Not to mention you probably married someone else with a clearance along the way.
If you do want to leave... all your accomplishments, achievements, and awards are locked up in an ISR (internal staffing resume), and you end up sending potential employers a half page CV listing something stupid like "Senior Computer Operator, Defense Department, Ft. Meade" that no recruiter is smart enough to parse.
It appears most people, assuming its fresh out of college, would start out at GS-7 which at step 10 in the DC area would only be $54K. Assuming they were graduating with a Phd, they could be at GS-11 step 10 which would still only be 81K.
I understand the feeling of purpose but starting at half the salary and having a cap of 155K (assuming you move into senior management (GS-15 step 10)) vs somewhere like Google where you start at ~100K and the limit for technical people seems like its the 400K+ range seems like a tough sell. Also maybe its just stereotypes, but it seems like antisocial behavior which seems somewhat prevalent in excellent technical types wouldn't really mesh with the command structure there.
Oh yeah I know that but he implied that the salary gap wasn't that big. As far as I can tell it is. Sure defense contractors pay far more but that's not really working for the government anymore, you are in private industry and could just as easily go to someone that has use for people with clearances like Palantir or similar.
On a side note do the top tier/brilliant software engineers at Lockheed/et al make Google level salaries? Actual technical people, not those who have moved into management that is.
The cost of living is something you need to adjust for. In the Bay Area everyone gets tech company salaries. In the places you might live, everyone gets government salaries.
A lot of people like myself just don't want to work for Google, regardless of price.
The people I know at defense contractors in the Bay Area all make more than what you would at Google.
No it isn't. An iPhone and BMW cost the same thing in fly-over states that they cost in nice places. Maybe in a fly-over you're keeping 20% of your salary rather than 10% in the valley but the difference in salary probably means you still end up with more money in the valley.
I doubt he can say anything; it is all classified. However, it is almost certainly the case that the NSA's software is more advanced than anything publicly used:
1. They can read all the publicly available journals, so they are not going to be any worse
2. They hire top researchers in CS and math, and have internal, classified journals on their cutting edge work
"Being easily manipulated by bullshit is usually for the simple."
Not when you spend your first 20 years of life in school, being trained to follow instructions and being punished for questioning authority. Even very intelligent people can be turned into obedient workers.
I'm not sure I buy that. My entire education was the US public school system and I was never very patriotic. I'll admit I did feel a little bad about it though.
All these denials cover one specific thing that they're not doing, not the spirit of all things that could be done. Mirroring all traffic to an additional destination isn't providing a back door, but it accomplishes much of the same function.
Google provides portals for law enforcement to search their data given the proper clearance/warrants. This is what the Chinese were rumored to hack into with the Aurora stuff.
These communications people are playing word games. These companies turn over and give access to whatever they are legally required to.
They will in time. HN has been hit with links to new stories as each denies the 'direct access to their servers.' First came Google, then Apple, now Facebook.
Regardless, they are purposefully missing the point. The average citizen isn't upset by the means of the private information sharing, but that it is going on in the first place. It is that 'providing only information required by law' sounds limiting, but if the law makes clever use of language to access a huge amount of data then that phrase doesn't mean anything.
More specifically, narrow warrants. From a no longer operative document:
"... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Warrants AND due process. It is very easy to get a warrant through a due process, with independent judges and registered probable cause and evidences for it.
Eventual access to these documents are necessary so law enforcement agents must be liable for any possible mischief.
Without the proper checks and balances, it becomes very easy to game the system and put us in a kafkian situation, or worse.
