Patriot Act Haunts Google Service

The Globe and Mail has an interesting piece taking a look at Google's latest headache, the US Government. Many people are suddenly deciding to spurn Google's services and applications because it opens up potential avenues of surveillance. "Some other organizations are banning Google's innovative tools outright to avoid the prospect of U.S. spooks combing through their data. Security experts say many firms are only just starting to realize the risks they assume by embracing Web-based collaborative tools hosted by a U.S. company, a problem even more acute in Canada where federal privacy rules are at odds with U.S. security measures."

Comments

Not good enough

[Naughty Bob]

Spurning these services will mark you out for further surveillance straight away.

Have they never read Crime and Punishment?

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but I am afraid to check it out from the library and get added to the terrorist watch list.

Re:Not good enough

[TommydCat]

This guy spurned the services and look what happens to him!

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

ME estas queriendo decir que Google, no puede leer nada de mis archivos, si yo no quisiera usar sus herramientas, jajajaja que ilusooo jajaj

Re:Not good enough

[grcumb]

Spurning these services will mark you out for further surveillance straight away.

'Mark you out?' The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days. And most companies have no clue how much of their data is crossing the firewall every day.

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a knot over Google, when the main problem lies with the US backbone carriers, who - with only one known exception - have opened their networks to constant and widespread monitoring by US security agencies. Google at very least had the guts to fight a public legal battle with the Feds over release of even sanitised data.

The story here may be the danger to companies when they bring these companies inside the firewall, but again, refusing to trust Google is a funny place to start enforcing data integrity. The plain and simple fact is that the greatest threat of corporate data leaks is from staff who, whether through sins of omission or commission, carry sensitive data on laptops, thumb drives, CDs without any protections whatsoever.

I'd like to believe that data protection regimes are so advanced in these companies that the potential threat posed by Google and other online services is the main concern, but I find that impossible to do. I have to conclude, therefore that this is nothing more than a tiny kernel of truth wrapped in chocolatey FUD-ness that PHBs and corporate counsel love so much.

Re:Not good enough

[Naughty Bob]

'Mark you out?' The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days. And most companies have no clue how much of their data is crossing the firewall every day.

I was simply saying that boycotting something most people do raises a question mark against you as surely as more obvious, 'incriminating' behaviour. At least, it would if I was in charge.

Re:Not good enough

[grcumb]

I was simply saying that boycotting something most people do raises a question mark against you as surely as more obvious, 'incriminating' behaviour. At least, it would if I was in charge.

Point taken.

... And I'm really glad you're not in charge. 8^)

Re:Not good enough

[GodfatherofSoul]

A government agent in an unmarked car drove up and handed him a wad of cash? Sign me up!

Re:Not good enough

[dwalsh]

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a knot over Google, when the main problem lies with the US backbone carriers, who - with only one known exception - have opened their networks to constant and widespread monitoring by US security agencies.

Who dat?

Re:Not good enough

[CodeBuster]

It is sad, but that is precisely what used to happen in the old days of the Soviet Union except then it was the list of "enemies of the people". One might reasonably ask what the "wrong book" is doing in the library if checking it out gets one's name put onto the list of "enemies of the people" but such questions are invariably ignored in pursuit of "the enemies of the people". The punishment continued even after one had served time in the form of a wolf ticket and being sent to the 101st kilometer. It is scary to think that certain types of ex-criminals are effectively getting the same treatment today in the United States.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap. I drive that way to work every day. Maybe I will look for that guy. I think he's selling newspapers ;-)

Re:Not good enough

[rtb61]

I think you miss the point. Google a for profit corporation, is basically doing what those government agencies are doing and that everybody is complaining about. Really, which is worse a corporation with profit as it only goal (aside from the typical modern feel good marketing campaign), which will ultimately seek every competitive advantage in the pursuit of endless profit growth (censoring freedom and democracy in autocratic countries, no problem), or a government agency with public oversight, subject to independent audits and review.

Now the only public battle I saw between google and US agencies was, the very public battle that google fought so they did not have to give it away the valuable data they now own for free.

When it comes to securing a companies data, they of course mention the dominant provider of services, rather than rattling off a whole list. So why would any company allow external companies that also provide services to their competitors access to their companies data or their business communications. Whilst the certainly does put the carriers in the spot light and obviously require a complete review of their operations, it still makes google look far worse as they are the most infamous collectors and collators of other peoples information known on the net.

So really this is just the beginning, as privacy is catching up the the internet, and companies seek default secure communications and data enforced by law, so individuals will gain protection by those same laws, a major shift in privacy landscape, that google amongst many others will be forced to adjust to as the laws are updated.

Re:Not good enough

[fugue]

The "wrong book" is in the library in order to fish for enemies of the people. Sort of how Bush was on the ballot to fish for people who should never be allowed to reproduce. Only someone forgot an important detail somewhere along the way.

Re:Not good enough

[AlamedaStone]

Quest, I believe.

Re:Not good enough

[cmacb]

don't know why people are getting their knickers in a knot over Google, when the main problem lies with the US backbone carriers,"

I think Google is just a convenient target since they are number one. It's sort of like blaming all the bad stuff that happens with PCs on Microsoft. Wait, that's a bad analogy. Everything bad that happens with PC actually is Microsoft's fault. Well, anyway, you get the idea.

Re:Not good enough

[theonetruekeebler]

Qwest. And shortly afterwards the U.S. government started finding excuses to (a) cancel existing contracts with Qwest, (b) declare them ineligible to for future no-bid contracts, and (c) preventing them from bidding on other contracts. Qwest alleges that hundreds of millions of dollars were routed around them to telcos more willing to play along. Good summary here.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Spurning these services will mark you out for further surveillance straight away.

Qiute likely -- the old "Resistance is futile" bit.

Actually, it's just as likely a way around legislating less use of the internet, which can then just wither away, as our shitheaded government would love to see.

Same as the assholes at MADD. Their president has said publicly, "We don't want to end drinking and driving; we want to end drinking altogether."

So they lobby for shit like insanely low BAC standards (most auto accidents due to alcohol actually involve a BAC of 0.19%, more than twice the bullshit 0.08% they've gotten legislated), extortionate fines, etc. The total in California, including all fines, costs, classes, etc. is now over $8500 -- for the first offense and before any lawyer costs. It's in the CA driver's handbook, if you don't believe me.

It's called the New prohibition -- not legislated (that's already been proven to be an unenforceable farce), just enforced through making it too costly to indulge. Google (if you dare) "new prohibition madd" for lots more info to evaluate for yourself.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

People that disagree with you should not be allowed to reproduce. What is is like to be so sure that you're right about everything,

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

That should have ended with a question mark, excuse the typo.

Re:Not good enough

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days.

Obviously true. The above is the core and good beginning to any data security discussion/plan. The article talks a lot about Google because they are one of the main players in this area, but this topic isn't about Google. I don't care if god himself (whichever if any you belive in) offers a 3rd party online data storage facility. It doesn't matter who the 3rd party is, if you send your data to ANY 3rd party there is additional risk introduced of having that data compromised.

refusing to trust Google is a funny place to start enforcing data integrity.

Again obviously true. If you are involved in anyway with data security and Google's online apps are your first and only concern then you better find another line of work :-) However, I cannot imagine that is a common case. The reason this is mentioned is it is a relatively "new" risk to lookout for and perhaps some haven't considered the risk carefully enough.

In todays IT environment email is probably the largest risk where it is just so easy to send confidential information in unecrypted form within many companies. Of course there are TONS of other areas of common risk. Just because you haven't considered all areas of risk or have had to live with some areas of risk exposure (which all people/companies/orgainazations must) doesn't mean you should also then just blindly ignore all other future possiblities of risk exposure.

The fact is everyone must deal with some level of risk exposure. The key is to understand those areas and do what you can to mitigate those risks while not adversely impacting yourself/your business/etc. All companies/people will have different comfort levels when dealing with these risks. As such there is no one set of rules that will fit all cases but any new areas of potential exposure certainly deserve thoughtful consideration by all involved.

Personally (and for my company) these online services risk/reward just don't make sense. There are just too many other methods to accomplish what I/we need at no to very little cost to justify taking this additional risk. Do I/we have other areas of risk exposure we've had to accept? Of course, but that doesn't mean we also want to take on additional risk without a compelling reason.

Basics to data security:
1) Keep data internal and only available to those who need it (while implementing good controls to ensure this)
2) If data must leave your physical control, protect it (encryption, VPNs, SSL, etc, etc, etc)
3) If data must leave your control and you cannot provide protection for it, consider other mitigation methods (logging, monitoring, accounting, etc, etc)

Re:Not good enough

[CTilluma]

Everything outside the firewall is subject to surveillance? Most everything inside the firewall has the same fate as well. Either through corporate policy or an ever increasing botnet.

Re:Not good enough

[Jack Greenbaum]

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a knot over Google, when the main problem lies with the US backbone carriers, who - with only one known exception - have opened their networks to constant and widespread monitoring by US security agencies. Google at very least had the guts to fight a public legal battle with the Feds over release of even sanitised data.

I believe the issue people are just now grappling with is that if you store your data on someone else's servers then your data is subject to snooping, regardless of a secure connection used to put it there or not. -- Jack

Re:Not good enough

[dizee]

uhm, there's nothing there, just a black screen that says "this image no longer available"

Time for google.ca?

[argent]

Time for Google to move to Vancouver?

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Ogive17]

I think the bigger issue is how much information google is actually storing. I don't care if Canada's government respects the individual's privacy more.. the temptation is there for future abuse.

I'm not one that usually gets paranoid and I hate conspiracy theories.. but google worries me. Even if they never do anything wrong as a company, it just takes one person with bad intentions to make all that information public.

There is something wrong with a company that wants to be everything to everyone. (look at Microsoft)

Re:Time for google.ca?

[jo42]

Someone should tell the US Gooberment that all their Crackberry©(tm) e-mail traffic goes through a data center in Canada, eh? See how fast The Bushies and Their Henchmen annex The Great White North, eh?

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Gonoff]

annex The Great White North

Be very careful! Look what happened the last time the US fell out with Canada! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

Re:Time for google.ca?

[iminplaya]

Or google.cx?

Only a small step away from goatse..

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Sancho]

Since the article is about collaboration tools (like Google Docs and mail), I certainly hope that Google is storing the relevant information!

As for other information (such as who is searching for what), well they're probably not storing significantly more than Yahoo or MSN. Google's just one of the more popular targets because they're pretty highly visible.

The Patriot act says that, under certain circumstances, a service provider may not notify its customers that they've released their records. That's one of the biggest issues here--companies want to know if their documents are being viewed.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[xmedar]

Cayman Islands would be better, make Google a bank there and users account holders (with a zero balance of course) and all the data would be covered by the Caymans banking laws, any snooping would get the perp extradited and charged with breaking the bank secrecy laws.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Albanach]

make Google a bank there and users account holders (with a zero balance of course)

Crazy idea. They should make all the account holders with a balance like their gmail quota. That way, I could sit all day with online banking open watching my balance increase!

Re:Time for google.ca?

[urcreepyneighbor]

See how fast The Bushies and Their Henchmen annex The Great White North, eh? We already have, but didn't tell anyone. Adding another star to the flag is too much of a hassle.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[coren2000]

(with a zero balance of course) Or better... google starts a REAL bank! Then google can monitor your online AND offline life!

But seriously, The International Bank of Google doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me, Im rather sick of the normal banks.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Mansing]

And sanitizing Washington, DC would be bad how again?

Re:Time for google.ca?

[osu-neko]

Yup. Last time we invaded Canada, they kicked out asses back across the border. Although we did manage to burn down the Parliament in York (now Toronto) before leaving. :)

It's interesting, what they do and don't teach you about the War of 1812 in American schools. Like the fact that, oh, you know, we lost? Sure, we won a few nifty battles, but overall we lost the war. They didn't stop impressing our sailors or interfering with our trade because we fought a war over it, they stopped because they'd only been doing it as part of their war against Napoleon, and that war ended. In the treaty that ended the war, we agreed to a return to status quo ante bellum -- basically a big undo button: things were to return to exactly the state they were in before the war. But the British had been fine with the state of things before the war, we're the ones that had a list of demands for things to change. In the end, we agreed to no change. We did that because the alternative being argued by the other side was for the US to make territorial concessions to Britain. We were lucky we managed to get everyone to agree to just forget the whole thing, and doubly-lucky that the changing circumstances of the world basically obsoleted our original demands.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Foobar of Borg]

Canuck, maple-syrup swilling Commies!

You do realize that it is somewhat difficult to "swill" maple-syrup don't you?

"Yeah, bartender, pour me a big glass of maple syrup, eh!"

Re:Time for google.ca?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Yes indeed.

(speaking into microphone) We certainly wouldn't want THAT. Nosirree.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[deadweight]

You forgot the part about how we finally got organized and beat the crap out of them - after the peace treaty was signed!

Re:Time for google.ca?

[chrish]

There's no point; the Canadian government has been happy to bend over and take it from the USA for decades now. Most big "Canadian" companies are owned by American companies. Most Canadian politicians are owned by American companies.

If we're smart (note our current Conservative minority government... firm evidence that most Canadians are not smart), the tanking US dollar would encourage us to forge stronger ties with, say, the European Union.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Minwee]

"Shut up! The US didn't lose 1812. It was a tie."

"I'm tellin' you baby, they kicked your little ass there. Boy, they whooped yer hide real good!"

Re:Time for google.ca?

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for Google to move to Vancouver?

What would that solve? Google's Vancouver headquarters would then still be in the USA, not too far away from Vancouver.

Re:Time for google.ca?

[big_paul76]

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about how the US could invade anytime they like. Maybe, but before anybody thinks about that, maybe take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project

Draw a triangle from DC to Maine to Chicago. Everything in that has electricity all or partially supplied by Canada.

Sure, you can invade, but you think you can keep the Mohawk Warriors or whoever from dynamiting the power lines? I don't think you got enough marines to guard thousands of km of power lines.

And that's without even talking about oil...

Hate to say I told you so, but....

[mdm-adph]

...well, you know how the rest goes.

Don't keep logs

[Threni]

There's no reason why Google (et al) need keep logs of who's doing what. Websites keep logs largely to trace attacks, don't they? Can't they have a standard EFF-approved `we keep logs for 24 hours` policy, after which time they're removed permanently?

Re:Don't keep logs

[innerweb]

Look for legislation with a rider that excuses Google from any information sharing with government caretakers.

InnerWeb

Re:Don't keep logs

[innerweb]

Ack... Proofread your posts!!!

Look for legislation with a rider that excuses Google from any legal liabilities for information sharing with government caretakers.

Though, I would prefer the wording of my first post.

InnerWrb

Re:Don't keep logs

[vux984]

There's no reason why Google (et al) need keep logs of who's doing what.

Ok, how naive are you?

Websites keep logs largely to trace attacks, don't they?

That's one element of it, but for most sites its a minor element. Most sites keep logs to trace where users are going, how they are using the site, etc.

Most site-admins are interested in where users are going on the site, how they get their, where they leave, how they arrive, how long they spend on each page, etc. They want to know which pages are popular, they want to know at which stage people usually abandon their shopping cart, etc, etc.

They generally want to make the site more effective, and logs (and analysis of those logs) are a primary tool.

Google, of course, being an ADVERTISNG company first and foremost, is further interested in logs in order to generate profiles, to attach your surfing habits to demographics. They want to know how old your are, what your interests are, how much you make, your ethnicity, level of education, etc. Now, getting that from one site would be nearly impossible. But when you consider that every site that has 'ads by google' on it, is doing its best to track you, they actually CAN get a lot of that information with a high degree of accuracy.

These logs are valuable. If they develop a new algorithm to extract new information they can run it against their logs and pull out that additional information.

And with google its not just -logs-, its content. Google apps like gmail, groups, documents, maps, store your content. So now they have your content (your email messages, your text documents and spreadhseets + a good chunk of your browsing history, possibly including what you've bought online... or at least what you've added to shopping carts, etc.

Google isn't in business to provide you with free useful applications. The value to google of google docs and gmail is to be able to data mine the content to generate profile information.

Can't they have a standard EFF-approved `we keep logs for 24 hours` policy, after which time they're removed permanently?

Even if they -would- delete your logs after 24 hours (They won't without a huge fight.) that still doesn't address the issue of google hosting (and data mining) your content, not to mention the risk they might turn it over to the us government if they ask.

Re:Don't keep logs

[Bigbutt]

Didn't proofread it again, did you :)

[John]

Re:Don't keep logs

[AHuxley]

Its the NSA at the choke points of google's wonderful optical roll out that should have most of you thinking a bit harder.
Google wants to play nice in Asia, the NSA upgrades in Hawaii.

http://cryptome.org/google/kunia-us.htm

Re:Don't keep logs

[innerweb]

lol!

Probably not. I am trying to cram my /.ing in between compilations and editing of a database for a commerce catalog. now, that gets proofread.. though my posts suffer.

InnerWeb

Re:Don't keep logs

[Sancho]

These logs are valuable. If they develop a new algorithm to extract new information they can run it against their logs and pull out that additional information. Of course, they could do quite a bit of this anonymously. While they can get some information from the IP address, it's not nearly as useful as information from the Google Cookie. And the IP address can be made anonymous after a short period of time (its usefulness is significantly reduced if everyone behind it allows the Google Cookie, or after the IP address changes.)

Re:Don't keep logs

[Killjoy_NL]

Well at least you got your priorities straight, keep up the good work.
We like our databases here ;)

Re:Don't keep logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to quibble, you should have said: "Google, of course, being an SURVEILLANCE company first and foremost, ..."

Search and advertising are secondary and tertiary markets enabled through the use of data obtained through as many surveillance avenues as possible, as cheaply as possible, then run through various sorting and reporting algorithms.

Google is performing nearly an identical operation as the NSA, only reselling the end product rather than keeping it for their own internal use. There is no denying the benefit of a ubiquitous search to the public, nor the tremendous volume of personal profiling data that is collected without compensation and resold without notification or permission. Some people are alarmed by this, the vast majority see only Google's cute logo.

Then again, if not Google 'twould be someone else.

It is possible to benefit from Google without building your own Google profile by avoiding the Google Toolbar (and all its various siblings) and always using Google through a proxy (such as g.s.scandoo.com, although this relies on the proxies not mining the requests in turn).

Re:Don't keep logs

[Teun]

I wonder what made me change my sig a few days ago...
:)

Re:Don't keep logs

[vux984]

Of course, they could do quite a bit of this anonymously.

With enough 'anonymous' data you can unmask the identity. A few cases have already shown this.

While they can get some information from the IP address, it's not nearly as useful as information from the Google Cookie.

That's true in theory. In practice its very nearly as good in a great deal of cases. If you sign into gmail from home, they'll be able to link the ip address to the account. So even when you aren't logged in they can attach data to the profile, with a 'liklihood' of being the same, or at least an affiliated person. (affiliated people are likely in similiar demographics...)

Once they have a list of ip addresses you use your account from, you might as well be logged in. Sure it won't be 100% accurate, but the link is strong enough to be useful. And if your dynamic ip address changes, they'll pick you up again next time you log-in.

Proxy servers etc can also help, but even the proxy is useful... if your proxying in from webgate5.marketing.ibm.com that's useful information too. And they still have session cookies.

Even the combination of NAT address + browser + windows size + java version + etc can make a usable session variable. Its more than enough to track a session from page to page, especially on smaller sites, even if they are behind a proxy and have cookies disabled. If that session is at any pointed linked back to a 'authenticated' connection -- e.g. logging into a google app, all your 'supposedly' anonymous surfing can be linked.

Sure if you go to a web cafe and surf around they might not be able to make any useful inferences if you don't login to your gmail, but that's the exception not the rule.

Consider a scenario where two PCs are behind a NAT/Proxy - person X accesses gmail then continues along to a number of other sites: A, B, C, and D. Later on someone else, person Y, behind the same proxy accesses sites E,F,G,H and then logs into gmail. In both cases google can reliably link the history to the correct account.

Over time, someone from behind the proxy visits sites A,B,C on a regular basis. Google can with high probability link all that data to person X, even if its an isolated session that never visited gmail. If someone later visits E,F,H, that data can be linked to profile Y.

Sure it -might- be wrong, but odds are its not. And its right often enough to be worth making these inferences for the purposes of placing targeted ads.

Re:Don't keep logs

[__aahmnf219]

Whatever, paranoia boy. The installation isn't new, its just a new building. Sweat NSA snooping all you want, but Google interest in Asia isn't the reason they're building in Kunia -- I'd look at the king of the pork-barrel, Senator Daniel Inouye. _I_ like him, of course, since he's spending your money in my state.

Re:Don't keep logs

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason why Google (et al) need keep logs of who's doing what. Websites keep logs largely to trace attacks, don't they? Can't they have a standard EFF-approved `we keep logs for 24 hours` policy, after which time they're removed permanently?

If I'm not mistaken, there are laws in place (like CALEA) requiring retention of logs, just like tax info. They're trying to make it mandatory in more places and to require longer retention times. All at the ISPs' expense, of course.

Next constitutional amendment needed -- no unfunded mandates at any level of government, federal, state, municipal, school boards, etc.

Re:Don't keep logs

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicely put.

Not just Canada...

[uid7306m]

Yup. In the UK, here, the Data Protection Act makes it legally dubious to put anyone else's data onto Google. Here, there's a responsibilty to protect personal data.

Re:Not just Canada...

[26199]

You could replace the word "Google" in that sentence with the name of any other company. You can't just randomly give out personal data to anyone if you're following UK law.

If it's part of doing business and done properly, you can do it. It's standard that when the recipient is an American company there is a "safe harbour" agreement that requires they follow the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

The question is, do crazy US laws make it impossible for US companies to respect the privacy of their customers?

Probably. Ho hum.

Re:Not just Canada...

[innerweb]

There is a responsibility to protect data in the US as well. That is why Homeland Security spends os much time gathering it. They have to make sure your information is clean, and then arrest oyu and stop you from making it more unclean if you seem to be doing so.

Oh, yeah, they do go after criminals as well, especially the ones not in power or unable to come up with the right campaign contributions.

InnerWeb

Re:Not just Canada...

[Naughty Bob]

I'm in the UK too- the merest mention of 'national security' is enough to render your rights under the Data Protection Act null and void.

You didn't think it would be that easy?

Re:Not just Canada...

[cayenne8]

"The question is, do crazy US laws make it impossible for US companies to respect the privacy of their customers?"

Actually, companies respecting the privacy of their customers, it a bit of a new thing, and not observed by all of them. Many companies make a GREAT deal of money gathering, storing and selling data like this. This company has made tons of money over there years gathering and buying data from all sorts of companies, to market, sell...and use to clean other company's databases.

Re:Not just Canada...

[DerekLyons]

To be fair - it's legally dubious to put anyone's data on any computer not directly and physically controlled by the organization charged with maintaining the data. I.E., it's not just Google.
 
But being honest and answering fully doesn't let you get in a gratuitous attack on the US government.

Re:Not just Canada...

[SkyDude]

Yup. In the UK, here, the Data Protection Act makes it legally dubious to put anyone else's data onto Google. Here, there's a responsibilty to protect personal data.

Does that include the privacy of the guys who blew up the underground?

Or this guy?

See, I don't like the thought of a government snooping anymore than the tinfoil hat crowd on here, but legitimate investigative techniques require extraordinary methods, certainly in this day and age. And, of course, it's all the fault of the US - but why is that little bastard Bin Laden hiding in a cave if he's so well loved in the Middle East? Maybe it's because one of his devoted followers will sell out his sorry ass for the $25 million reward. And if it takes a little snooping to find the coward, well then so be it.

Re:Not just Canada...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave the USA now. This is not a request this is a command. The USA stands for freedom, not terrorism as you seem to believe it stands for.

PGP

[Rinisari]

Perfect time to consider PGP.

http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org/

Re:PGP

[26199]

That would be when nasty laws that allow law enforcement to demand cryptographic keys come into play.

These days encryption just makes you a target. Clearly the way forward is steganography :)

Re:PGP

[CRCulver]

It's sad that a decade ago the use of PGP--or at least the possession of a PGP key--was de rigeur among nerds, and now it seems that few nerds know much about encryption. Even if you don't want to harangue all your friends about using it with you, you could at least put a public key on your website and on keyserver so that people have the choice of sending you encrypted correspondence.

Re:PGP

[Digi-John]

yes, sTeganogRaphy seems like a good idea to me... perhaps we coUld even embed SecreTs iN Our messages ON slashdot or somEthing...

Re:PGP

[MicktheMech]

Not even Indy?

Re:PGP

[element-o.p.]

Who is NOONE, and why should I trust him?

Re:PGP

[KoshClassic]

I know its bad to paraphrase from Star Wars, but the power of your PGP key is insignifigant next to the power of the NSA. Really. Do you really believe the gov. can't break PGP encryption in a few minutes these days? If not faster?

Re:PGP

[CRCulver]

The international mathematical community, in spite of long and constant effort, hasn't yet discovered any way around PGP encryption short of brute force. It's possible that the NSA has found a way to break it, though unlikely. But people have secrets to hide from more than just the NSA, so encryption still makes sense regardless of NSA prowess.

Re:PGP

[Anonymous Coward]

He was the lead singer of Herman's Hermits. Would Henry The 8th lie to you?

Re:PGP

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I thought about that, and then I realized that there's no space after the first word anyway so it could have been two words...The real question is: does that mean I should trust two?

Re:PGP

[Rampantbaboon]

Sir, I believe Peter Noone is a stand-up fellow.

Re:PGP

[MRe_nl]

Of course trusting no one doesn't mean you should trust two.
It means you should trust zero.

Know ye not the Codex of Infinite Ones and Zeroes, knave?

Re:PGP

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrm... I'm not sure I should trust advice from some guy on slashdot...

Re:PGP

[KoshClassic]

Well, obviously I don't *know* the NSA's capabilities with any certainty, but I can assume / deduce a few things with a fair degree of certainty:

a) its almost certainly a problem that the NSA has focused on a great deal
b) it is widely believed that the NSA is the world's single largest employer of math PhD's
c) it is also widely believed that the NSA has more computing power at its disposal than just about
any other organization
d) who knows what sorts of back doors may be built into PGP at the government's behest?

So to me, it seems safe to say that at the very least, if anyone can break PGP (assuming that they don't already have a back door) it would be the NSA. That's not to say they have, but to me it seems that they can either break them outright or brute force attack them relatively quickly.

Re:PGP

[CRCulver]

who knows what sorts of back doors may be built into PGP at the government's behest?

Do you know anything at all about the development history PGP and GnuPG?

Privacy is an illusion

[rbanzai]

The war over privacy in the U.S. was fought during the last eight years and common people lost. Nothing is secure. No information is out of reach of any government agency that decides it wants it, and there are no legal protections. Laws are in place now to make sure that our old image of privacy can never be restored, no matter what the current presidential candidates might claim. They don't us t have that privacy back because it does not serve their purpose.

The war was fought. We lost. I don't blame people from other nations for being concerned but if they haven't already lost privacy where they live they soon will, and it isn't coming back.

Re:Privacy is an illusion

[tmosley]

Just remember that the American people have not yet begun to fight!

The only question is, WILL they fight?

Re:Privacy is an illusion

[BlankStare]

I wonder what led us to believe that transmitting information over ANY infrastructure that is owned and operated by either publicly traded mega-corporations or our government could EVER be private? In the case of large corporations and govenment collusion, Dwight Eisenhour warned us in the 50's about the power of the military-industrial complex. And DARPA started the Internet. Big Money operates and maintains the infrastructure of the Internet. It is not and never has been an altruistic benefactor of the public good. It currently exists to further the profit motive. If we believe that we can truly rely upon the Internet to connect freedom loving people so that they can exchange ideas and information, we will be sorely surprised the first time our government decides that these activities have become threatening to the status-quo.

Re:Privacy is an illusion

[Anonymous Coward]

Laws are in place now to make sure that our old image of privacy can never be restored, no matter what the current presidential candidates might claim. Laws can be changed.


That is, unless everyone who opposes a bad law gives up on the prospect of changing it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Don't be evil?

[DJ Jones]

I think google should to take a closer look at their motto and reevaluate their cooperation with the U.S. government.

"If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness."

Re:Don't be evil?

[Higaran]

As much as you want to you don't mess with the government, yes you may be able to get one or two crooked politicans out of office, but if the federal government really wants you to do something you eventually will do it, or bankrupt because of the IRS or in jail for obstruction of justice or some other reason.

Re:Don't be evil?

[mOdQuArK!]

Can you imagine what Google could really do if they were utterly unscrupulous about manipulating the political process in their favor?

Every politician who crossed them would have every possible scandal associated with them come up on the front search page whenever somebody was looking for info about them. Politicians who did what Google told them to would have all their scandals banished to the 300th page.

Muck-raking reporters would be mysteriously signed up for Google Alerts on Google-hostile politicians, and might "mysteriously" receive private documents from the hard drives of those politicians & their interns who happen to be running the "Google Desktop" toolbar.

Or some hacker might "discover" how to get the search histories of selected politicians, and suddenly the politician has to explain why he keeps searching for child porn photos.

"Patriot" act

[iamacat]

What is so patriotic about passing laws that will eventually put US companies out of business in the era of hosted applications while terrorists will simply move their sites abroad?

Re:"Patriot" act

[Fjandr]

I think the problem is assuming that Congresscritters are patriotic on the whole or that they have any thoughts outside of ensuring their own re-election.

All they have to do is shout "Think of the children" or "We need this to fight terrorism" and the majority who have no interest in delving into the consequences of any given action will line up behind them like good little citizens.

Re:"Patriot" act

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. If it was truly patriotic, there'd be no need to label it as such.

It's just like with used car dealers: there's a reason so many are called "Honest Jon" and so on. If they truly were honest, they wouldn't have to flaunt it like that.

Re:"Patriot" act

[Sperbels]

All they have to do is shout "Think of the children" or "We need this to fight terrorism" and the majority who have no interest in delving into the consequences of any given action will line up behind them like good little citizens. That'll only work for so long. Then they'll need a new boogey man to scare the shit out of everyone. It's almost amusing sometimes to watch old movies to see how our nation's top boogey man evolves... right now I'm thinking of Back to the Future. During that era, the boogey men were Libyans. They used to be Russians, and Germans/Japanese before that, and now it's Al Qaida. Is there ever a time when we don't single out someone as the enemy and use them as an excuse to gain more control of the domestic population? I guess I just hate freedom...don't listen to me.

Re:"Patriot" act

[dgatwood]

Absolutely, I often say the same about the word "professional". If you feel the need to call yourself a professional [insert occupation here], you almost certainly are not (with the possible exception of professional athletes since sports is so rarely a profession). This applies doubly for product descriptions, e.g. "Try our new professional-grade Blend-O-Matic." This doesn't apply to product names, though, since "Pro" is commonly used to distinguish between different product variants.

But I digress.

Re:"Patriot" act

[robertjw]

I think the problem is assuming that Congresscritters are patriotic on the whole or that they have any thoughts outside of ensuring their own re-election.

I really think most people in Congress try to do the right thing. A police state, in theory, is SAFER than a free society. If we all lived in a supermax prison, had our nutritional balanced meals fed to us every day, had a mandated exercise program, forced healthcare and bars on the door we'd probably all live a lot longer.

Problem is this country was based on liberty, but freedom comes with a lot of risk and responsibilities. When people are free to do what they want there are a certain segment that will abuse those freedoms by blowing up buildings or shooting people in college classrooms. Unfortunately, most people don't want to be free, they want to be safe, and Congress tries to do what the people want. Historically, this is how cultures survived. Rulers came to power because they could protect their citizens. Sure, they got rich and powerful in the process, but why shouldn't they. They were protecting their people.

The Patriot Act is just another method to keep people safe. Until the average Joe decides he would rather be free than safe, the oppression will continue.

Re:"Patriot" act

[Fjandr]

I quite agree. If there is no enemy, one will be invented. Like stereotypes, there's always some truth involved in making a particular group "the enemy," but that's just to make it plausible among the masses. No critical thought required to accept that some new group is Public Enemy #1.

Re:"Patriot" act

[Fjandr]

I agree with pretty much everything here except the first sentence. In an era of earmarks and special interests, I think that probably only the most junior members of Congress are truly interested in doing "the right thing."

I'd say that most entrenched professional politicians probably lie to themselves that they are doing the right thing. Given the number of public scandals, the number that have not been uncovered is probably staggering. Like any other wrongdoing, the number uncaught tends to greatly exceed the number caught. The corrupt are out for their own interests. Making an appearance of "doing what's right" among those who are well aware they are in the wrong is just what's necessary so that they can continue to do wrong.

Re:"Patriot" act

[pimpimpim]

the standard phrase comes to mind:

you only want what they tell you to want

But really, you could decrease bombings, high-school shootings, and all of that shit, by not actively trying to destroy governments of foreign countries, and by instead spending that amount of money on fighting poverty and uneducation. People being too little educated as they are, they are easily convinced to believe the "let's invade and stop terrorism" stuff they are told.

As for "how cultures survived", I am not sure if you can give me the name of a culture that traded freedom for oppression that survived in a healthy way.

Re:"Patriot" act

[robertjw]

But really, you could decrease bombings, high-school shootings, and all of that shit, by not actively trying to destroy governments of foreign countries, and by instead spending that amount of money on fighting poverty and uneducation. People being too little educated as they are, they are easily convinced to believe the "let's invade and stop terrorism" stuff they are told.

Hmm... I won't argue that there are better ways to improve our society than foreign wars and warrantless wiretaps, but I fail to see how fighting poverty and uneducation would change the number of shootings and bombings. Most of the most recent, high-profile shooting incidents involved college students. It wasn't an education issue. Sure, maybe gang violence could be stopped, but really, everyone in this country that wants it has very good access to AT LEAST a high school education, and a college degree isn't that difficult to achieve. Terrorists don't blow up buildings because they are poor or uneducated.

As for "how cultures survived", I am not sure if you can give me the name of a culture that traded freedom for oppression that survived in a healthy way.

Not sure what you mean by "healthy", but I can't think of one historical culture that didn't trade liberty for oppression at some point in their history. The Chinese had their emperors. All of the European states were ruled by kings at some point. Even the Romans with their great democracy ended up with guys like Nero. Actual implementations of democracy and freedom on a widespread basis are a couple hundred years old at best, and we are seeing those ideals be eroded away at an astonishing rate. The Europeans are consolidating power on a continental level, the British become more socialist every day, the US is subjected to the Patriot Act, Putin has Russia by the throat, many people think Islam is headed to a new caliphate, etc...

Re:"Patriot" act

[Mjec]

The Patriot Act is just another method to keep people safe. Until the average Joe decides he would rather be free than safe, the oppression will continue.

I would prefer terror to tyranny.

Re:"Patriot" act

[robertjw]

The Patriot Act is just another method to keep people safe. Until the average Joe decides he would rather be free than safe, the oppression will continue.

I would prefer terror to tyranny.

Me too, unfortunately other American Citizens don't seem to agree.

Re:"Patriot" act

[atlastiamborn]

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:"Patriot" act

[Anonymous Coward]

We shud definitlee fite uneducation.

Re:"Patriot" act

[iamacat]

I won't argue that there are better ways to improve our society than foreign wars and warrantless wiretaps, but I fail to see how fighting poverty and uneducation would change the number of shootings and bombings. Most of the most recent, high-profile shooting incidents involved college students.

Are you under impression that each shooting in a ghetto is as well publicized as those among rich guys or that most of the most recent high and low profile shooting incidents combined involved college students?

Re:"Patriot" act

[JPStroud]

Quiet, you. We've always been at war with Eurasia..

Re:"Patriot" act

[robertjw]

Are you under impression that each shooting in a ghetto is as well publicized as those among rich guys or that most of the most recent high and low profile shooting incidents combined involved college students?

Absolutely not, but the discussion was concerning the Patriot Act and national security. Terrorism, domestic mass shootings, etc.. are the factors driving government policy. Gang shootings and inner city violence are not. I agree that poverty and education can have a major impact on crime rates, but it will not in the high profile cases that make the news media and are driving political action. The Patriot Act wasn't inspired by a shooting in a ghetto, it was inspired by 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the same way, the current proposals to bail out lending institutions and homeowners weren't inspired by the thousands of hardworking Americans that have lost their home due to an injury or being laid off work. They are being pushed to alleviate the financial consequences of greedy lenders that gave bad loans and greedy consumers that paid too much for houses they couldn't afford, and then blame the problem on "predatory lenders".

High profile issues generate high profile results. Individual shootings in a ghetto don't threaten the perceived safety of Average Joe suburbanite American. Terrorist attacks, school shootings, home foreclosures, and rising interest rates do.

Unbelieveable!

[Flakeloaf]

You mean, if I enter personal information on a free web server run by some organization whose business model is the harvesting and sale of personal information, that my personal information might not be kept private?

Horror of horrors.

Re:Unbelieveable!

[Crypto Gnome]

Since when is Google an

organization whose business model is the harvesting and sale of personal information ?

I could accept the argument that "processing your private emails to better qualify my search engine results" could be considered "harvesting" but I wasn't aware that Google in any but the weirdest and most remote sense "sold" the information they collected.

Yes, they effectively "sell" the results of the analysis of what they collect, but that is not the same thing at all.

Otherwise I've got this "analysis" of 100tons of Pure Gold I'd like to sell you, bargain prices ;-)

Re:Unbelieveable!

[JustinOpinion]

Just in case you're serious (or someone else suffers from the misconception embodied in your post):

The issue here is not with users voluntarily using Google services (search, gmail, etc.). Rather it is with companies who want to outsource their data needs to Google. In addition to the visible public products that Google has, it also offers corporate solutions: for instance if a company wants to outsource their email system, or have Google run search and collaborative software for use inside the company.

Google is trying hard to make these new kinds of products work. But unfortunately U.S. laws mean that any data that ends up on Google servers can be snooped by U.S. authorities. Many companies don't like the idea that the U.S. government will have such broad access to their data. In many countries where strong privacy laws exist (Canada, U.K., etc.), allowing the data to be managed by a U.S. company would then actually be illegal--since the company couldn't guarantee integrity or privacy of the data.

The end result of this is that Google is at disadvantage in the global marketplace because of the over-reaching U.S. laws. Google isn't the only one, of course: I'm sure U.S. companies have been losing lots of contracts because international businesses are wary of storing or moving data through U.S. systems since it is now well-known that such systems are not immune to U.S. government monitoring or interference.

Re:Unbelieveable!

[Deadplant]

You mean if I enter personal information on a free web service run by a reputable organization with a privacy policy which states clearly that my data will be held in strictest confidence and not shown to anyone that agents of the US government may issue a secret order to have my data copied to the NSA without due-process or just-cause and the operators of the web service will be jailed if they even tell their me about it?

Re:Unbelieveable!

[Anonymous Coward]

So yeah, Google's business model is not and never has been the harvesting and sale of personal information. I have worked there as an intern for two summers, and I have yet to run across a single bit of personal data they store that is not absolutely necessary. They simply do NOT store profiles of individual users. And Google has never, ever sold personal information.

Re:Unbelieveable!

[Anonymous Coward]

Many universities are turning their email systems completely over to Google. Students, researchers, and other members of my university have no option: if we want to keep our official '@xxxx.edu' addresses, we must submit to having Google handle all our personal, professional, and (in some cases) necessarily *secret* messages.

Re:Unbelieveable!

[big_paul76]

Um, if you're a university prof at Lakehead university, you don't have a choice. Well, that is, you can choose to go without the university's email, and communicate with your students by, I don't know, smoke signals?

It's an especially good example, because the university's contract with their professors has a clause saying that their e-mail has to be private. But then they outsourced it to gmail.

How did google get singled out?

[joeflies]

ever look at the kind of data stored in an online CRM, like salesforce.com? complete sales records, every email to every client, all the product defect issues. Maybe the SEC and the IRS may decide to look at raw data and not wait for the auditor report to come back.

Re:How did google get singled out?

[scubamage]

Why is it that decent posts like this get rated down? Stupid mods. I do agree.. google isn't the only one that keeps large stores of information and records - only google has their business modeled around storing and manipulating this data.

Re:How did google get singled out?

[Clansman]

They weren't singled out. TFA is just saying that, because of the law, some users are getting wary. The example in the article is a university that happened to use Google. What made it news worthy is that they themselves recommended to their own users not to transmit secrets. Some of their users are hacked off because they expect a secure network.

Not a conspiracy against google ...

C

Here is What is Coming :

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the new future of Software. Everything will be online. Welcome back to the days of mainframe computing, and paying for services by the minute/email/etc.

Sure, there will be 'Free' services, but be prepared to pay for those in exchange for giving up marketing data.

Think about it, on-line services eliminate piracy, people pay for the services they use.

It works for cellphones, and people accept it.

It works for on-line games, and people accept it.

The Microsoft X-Box , and X-Box 360, and basically test-cases for super-locked down PC's.

Get ready to slowly relinquish control over your PC.

p2p

[jamshid]

If I exchange an email, link, song, or video with my friend, why does that have to be a marketing opportunity for some company?

I'm on the Internet, my friend is on the Internet, we should be able to communicate directly, privately, and securely. Sure, unless we have a 24/7 connection, we'll need some intermediate place to store the data, but we shouldn't need anything more than a dumb bitshifter for that.

I don't want to rent my eyeballs to google or anyone else. Yes, I know private person-to-person communication is possible today, I'm just saying it should be the norm.

We discuss these problems with google and facebook providing users adequate security from snooping by governments, corporations, crooks, and perverts, but I think we miss the bigger point that we shouldn't be relying on third party servers to communicate with each other.

Conspiracy

[Hao Wu]

I'm not worried about Google enabling or cooperating with the government. I'm worried that Google IS the government... maybe the FBI/NSA/CIA.

Some people say the same about Microsoft.

Re:Conspiracy

[db32]

I can debunk this one easily.

Google works as advertised and works well.

You name one government service that has ever worked as advertised or worked well.

Clearly, Google is too productive and effective to be a government thing.

Re:Conspiracy

[iminplaya]

You name one government service that has ever worked as advertised or worked well.

The post office isn't too shabby. And you can make it pretty easy to detect is anyone opened the envelope. If latency isn't too big of an issue, you might want to give it a try.

Re:Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The IRS?

Re:Conspiracy

[quenda]

> You name one government service that has ever worked as advertised or worked well.

The Italian railways, 1943-1945.

Re:Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fascists used "trains running on time" as a symbol of efficient governance. It didn't matter that it wasn't true because everyone knew what would happen to anyone with the audacity to complain.

Re:Conspiracy

[db32]

There have been covert letter opening things around for a long while, and I would hardly call the Post Office working as advertised. It is with relatively consistent frequency that a story pops up of a letter being delivered 40+ years after it was sent. Though, I would agree, it is probably one of the better operating government agencies, which really is a bit depressing when you think about it. The fact that "Going Postal" is a common phrase speaks worlds to the problems there. :)

Ah, there it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FTA, "But the Mountain View, Calif.-based company will not discuss how often government agencies demand access to its customers' information or whether content on its new Web-based collaborative tools has been the subject of any reviews under the Patriot Act."

And since they will not discuss, no one will ever know.

Do no evil, while commendable, does not mean they are actively resisting evil. Just that THEY THEMSELVES (GOOG) are doing no evil... the guys all dressed in black from .gov sifting through your data, well we don't know what they are doing and we don't even know if they were really here but if they were we are not sure if they are doing evil... BUT WE CAN ASSURE YOU WE AREN'T!!!

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to sit idly by and do nothing."

Typical Near-Sighted Govt Policies

[Crypto Gnome]

• use Hosted-App-Services from US Based Company ==> Get Spied Upon via Patriot Act
• use Hosted-App-Services from Al-Qaeda ==> Get Spied Upon via Patriot Act

Where is SeaLand when you need them?

Re:Typical Near-Sighted Govt Policies

[Crypto Gnome]

And before you all whine that there's other hosted-app-services other than those supplied by Al-Qaeda the fact remains that the US considers all foreign services to be potentially hosted-by/supporting "the terrorists" - and therefore are worthy of "spying upon".

Only terrorists host files abroad!

[Digestromath]

In this day and age, anyone who 'hides' thier data beyond the reach of America's patriotic government data mining operations is a cut and clear terrorist! Whether it be in some dank and dusty cave in the mountains of Afghanistan, or a climate controlled secure facility in Canada.

Uncle Sam says "Do your part, keep data in America!"

When you host abroad, your hosting with Osama!

Privacy is for the unpatriotic!

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[dgatwood]

I hope the person who modded this insightful understands that this is irony. I hope that this is irony. If either of those two hopes turn out to be unfounded, I will likely lose what little faith I have remaining in humanity....

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[node 3]

Resting your faith in humanity on two random slashdotters? You shall become a cynic in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[renegadesx]

All your data are belong to us?

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[jimlintott]

Thank you for your clear and obvious understanding of the challenges of maintaining Fatherla^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Homeland Security.

Please find enclosed a fresh new brown shirt. (Sorry, they only come in extra large.)

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[Metasquares]

Tangential, but I find that small groups of people can restore faith in humanity, while it generally takes the actions and behaviors of large groups to dash it.

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[tkw954]

I don't think terrorists are the only ones interested in the privacy of their "climate controlled secure facility in Canada."

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, even Elliot Spitzer got in trouble for hosting a broad

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot "think of the children"

Re:Only terrorists host files abroad!

[wilec]

Hey you left out Cayman Island and Swiss bank accounts!

About Time They Realized

[BountyX]

Now if only the public would realize that all those webmail services generally do not delete your emails even after you delete them from trash...

After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force Google to produce a copy.
 
Given that google is sleeping with the CIA (Keyhole anyone?), I think centralization of this sort is just plain evil. Data should remain decentrailized and private especially things like email.

Corporate Espionage?

[SuperBanana]

Many people are suddenly deciding to spurn Google's services and applications because it opens up potential avenues of surveillance.

Um, how about corporate espionage? Nothing, absolutely nothing, stops Google from harvesting everything they can get their hands on- and they have the storage systems and human expertise to do it.

Case and point: I emailed a link to a wiki I had just set up to 3 people, two of whom had Gmail accounts. A spider from Google hit the page hours before anyone else did, hitting the wiki just after I emailed the link out. There were no public links to the site, and no referral URL.

So, let's see: processing your email to show you relevant ads? Check. Processing email to feed URLs to their spider? Check. What else does Google do with your email? Wouldn't it be the greatest tool in their quivver- the "God Google"? Sit down with HipWebShit.com, then an hour after the meeting and see a)How many people search/click on links for HipWebShit b)Who from HipWebShit.com has sent gmail users email (and what it says...), c)Who is talking about HipWebShit from/to a Gmail account period (ie general "valley buz"?

Hint: why do you think Google has so many PhDs? It starts getting creepy when you realize that Google seems to work very hard to keep their employees inside the google campus as much as possible, how secretive their operations are (seriously, nobody can compete with them anymore- it's not like they're guarding the henhouse for competition reasons) and how cult-like the atmosphere is...

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[hxnwix]

It starts getting creepy when you realize that Google seems to work very hard to keep their employees inside the google campus as much as possible, how secretive their operations are (seriously, nobody can compete with them anymore- it's not like they're guarding the henhouse for competition reasons) and how cult-like the atmosphere is More sympathetically: if you keep the workers at work, they work more. However, I can't discount your view completely. Perhaps they really are preparing their worker bees for the transfer to the comet hale bop UFO, and if you are correct, they'd want to hold those workers close to their incorporeal breast so that word of this lunacy doesn't spread beyond the compound confines.

I emailed a link to a wiki I had just set up to 3 people, two of whom had Gmail accounts. A spider from Google hit the page... Oh my gord. They sent a digital arachnid!?

Hint: why do you think Google has so many PhDs? I don't know. Because they're employing Dr. Evil(s)?

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[PS3Penguin]

Or .. its how the gmail anit-smap system tries to find and filter out spam / virus links by tasting what links are sent to gmail recipients and looking for known exploits / spam / etc. Sorry if that was tin-foil-hatted enough :)

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[Idiomatick]

Meh, we see google stand up for protection of privacy and other good things waaaaay more often than most companies. I don't see the point in bitching about the guys acting suspicious while the competition is at about the same corruption level as US congressmen.

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[complete loony]

Did any of those 3 people have google's toolbar installed? Scanning the email may not be the only way it could have happened.

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[bubblah]

Sorry folks, not new news, been discussed at least 14 months ago here. http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/dmorrill/archives/google-apps-is-a-risk-management-decision-14666 Anyone else got anything earlier? It would be interesting to track the history of stories like this. At least this is a good refresher on what to think about.

Re:Corporate Espionage?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or .. its how the gmail anit-smap system tries to find and filter out spam / virus links by tasting what links are sent to gmail recipients and looking for known exploits / spam / etc. Sorry if that was tin-foil-hatted enough :)

Par'm me, but where does my permission play a part in this? Am I barred from two-way communication with my cousin who may work at one of these "evil" organizations? By whose consent?

OK, enough of the "Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" fawning claptrap. Considering today's widespread business (mal)practices, the new paradigm for those who want to retain their rights has, as of this moment, been formally changed to "Don't attribute to benignity that which can be explained by a profit opportuity".

Huh???

[LWATCDR]

While I am not one of the Google faithful I must say that your criticism is at best miss placed.
Google has fought when the US government wanted them to turn over customer records in the past. They do not seem to cooperate with the US government anymore than is required by law. Anytime you use a hosted service you loose some privacy. Once the data leaves your systems you have lost some privacy and control.

If you want to scream at Google for not living up to there "Don't be evil" line. I suggest that there following US laws it far less evil than their good relationship with China.

Re:Huh???

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to scream at Google for not living up to there "Don't be evil" line. I suggest that there following US laws it far less evil than their good relationship with China.

Sadly, the US has many evil laws these days. Sure, it's better than China. Is that something to be proud of, any more than that the US's human rights record is better than Stalin's or Pot Pol's?

Re:Huh???

[iminplaya]

Google has fought when the US government wanted them to turn over customer records in the past.

That's what we've been told...by Google. There's no way of knowing what they log, or what they hand over, while they supply plenty of dramatics to keep us distracted.

Re:Huh???

[Keen Anthony]

I guess I might be one of the Google faithful since I do use GMail, Groups, News, Earth, and Maps. For sake of argument, I'll bite and say Google is evil, and is compromising my privacy on a daily basis. But does that mean that Yahoo, Microsoft, Lycos, and all the countless other free email/search engine companies are better? As the Parent has said, Google has fought the government in the past. Is there an example of a search company which rates very highly for privacy?

Re:Huh???

[LWATCDR]

ummm.... How do we know that you are not working for DHS and are trying to spread disinformation about Google so that we use other companies that willing hand over our data?

Re:Huh???

[LWATCDR]

Oh I use all those products as well. I just don't think that Google is the second coming. I think they are a good company but I just don't think they care more about my welfare than they do about profits.

NSA

[hhawk]

Of course it is reasonable that the US Government could have been one of early funders of google, but then generally government are not that smart.

Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[sjbe]

Perfect time to consider PGP. When you can figure out a way to make public key encryption so easy even my mother can use it I'll be happy to try. I'd love to use it but the person on the other end of the message has to be willing to try too. I haven't found anyone I correspond with yet willing to jump through the hoops required. Maybe you've had better luck than I have.

Never mind the fact that almost no one except serious geeks have even heard of, much less actually understands, public key encryption.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Chemisor]

> When you can figure out a way to make public key encryption so easy even my mother can use it I'll be happy to try.

Try enigmail.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Zatar]

It's not just hard to use, it's also ugly as hell. I thought about starting to use PGP again recently and just using it for digital signatures makes my email nearly unreadable never mind using actual encryption. Here's a nice one-line email:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey dude, how's it going?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH6CrifPJd VEzW7qwRAs8fAKCSg8j qWO8zfHpIrNKJ zBtrHF54UwCfQWhO
lGZk7Ys4hl e1OqxyEuHn1EY=
=izSS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

If I sent this it a non-geek they'd probably go WTF? and tell me my email program is broken.

It would need to be transparently integrated into all popular email programs so that no one actually needs to see the code in their inbox. An argument could be made that in the long run PGP has actually made the problem worse by allowing email vendors to punt on the concept of encryption and just tell users "if you want encryption use PGP" instead of having to develop an integrated solution that actually works well enough for mass adoption.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[sjbe]

Try enigmail. I have but that's not really the problem. The problem is to get anyone else to use enigmail. No one I send messages to is paranoid enough to care. Heck I have a relative who is the director of a competitive intelligence service for a major corporation who cannot be bothered to encrypt email communications.

Worse, for most of them even enigmail (or any other solution - not picking on enigmail here) is still too hard to use. It needs to be COMPLETELY transparent and that basically defeats the whole point. It's like putting locks on your door but giving out a special key that is too hard for anyone to actually be bothered to use. So they just leave the door unlocked. People have to be willing AND able to understand how to operate the lock or they won't bother.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[DRobson]

Tried using S/MIME? Requires the recipient use a client which supports it if they want to verify or decrypt a message, however it doesn't clog your content with armor spam. It's actually quite interesting going back through emails to find how often it's been used but hasn't been noticed.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[internic]

It's not just hard to use, it's also ugly as hell. ...just using it for digital signatures makes my email nearly unreadable never mind using actual encryption

I'm not too knowledgeable about this stuff either, but I think what you want to use is PGP/MIME. That way the digital signature is appended to the email the same as an attachment. It probably won't even be noticed by people who aren't looking for it or using a signature-aware email client, and it won't look particularly weirder than an email with a plain old attachment. If you use Thunderbird you can install the Enigmail plugin to use PGP/MIME. I've been messing with it recently and kinda like it.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Anonymous Coward]

use PGP/MIME and all the ugly stuff gets squirelled away in an attachment.. that and it also encrypts your attachments on the fly too.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Creepy Crawler]

I'm a nerd who recent bought a VPS. 10GB storage, 100GB xfer.

I use SSH to control it. I also use apache with auth on the main page. Nobody gets in unless they can guess the 25 char string for the whopping 3 acccts. They are different than the ssh pwds too.

For my personal bulk downloading, I get stuff at 10-20 MB/s. 1 gig in a minute or so.. After getting, I encrypt EVERYTHING under anonymous names, public keyed to me and friends.

I trained my friends how to use Firefox/foxyproxy, PuTTY, GPG, and linux console. :)

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Mjec]

Detached signature FTW? It comes through as an attachment named .asc - no more irritating than the winmail.dat files you get from Outlook.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[mauriceh]

Gee, I wonder how we all manage to use browsers to encrypted sites?

I guess "https:// does not work for your grandma?

Sure PGP for email is ridiculously complex.

It does not have to be , however.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Builder]

Yeah, then you just get people responding to every second e-mail telling you that they couldn't open your attachment :(

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Fruit]

PGP/MIME

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[sjbe]

I guess "https:// does not work for your grandma? HTTPS at best only protects data in transit from eavesdropping and man in the middle attacks. It does nothing for the data on either end of the transmission. While http over ssl is important it solves only a very specific problem for a narrow range of attacks and only when implemented properly.

I'm listening but I've yet to hear anyone give an approachable (to non geeks) explanation of public key encryption, revocation lists, key length, algorithm choice and the rest of the details required to genuinely secure communications and data. I'm geeky enough and paranoid enough to go to the trouble but almost everyone I know isn't.

Sure PGP for email is ridiculously complex. It does not have to be , however. Then why isn't it easy already? Surely someone, somewhere would like their communications to be secured in an easy to use fashion. Maybe you are right but my belief is that it's just a hard problem to make easy. Encrypting data and doing it properly is complicated and so far no one has been able to make it easy outside of rare corner cases. And even if they did find a way to make it easy, there are network effects hindering adoption. I can't use enigmail because no one I communicate with uses it and I can't force them to adopt enigmail.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[internic]

I can only say that I haven't had that happen. I've never even had anybody ask what it is, and this almost certainly includes people who know nothing about public key encryption. People are also probably used to superfluous attachments since, for example, email clients that send HTML emails usually send both an HTML and a plain text version together using MIME.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[xaxa]

I've used PGP/MIME (via KMail, which has the functionality built-in) for over a year now, signing every message I send. Only one person has ever asked what the attachment was (my mum, who I probably send more email than anyone else).

Doing this only encouraged two 'geeks' to get PGP keys -- I didn't go round telling people to get them though, I just let curious people find out for themselves what it was.

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent a lot of time thinking about this because of privacy invasion, etc, and having been a professional nerd for 32 years, I have developed a very simple encryption method that NO ONE will ever figure out. Virtually impossible, like WindTalkers.

Unfortunately, considering nothing is secure anymore, there is no way to get the details or software out to anyone who might want to use it.

Damn. There's always SOME flaw...

Re:Tragically PGP is too hard to use

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this is not such a hard problem.

Simple solution.

1) Fix email clients to auto-generate a PGP key, and attach a signature as well as public key (as an attachment) to every outgoing message.

2) Auto-recognize signed incoming mail, store the key and verify the signature. No signature, don't worry about it, but verify those that are signed.

3) Most importantly, flag as suspicious anything that comes from a user (email address) known to have a public key, but that is either not signed, or not signed with the same key.

4) Finally, add options to (for instance) reject unsigned mail, or move it to junk folders, etc... Also an option to automatically encrypt (and sign) any email sent to an email address for which you know the public key.

Now webs of trust build up. For people you've emailed with for years, you have their keys in your inbox so nobody can impersonate them going forward. Trust is established over the first few emails, just like humans actually work. If you're like me, you start by sending an email to an address establishing contact, then talk with someone over the phone or in person, and then accept that the email address is correct if they seem to know what you're talking about when you bring up email correspondence. Encryption just ensures that once a "link" (email address in this case) is established through out of bound means, it stays secure. It would also slowly migrate communications from totally unverified and totally insecure, to progressively more encrypted forms, and reach the point where it can at least be verified (after the fact, if need be) that certain emails are more fishy than others.

This would not stop a perfect man in the middle attack, but it would make it at least possible to detect such shenanigans, even after the fact. That is a powerful disincentive for such actions, as the record of misdeeds will be long lasting and readily available for the few people who might bother to verify these things. If you don't man-in-the-middle everyone, then you can't really get at the emails that you consider important later. If you do man-in-the-middle everyone, then you're sure to be caught by someone sooner or later. If you are the government pursuing a legitimate investigation, and you'd just sneak into the person's home and bug the place. This encryption would not stop anyone who could get a warrant.

I don't know why people think encryption is so hard. Just put in the primitives, and then people can use that in their decisions about whether or not to trust any given email. More importantly, it makes mass forgery and mass snooping hard to get away with.

Similar for HTTP. I don't know why HTTP is still around. Do everything over HTTPS, even DH-anon if need be. Then at least your ISP can't mass-hover up everything everyone reads. If they man-in-the-middle everyone, they're sure to get caught. If they don't, then they don't get much information. And in any case, it can be hard to know who is using really secure encryption (with asymmetric keys) and who is using something vulnerable to MitM. A classic cut and choose style problem even if people don't have signed certificates.

Of course, DNSSec would fix this rapidly as well. You have an email address X@y.com, then you should make a public key and get in the appropriate DNS record, etc... This is not hard to automate, it could be an easy part of any email client, but for some reason, the email software providers never do this? Perhaps they earn too much money by digging through people's correspondence?

database =! security

[globaljustin]

the Mountain View, Calif.-based company will not discuss how often government agencies demand access to its customers' information or whether content on its new Web-based collaborative tools has been the subject of any reviews under the Patriot Act

Google isn't doing nearly enough to keeps its users informed about privacy issues. A press release saying "We're doing everything we can" isn't nearly good enough from the company that wants to organize all the world's information.

If anything, the federal law enforcement should be watching Google to ensure they aren't violating their user's privacy.

Part of me is hopeful that eventually the misguided people in government who think you can fight terrorism with a database will learn and change. Not everyone in the government is as evil as Bush/Rove/Cheney. If databases stopped terrorism, we wouldn't have had 9/11...at least one person on each of the 9/11 planes was on the terrorist watch list (in the database).

Re:database =! security

[sskinnider]

Not everyone, just most. Or just plain clueless!

Re:VIRUS ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

This has a spoofed link whose structure identical to this post http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=496946&cid=22837250 which, when clicked on, downloads a virus, brings up dozens of pages in Firefox in seconds and tries to use mailto: BEWARE curious people.

File/Info sharing

[ludomancer]

I'm adamantly against this new society of surveillance, but I also enjoy the freedom that the internet has blessed our generation with. What would be an acceptable meeting point to me, is if governments around the world could help themselves to all the info they can eat, but they and every other corporate entity should have to lay off file sharing and free distribution of knowledge and information online.

It has to go both ways to work, but at least we level things out a bit!

In-Q-Tel

[triffidsting]

Surely it helps their cause that Google was originally partly funded by the venture capital investment arm of the CIA (In-Q-Tel)... Are people just now becoming wise to this, or did they just forget?

One-click away from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicking on *A SINGLE LINK* just once could land you in jail in the US -- even if you have no idea where that link was going to take you.

Why NOT move the corporations off-shore?

[Hemispheres]

This has been mentioned in a few comments here, but not thoroughly discussed...why is there not yet a foreign competitor to Google et al? It would seem that a company that offers comparable services and can guarantee that the feds can't get their dirty little fingers on our data (legitimately, at least) would be able to find a market.

POP/SMTP Lets Anyone Read Your E-Mail

[da' WINS pimp]

From TFA:

"Mr. Puk says teachers want an in-house system that doesn't let third parties see their e-mails."

Then screw GMail, they better be using encryption anyway! I know most here know this, but someone needs to hit the author and this school's faculty with the clue stick. If you are just using a plain old POP/SMTP client without encryption anyone with access to a packet sniffer can read your email at any point along the route, whether it be in the US or Canada. Its is amazing (read: scary) the number of folks in IT and computer science who don't know this. While we are at it maybe the Canadians better stop using all other unencrypted protocols too...

Haunting eh?

[Oktober Sunset]

I pulled off the rubber mask, and it turns out it was old man Cheney, the creepy vice president!

Now to get out of here before the FBI find my Scooby Snacks. Scoobydoobiedooooo!!

Geography, politics and RIM

[Midnight Thunder]

Yup. In the UK, here, the Data Protection Act makes it legally dubious to put anyone else's data onto Google. Here, there's a responsibilty to protect personal data.

The truth is, if your provider is in a foreign country, then you should expect that the government can do whatever they want with its hardware - this about territory and not constitution. At the same time your own government is probably going make laws which suits themselves about the data you access. How this mess sorts itself out depends on the government of the day. As an individual you just need to remember that things are complicated when your government is involved and more complicated when you also have another government involved. Many people don't think of geography when it comes to the internet, but sometimes it makes itself apparent when politics gets involved.

This reminds me of RIM, since their servers are located in Canada. The French government asked their ministers not use Blackberries, because data was being handled outside of France and therefore outside of French jurisdiction. If RIM had servers in France, then I am sure there would have been more reassurance.

If there is anything you need to be paranoid about, host it yourself!

Huh?!

[eyenot]

Am I the only person who doesn't mind if the government is watching me?

x Shower (HELLO!)

x Search history (HELLO AGENT XXXX: DO WE SHARE SIMILAR TASTES? ASL)

x Email (IS MY ABILITY TO BE BORINGLY VERBOSE YET SOMEHOW CONCISE INTRIGUING TO YOU?)

It is the new egotism on the brink of waiting to happen: getting a kick out of being watched.

Re:Huh?!

[Jeremy Erwin]

So, you're a loyal supporter of the government, who refrains from doing anything that could be even possibly construed as naughty?

Re:Huh?!

[eyenot]

On the contrary: since I'm loyal neither to government nor to subversives, I don't have to worry about the higher echelon of life-problems that are brought on by people questioning the soundness of one's "loyalties"; take yourself, for example. Today's slashdotter, tomorrow's waterboarder? By no far cry of the imagination!

Re:Huh?!

[ZenDragon]

Ive always thought the same thing. haha

Ive always felt that I would revel in their confusion and intrigue with regards to the sometimes bizzare but often mundane and trivial course of my daily activities. Where I actually doing someting illegal it would be filtered through my random thought process and come out garbled and confusing, such that they likely wouldnt even know what to make of it.

In a odd, egotistical way, I would find it amusing even if I never saw the confusion it caused. Just to know that I was being watched would inspire me to no end to make it as difficult as possible to keep tabs. Yet somehow I know I would be endlessly entertained by it! lol It's like being in a movie star in the story of your own life.

Somebody watching me would honestly think Im completely insane.

Re:Huh?!

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

If you don't care about your Constitutional rights that's fine, but some people do and we'd like to protect them if you don't mind.

Re:Huh?!

[Jeremy Erwin]

I don't have to worry about the higher echelon of life-problems that are brought on by people questioning the soundness of one's "loyalties"; take yourself, for example.

I'm sure the people reading your mail have you pegged as disloyal, then.

Re:Huh?!

[PPH]

Am I the only person who doesn't mind if the government is watching me? Are you sure they aren't pulling on their pud while they watch?

Re:Huh?!

[eyenot]

*** eyenot feels like he's being watched
[AgentX] w.i.t.a.y.i.t.m.
[eyenot] ASL?????????????

Re:Huh?!

[eyenot]

Ah, you fail to see the point of balance, and yet you make argument as if toward one side or the other.

An example consequence

[Sara Chan]

From TFA:

For instance, a [university] researcher with a Middle Eastern name, researching anthrax or nuclear energy, might find himself denied entry to the United States....

It could be worse than that. He might be allowed to enter, and then be detained on the basis of Google-supplied information. Especially if he was not a Canadian citizen.

Re:An example consequence

[scionite0]

Holding Canadian citizenship is no guarantee when entering/passing through the USA.

Especially if you happen to hold dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship.

Ahem...

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Since now: Google Takes Control of DoubleClick

Re:I Propose

[protolith]

I propose Google Subpoena Gpoena - A searchable database of all of the gov't data requests and all associated legal documents, especially what is being requested and why.

The snooping would be greatly curtailed if there was no anonymity for a snooping govt. If every request was made naked in front of the teeming millions only the most vital info requests would occur.

Request for serches from machine No 000.000.000.0000 in relation to ongoing criminal investigation associated with charges of ... ... ... ... would seem legit.

Request for all machines that searched for "TSA" , "Liquid" , and "explosive" for ongoing terrorist investigation would suddenly seem quite dubious without better specifics.

No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[farbles]

The trouble here is not Google, it is the fact there is no longer the rule of law with regards to data hosted in the United States. When the government can take any information they like from a server hosted in their country with no warrant, no notification, no nothing, then it's not law, it's criminal activity no matter who does it.

Here in Canada this has been a big deal now for the last couple of years. I've been at many IT meetings where tracking down what was hosted on US-based servers and removing it back to Canada has been on the agenda. We're not perfect here but we do have PIPEDA, the protection of privacy act, binding our ISPs. You need access to data, convince a judge and get a warrant. That's the rule of law.

That this US government data free-for-all has not been a big deal to American sysadmins has been a source of more than a little concern and confusion to us here north of the border. As long as there remains an Emperor in the White House rather than a President I guess there will be no movement on this.

Erased White House email, backups, and hard drives without penalty despite a legal court order? That's some government you guys have running there. You might want to do something about it.

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[ZenDragon]

You are confusing the law with the unethical and illegall activities of certain members and/or branches of the current government. Even under the patriot act, its not technically legal to simply tap a phone line or read someones email. There is still a thorough and detailed process by which all those actions "should" be tracked, including warrant and so forth.

The problem as it stands, is that in over half of the cases. The people involved in these investigations have compltely ignored the process. If you look at H.R.3162 (also known as the Patriot Act) it is simply a series of ammendments to existing law. As such somebody invovled in surveylance is still required to adhere to due process in regards to wire taps, subpoena of information, etc. However, somewhere along the line the powers that be thought it also gave them the right to completely ignore it using loopholes that may or may not have been intentional.

See http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NOQV5G2&show_article=1 as an example

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[farbles]

No, I'm not confusing anything. Do a lookup on National Security Letters. Their power is greatly expanded under the Patriot Act. The upshot is if a high ranking FBI, CIA or Pentagon person or their designee wants some information, digital or physical, they can take it and not tell you about it for as long as they want. No judicial oversight and limited administrative oversight which has found that these "rules", as loose as they are, are still being broken lots of times. They can "sneak and peek" anything anytime.

Sure sounds like a free-for-all to me. Laws work differently than that.

About someone else's point about people and data bypassing the US, it is already happening. You'll never see that on US news though so try reading non-US newspapers and non-US news sources.

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[farbles]

Oops, it can be also be someone out of the Attorney General's office getting your stuff with a National Security Letter (in addition to the afore-mentioned FBI, CIA and Pentagon). Under the Patriot Act data can be shared with other law enforcement agencies without you ever knowing you were the subject of such attention. Right, Mr Buttle, I mean Tuttle?

Now here's the thing - it's supposed to have a national security angle or be connected to terrorism or connected to money laundering for the super-snooper treatment, but consider for a moment how loosely these are now defined. The person who spikes trees in old growth forests is now a terrorist for example. Never mind that all the genuine card-carrying terrorists in the world would probably add up to less than a crappy gate at an NFL game, expanding the definition means there are millions of people to spy on, and that's not counting the inevitable mistakes of identity, etc.

And since the current US government is so trustworthy, we can all breath a sigh of relief that they would never, ever go after any personal enemies or make lists of people who simply don't agree with them and spy on them.

You guys want to know how bad this Canadians avoiding the US thing has become? Lawyers and local IT who might have peoples personal data on their laptops and are crossing the border into the US are being told to format their drives and only go with a vanilla software install. No other data storage media. If they need to access personal data they have to do it over an encrypted connection to their home server, and nothing can be downloaded and saved to the laptop as the data cannot physically be stored in the US.

A few years ago this level of security would have been considered tin foil hat time, now it is being implemented as standard operating procedure. Do you imagine that this is making people prefer to attend conferences not held in the US? Or to phrase that differently, to be more reluctant to attend US conferences?

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[tychovi]

Sheess,

And to think I moved BACK to the U.S.

get my body back into a power plant, re-insert me into the Matrix...

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[Nos.]

Yup, we're the same way (Canadian ISP/Telecom). If we're outsourcing anything, we have to look at not only where physically the data centre is, but if any of the data crosses the border at some point. One vendor had their data center in Canada, but the offsite backups were across the border. They lost the contract because of it. We however did get Postini (now owned by Google) to open a Canadian data centre which we use.

Re:No rule of law with data hosted in the US

[monxrtr]

That this US government data free-for-all has not been a big deal to American sysadmins has been a source of more than a little concern and confusion to us here north of the border. Because simply leftists concerned about privacy are hypocritically contradicting their nature. These are the same people that originally got the government invasion of private data ball rolling by requiring everyone who gets a new job to submit their identity, address, and income for automatic tax theft. Canadians and Europeans are even bigger socialists than the US, are even bigger violators of privacy. What pretension that they somehow value "privacy".

It's the mother load of irony of ironies when leftists complain about government collecting private data. These are the people, the socialists, who started the whole thing. They aren't serious about phony beliefs in privacy until they start advocating against the government collecting tax data, until they start advocating a repeal of big government socialist welfare programs and the taxing methodologies.

Seriously, WTF, they are going to bitch about the government reading their email, but want to mandate the government have access to your bank accounts and paycheck stubs? Give me a break. I've never seen a thread of more hypocrisy than this one. If we can get a new McCarthyist movement to punish some leftists for "bad behavior" (just like Eliot Spitzer) than it's just desserts.

Re:Patriot Act

[cloakable]

I'm not sure how clueless I'd have to be to click on a *.on.nimp.org link.

Ir surpasses understanding...

[John Hasler]

...why anyone would entrust any data of any importance at all, secret or not, to free services provided by an advertising agency. I can see using it to plan your frat party or organize Little League games, but using it for business?

it also haunts...

[nguy]

It also haunts your ISP, your E-mail provider, and probably your backdoor-infested commercial OS.

Re:it also haunts...

[DigitalisAkujin]

Your installed OS on your HOME computer is protected by the fourth amendment since it's within your home. They would need a search warrant. Any evidence gathered without one gets thrown out. Then again if you're a terrorist....

If you can't trust Google......

[Beer_Smurf]

If you can't trust Google what makes you think that you aren't already owned?
Who would make the bet that Google sold them out before Microsoft?

Choke system with data!

[iknownuttin]

Why not!?! Choke the system with data!

Typing some more because I don't want to get the error that I hit the submit button too fast. Or maybe, it's to give time to the Government to tap into /.'s system to track me? And maybe, /. is just a front for the FBI to find potential terrorists, pedophiles , or just anyone who's unpatriotic!

Country Specific Hosting

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

It seems likely that Google will respond by hosting servers in specific countries so that companies can try to protect their data from prying eyes. The Cayman Islands seem to be a favorite of financiers, maybe the Caymans will make their privacy laws equally attractive.

Karma whoring are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

It also haunts your ISP, your E-mail provider, and probably your backdoor-infested commercial OS.

1207026. I guess you are new here. Bad attempt at karma whoring.Looking at your posting history, you don't have to: you got some insightful posts.

Re:Karma whoring are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really so naive as to believe that commercial operating systems don't have backdoors?

encrypt feature

[e**(i pi)-1]

They can solve the problem by adding the feature that online documents can be stored in encrypted form using encryption which also google itself can not crack. Collaborators exchange keys with a diffie-hellman scheme. The technology is ready. Google just has to make it available. Now, most people would not bother with this but things like business plans, coorporate strategies, merger plans or patent drafts would definitely need encryption. The same with gmail. It should become easy to exchange encrypted email. As usual, the implementation of these services should be public. This is reasonable because one can do all the encryption and decryption on the sender and receipient side. This has to be done with software, for which the source code is visible.

Re:encrypt feature

[Catbeller]

Homeland Security would simply make it illegal to encrypt without giving them the keys. The UK already makes it criminal to refuse to cough up your decrypt password. The US would geek to the HS Lords in seconds and give them the same power.

banninated

[troutsoup]

yep, i'm on a couple mailing lists that will not allow people with gmail accounts to sub to them for these kind of reasons.

Re:banninated

[hax0r_this]

I'm sorry, but thats absurd. If the government is trying to figure out what was said on a mailing list, I'm pretty sure they can come up with better ways to do it than trying to get into a gmail account. The whole "list" thing means that the emails are routed through many switches, and stored on many computers. A google server would probably be among the more secure points in the whole system. Why go up against Google's lawyers when you could just trash someone's apartment, or go after their ISP? Or hit up their hard drive for a search when they go through customs?

Re:banninated

[troutsoup]

its the archive feature that has most of the listadmins worried. the ease of getting info from googles archive of never seemingly deleted emails. granted some are semi-public lists and anyone can join, and thus archive or farm for info. others are private and you have to know someone to get on it, i can sorta see the paranoia in the latter setting.

Re:banninated

[base3]

So the list member just sets a forwarding rule, and the listserv mail goes to Google anyway. Sounds like a way for list admins to be pains in the ass without really accomplishing anything.

Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[erroneus]

I'm rather surprised more aggressive measures to circumvent US communications and all other paths of commerce and communications haven't been attempted. Wanna do warrantless wiretaps on foreigners? Fine. Watch the foreigners build new lines of communications that do not connect to the U.S. Wanna log, fingerprint, probe and scan all foreigners who happen to fly over or through the U.S.? Fine. Watch the foreigners start to build airports in Mexico and Canada to avoid U.S. soil. Wanna monitor and observe all foreign commerce through U.S. banks? You get the idea.

At some point, the rest of the world will tire of these policies and take step to make the U.S. less relevant.

Re:Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[justinlee37]

You could only boycott at an individual level. Any government-level policies prohibiting citizens from trading with the United States would be a World Trade Organization violation, which would remove their protection in turn (so that others could boycott their nations at a gov't level without sacrificing their own protection).

Not to say that it would be impossible, or unwarranted.

Re:Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[m.ducharme]

If enough countries get sick of the US' bullying, they could basically tell the WTO to piss off. The WTO is just a bunch of agreements made by world leaders after all. If the EU, and China, and the rest of Asia decided to make the US irrelevant by restricting trade, who'd enforce the embargoes? Hell, China just has to cash in its greenbacks and you're all screwed. What exactly do you think is propping up the American economy right now, other than China, Japan, maybe a few other creditor nations? You don't think the EU would love to see the Middle East receiving payment for oil in Euros? The American gov't has two things going for it: the military, and the world's biggest consumer culture.

The Iraq war is showing everyone what the limits of the US military really are (they can't handle a geurilla war in a country that they'd previously bombed the snot out of for twelve years, despite the best-equipped military in the world), and China and India -- that's 2B potential consumers, kids -- are set to outpace American consumption levels, probably in the next decade or two, less if we're all really unlucky.

You know, it doesn't even matter what the rest of the world does, the US government is well on the way to making your country a backwater anyway. Too bad you're going to take us down with you.

Re:Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[Zefrim]

As a foreigner I can safely say that the majority of us already see the US as less relevant. Sure, you're still much in the media, but I don't think very many of the general population take you seriously as a country anymore. But that shouldn't be news to you I guess.

The irony is that as Sept 11 occurred, the whole world was with you, but now 7 years on, opinion of the US is at its lowest since the Vietnam War.

Re:Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[greyhueofdoubt]

What would happen if the US simply didn't honor the debt they owed to China? Besides the possibility of all-out war, that is.

-b

Re:Are they just NOW figuring that out?

[erroneus]

Ah yes... the WTO. :) Rather coincidental that your point has already been blasted by recent news. Clearly, the U.S. has no trouble showing contempt for the rest of the world when it suits them and support for the world when it doesn't.

The U.S.ofA. is on the fast-track to the world closing in around it and making this last super-power irrelevant.

Is that a bad thing? Yeah, it is. The problem isn't so much that there might be a "One World" government looming in the near future, but the type of One World government that is looming in the near future. In the past, the U.S. represented some pretty good ideals. Among these are freedom FROM religion along with freedom of religion, a general respect for the individual and a sense of justice that is generally acceptable. These things have all but disappeared though many of us cling to the memory in hopes it may be restored while others cling to it in hopes that denial will keep the truth out of their sight. But the means of destruction of the U.S. serves as a pretty strong indication of what may follow in the wake of that destruction.

I look more and more to the E.U. for hope in all of this, but even the E.U. is suffering from a lot of the same loss of idealism in its government and culture and unfortunately, the members of the E.U. have much more mature cultures and are a lot less likely to change or improve quickly enough.

I believe the U.S. is being destroyed and perhaps it's by design, or perhaps it's simply too much corruption in business and government. Either way, just as with inflation, the prices never go back down again once they've risen.

we've seen this ourselves

[ddent]

First hand experience this is true:

We have several customers who have dedicated servers with us where one of their deciding factors in choosing us was that we can offer them service out of our Vancouver data centre.

In some cases this is not just a 'nice to have' feature. For some customers, putting their data in the US would be illegal - the patriot act is not compatible with our privacy laws.

Re:Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how clueless I'd have to be to click on a *.on.nimp.org link.

1. Forewarned, forearmed. Apologies for not having your omniscience.

2. Have a look at the previous link posted- the URL disappears at > line length and yes, should've inspected but, no, haven't really got the time to watch everything.

3. Spoofing is reasonably common, but this guy's writing in "Slashdot friendly fashion", not just your usual trolls.

Citizen!

[gnutoo]

Be sure to use Vista, which indexes everything and eliminates all stovepipes that soot up the tubes to central services. If you use older versions of XP or Free Software, the terrorists will win!

Re:Citizen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, Twitter, some proof please that Vista sends it's indexing results back to, well, anyone would be much appreciated.

You sir... are correct.

[coren2000]

Thats actually a very good idea. I did a school project on Google Apps Education a few weeks ago and became familiar with Puk's disagreements to Google Apps Education at the time.

While Lakehead is not the only university (Arizona State is another education institution which uses Google AppsEd), it has the distinction of being a _Canadian_ university.

Arizona state already has its email server fall under the purview of the Patriot act, as it is in the US. Lakehead is in Ontario Canada and thus has troubles with the legality of following both Canadian Law, and US federal law. In the specific interest of privacy the two laws do not mix. Lakehead has a legal (and moral) obligation to protect the privacy of it's students, however by using the GoogAppsEd they knowingly violate this...

HOWEVER

Students and faculty _do not_ need to use GoogAppsEd. Gmail is a parallel service to their old email servers which are hosted in Canada.

So there is a choice... use the old shitty server OR relinquish your privacy (somewhat... its not like the FBI is selling your info to spammers, they just might treat you badly when trying to enter the US... which is their right when you think of it).

A better solution is for Google to start hosting Canadian email addresses in Canada so that Canadians do not have to submit to US Federal law... which many Canadians feel is unjust in many ways (we have our own laws that we bitch about... we dont need yours too).

BTW another solution is to encrypt your email... if the US border patrol picks you up for what you write in your encrypted email, well you can now alert major media that the US has methods of defeating modern accepted encryption techniques (do they really want to be outted?)

Anywho... my point is. You are correct, Google should move services to Canada.

Re:You sir... are correct.

[casuist99]

One point I'd like to make about encrypting your email: you have to trust the person on the receiving end not to pass your (now) decrypted email on to another party. If you're picked up by the Feds after sending an email detailing an illegal act, I'd look to your "friend", the recipient, before I jumped to the conclusion that the government defeated your encryption.

easy way around

[KZigurs]

if we assume that 0.0.0.0 is used as netmask...

yet again

[Brandybuck]

Yet again another example of big government causing problems. Why is it that the solutions suggested are always more big government? Bill and George have given us a presidency with absolute power, but must of us are so naive we think John, Barack, or Hillary will be immune to its corruption. Hah.

Look closer...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you turn the image around, one can see a drug deal in progress across the street too.

The ball cap guy seems to have just taken cash (see his left hand about to go into his pocket), and the passenger looks like he's ready to reach out and get "something".

And the money guy seems to be about to hand the guy in the car a ciggy pack, with ??? inside?

Busy neighborhood one stop drug shop.

Nuclear Weapons.

[leftie]

US Government Nuclear Weapons have worked exactly as advertised every time they have been used.

That's one.

The Invasion of Normandy actually went off a little better than expected.

That's two.

I guess that means you get to never bring up that poor attempt at debunking again.

Re:Nuclear Weapons.

[db32]

First. Those are military actions not government services so that is entirely different. Even if you count the program of building the nukes, that wasn't exactly a smooth sailing endeavor if you bother to read the history of it all. In fact, I would classify putting people in the field and detonating them to determine the effects of radiation on people is a pretty big failure of that program.

between government and a profit-seeking corporatio

[reiisi]

I'm looking at that question, and thinking, uhm, you know, lobbies?

Government is watched by whom?

Private, profit-seeking corporation is watched by whom?

I don't think there is a good alternative.

Aren't you forgetting about...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Magic Lantern?

wish I had mod points to mod you up.

[reiisi]

Can I quote that in my sig sometimes, instead?

Re:wish I had mod points to mod you up.

[Metasquares]

Sure, go ahead.

This could work

[fv]

I agree that exposing the extent of this could definitely help. When I received multiple FBI subpoenas in 2004 for Insecure.Org web logs, I notified Nmap users and it was posted to various web sites, including Slashdot.

After all of that press four years ago, the subpoenas stopped and I haven't received another one since. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but I'm happy about it nonetheless.

In other Nmap news, version 4.60 was just released. You might want to download it with Tor though, just to be on the safe side in case the subpoenas resume :).

-Fyodor

Re:This could work

[ScuzzMonkey]

I haven't looked at it lately, so maybe it's one of the expired provisions, but wasn't one of the more insidious problems with PATRIOT was that subpoenas issued under its auspices could not be revealed to anyone, or even the fact that they had been issued at all? Don't want those terrorists to know we're looking for 'em, after all.

That was really the most frightening part of the whole thing, although few people picked up on it (apparently--maybe those that did were just hustled off in the middle of the night and shot). With those provisions, we have absolutely no idea how often the act is being used or to what ends. Presumably the subpoenas you were issued weren't part of PATRIOT investigations, though.

Re:This could work

[theonetruekeebler]

I believe you were entirely within your rights to act as you did, Fyodor, but would be grateful if you'd take a moment to elaborate on why you chose your course of action.

From Securityfocus's account and your own it sounds like the FBI was trying to chase down a botnet that, as part of some process, downloaded Nmap 3.77. You emphasized that their requests were very narrowly crafted: a specific file requested via a specific user-agent within a specific five-minute window. It certainly didn't sound like a fishing expedition. If I had to guess, the requests were probably tied to the investigation of a specific criminal act or actor and they were trying to strengthen a case by establishing place-and-time.

My sleep-deprived analogy is this:

There's been a rash of burglaries recently where the perpetrators used a chainsaw to go straight through the side of the building. Yesterday morning a chainsaw burglary took place and the sheriff noticed a broken 16" Stihl chain near the hole. There was a second chainsaw burglary yesterday afternoon.

Meanwhile, you are the owner of Fyodor's Hardware, the busiest hardware store in three counties, and the tri-county area's only seller of Stihl chainsaws and accessories. You easily sell forty or fifty replacement chains a day.

So this morning the sheriff comes to you and asks if you sold or installed a 16" Stihl chain yesterday between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM, and if so who did you sell it to. In fact, you sold ten, just like any other day.

Not a perfect analogy, I know, but seriously, what do you do? I mean, you could make him come back with a subpoena, but let's skip that step and get to the crux of the matter: You sold ten new 16" Stihl chains yesterday and it's the sheriff's opinion that one of them probably went to the chainsaw burglar. You, he and every defense attorney and Slashdotter all know there's always the chance the burglar got the chain somewhere else and that at least nine of your sales were to honest customers. If you tell the sheriff about all ten sales, to what extent (if any) have you violated the rights of all the non-criminal chain buyers? If on the other hand you refuse to cooperate, how do you justify the social cost of the continued burglaries against the rights of ordinary chain buyers?

I think it's an interesting dilemma. As I said, I certainly respect that you took a principled stand (or at least stayed slippery enough that you didn't have to), but not everything that law enforcement -- even the FBI -- does is a sinister conspiracy against civil liberties. Sometimes they really are just trying to catch a bad guy.

Re:This could work

[big_paul76]

I think the way to handle this is to put checks and balances on the way law enforcement operates. In your chainsaw example, let's say of the 10 people who bought chains in that time, 9 you know 100% are innocent, and there _might_ be one guilty person. (criminal could've bought months ago, or bought from the next state over, etc)

If the concern is over violating the rights of those 9 definitely and 1 possibly innocent chainsaw users, then maybe the thing to do is make sure that we don't have cause to worry about police investigating someone?

Tax havens are quite dispensable.

[sethstorm]

Then they can respond by putting them on a terrorist country list, and perhaps having another "Chinese Embassy" accident. Sever their cables, intercept their communications, and see that they can't even get encrypted data in or out. If anyone asks questions about their evasive practices, point them towards their government.

Re:Tax havens are quite dispensable.

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Never happen, it'd piss off too many of their campaign contributors...

which documents?

[reiisi]

I can't tell from the article, but the technical tarpit we're stuck in, here, is that we must have two channels to have privacy -- one channel must be open, and Google would be no more threat to that than the unencoded internet is already.

The other must be an encoded channel. Or, at bare minimum, a private channel not routed outside the school.

Even if the school does not use Google, it needs the two channels.

The question is whether the school is providing the private channel, and whether the staff is willing to use it.

Re:Patriot Act

[cloakable]

1. *.on.nimp.org links have been posted for a while now, shortly by warnings.

2. If you don't have time to be paranoid about your security, I'm hoping you don't use Windows.

2. Actually, a good number of trolls are using this method to link to goatse on this site. Seems they've gotten wise to the [goat.cx] giveaways on the end of their links.

So yeah. You click on a link that redirects to *.nimp.org, you're clueless.

Density...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to drop the A-Bomb on Saskatchewan.

...as in, yours, and Saskatchewan's lack.

Saskatchewan has barely a million people in an area substantially larger than California. If you just "nuked Saskatchewan", you probably wouldn't even manage to startle anyone (who didn't have a seismograph, that is).

If you're going to rant, at least get someone who knows geography to help you. Like a local schoolchild.

KHAAAAAN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is NOONE, and why should I trust him?

Why, the ruler of western Asia, of course. Just never you mind about that little Eugenics Wars scuffle in the 90's - nothing more than a misunderstanding...

Seriously

[Dunbal]

The idea of "leasing" applications as a service and having people process that data via the network has to be the WORST IDEA EVER. While it may be fine for grandma who can't afford the $300 office suite to write the odd letter to her kids, or whose kids can't be bothered to show her some of the free alternatives - no one who manages data in a serious manner (ie corporations) are EVER going to "outsource" their software.

      Why should I trust "Google" or whoever, when I have a hard time trusting most of my employees with sensitive information? It's not just the PATRIOT act, it's all the bullshit "Terms of Service" that are always in favor of the "service provider", leaving NO ONE accountable for any data corruption or even worse public leak (intentional or otherwise) of data. Not to mention all the possible exploits/means of acquiring said data when it's on its way back and forth from the "service provider". No thanks. My trade secrets, patents, corporate strategies, acquisition plans and accounting are going to stay right where they should be: 1) Compartmentalized and 2) Behind several locked doors, cameras and guys with guns. If the FBI wants it, well they can convince a judge to sign a warrant and come and get it, and not go the "telco" route where "we will cooperate with the authorities in the name of terrorism BUT WE BROKE THE LAW please please please grant us retroactive immunity now".

This has always been so.

[Anonymous Coward]

First, one has always to be careful not to post critical data on an online service. Not only the US gov can snoop, nothing is 100% secure...

Second, no problem here: if you find Google services worthy, don't use them online -- buy a server with the apps and run it inside your DMZ. Voilà! Secure and very practical.

Third, are you scared that the US gov discover something about you? What are you doing? In my case, surveillance would probably be considered "punishment"...

Fourth, do the US really need any reason to do something these days? They don't even care about the media now!

Re:This has always been so.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe nobody read my comment... or maybe people are scared of replying to political content...

A new era may have begun. :-/

Re:Patriot Act

[smallfries]

Given that the AC was polite and pointed out that the warning was helpful for some who haven't come across that type of url before: did you take lessons in being an arrogant dickwad, or does it come naturally?

The operative phrase here ...

[PPH]

... being "hosted by a U.S. company". Wave goodby to the hosting business.

Canada is a better site anyway. They have more hydro power and less problem cooling data centers located in Shivering Moose, Alberta.

Re:The operative phrase here ...

[farbles]

No, you've got that wrong. First we heat the data center buildings then we pay extra to cool the server rooms off. :)

You'd think we'd be smarter than that, huh?

Re:The operative phrase here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a sci-fi novel with a time traveller from the near future objecting to the modern kitchen, "you mean you have this device which removes heat ... and this device which adds heat ... and they're not connected?!"

Here's a thought...

[m.ducharme]

Why doesn't Google sell or lease "Google Apps Appliances" that businesses can keep on-site, much like they peddle Google Search Appliances? Wouldn't this be a way around the issue? The GooAPPliance is stored in Canada (or wherever), and support can come from Mountain View or wherever. An API could connect the local servers to the Googleweb, or Google could take their money in lease terms instead of serving ads, or whatever. It would solve the data storage problem.

Oh, and if Page or Brin are reading this, and you haven't already thought of this (yeah, right), I want my cut dammit!

Google - the Ultimate Trojan Horse ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

'Mark you out?' The fact of the matter is, everything we transmit outside of the firewall is subject to surveillance these days. And most companies have no clue how much of their data is crossing the firewall every day.

Um, no. That's architecture 101, not sure what your experience is, but beg to differ. I mean, consider the headlines when a laptop is stolen or misplaced, or a web site is hacked. Trust me, you may not know the difference, but forward thinking organizations do, sometimes as in the case of this college, a little too late. Well, they can still ditch Google. It's not clear from the article, but what do they need? Google Office? Search capability? Spreadsheet? How hard is that - pick up a copy of OpenOffice for goodness sake. We're not talking Oracle/SAP here are we?

I don't know why people are getting their knickers in a knot over Google, when the main problem lies with the US backbone carriers, who - with only one known exception - have opened their networks to constant and widespread monitoring by US security agencies.

Yes, that's surely a concern also, but that shouldn't minimize this, which is close to providing the same capability, on a company's data that is inside the firewall (or so they thought).

Google at very least had the guts to fight a public legal battle with the Feds over release of even sanitised data.

See maybe it's just me, but handing over the reigns to Google, and depending on their "do no evil" is not a position most organizations want to be in. This strikes me as a Faustian bargain.

The story here may be the danger to companies when they bring these companies inside the firewall, but again, refusing to trust Google is a funny place to start enforcing data integrity. The plain and simple fact is that the greatest threat of corporate data leaks is from staff who, whether through sins of omission or commission, carry sensitive data on laptops, thumb drives, CDs without any protections whatsoever.

Excellent point, as I pointed out above. And I don't know about you, but I do know organizations are working very hard to minimize the impact of lost laptops, such as encryption, etc. But why do you want to compound the error?

I have to conclude, therefore that this is nothing more than a tiny kernel of truth wrapped in chocolatey FUD-ness that PHBs and corporate counsel love so much.

See that seems a bit naive to me. Like the folks that posted all their personal info on MySpace and then are shocked to find it's not that private at all. So I disagree, I think this is a big issue people are a bit clueless about - for now.

Give it long enough

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

and we'll be back to the devil as the bogeyman.

Apathetic

[leabre]

I was thinking about this the other day. I think one of the reasons that Americans, in general, are so politically indifferent and don't do anything to make change. I think one of the roots is that in the workplace we are pretty much told to be politically indifferent (tolerant) or lose your job. In the church, too, or the establishment can lose its non-profit charter. Since we spend more time at work than home usually, it spills into our main life because also, we some companies find out we have too strong of a polical opinion, might lose our job. Also, that and, since we seem to like luxury so much, the best way to not lose what little cash we hard-work for, is to not lose our job.

Then you have a second problem, the politicians aren't accountable to the people. They can lie, cheat, steal, and piss-off as many people as they want, but somehow continue to be re-elected with impunity. The minute the politician pisses off their corporate campaign donor's, they will not have any funding to run for office again.

Those two things, I think, case the problem, that an executive office can sh*t on the American people and use the US Constitition as wiping paper when they're done and ... no one does anything about it. It's really too bad, because there won't be any relief when the current administration leaves office. The reason Congress won't do anything to curtail it in practice is because any one of them aspires to be in office in the future and they would love to have the power that this administration has demonstrated the people so lovingly embrace.

But it all starts with us having to be politically indifferent everywhere but in our own living room, that causes most people to be indifferent in-general. I think that's the root of our apathy.

Thanks,
Leabre

Re:I Propose

[Ox0065]

Request for all machines that searched for "TSA" , "Liquid" , and "explosive" for ongoing terrorist investigation would suddenly seem quite dubious without better specifics.

They don't have to ask google for that. They index that themselves. Quite dubious? (^-^) Perhaps a little like George Dubious, in that without specifics they are searching for a clue

Re:Patriot Act

[cloakable]

I'm a Debian user - it came with the base install :)

Re:Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the first time I heard of it. So it was news to me.

If this is common, why doesn't Slashdot deny links to that address?

Nothing new ... Unfortunately

[Skal Tura]

This has been known for years now, it's about damn time we hear about it more loudly!

I'm European, and damn i'm happy to be european and not live in the US these days. Where are all privacy and human rights? U.S. Govt is corrupted, and badly, starting from Mr. George W. Bush, who has the office for manipulation of the elections.

The elections even aren't completely democratic in nature over there, everyone's vote should count as much, and election should be done based on the majority of PEOPLE, not majority of STATES.

U.S. datamining has been rampant for a long time, and is still going very rampant, even more so, different organizations in US secretively snoops what they can without any respect given to legality or personal privacy rights. War against Terror, is being waged with TERROR. Acceptance is gained through Terror. Hell, it's even rather likely that 9/11 events were done by the same govt, U.S. Govt. for some bizarre reason, there was a practice going on at the same time, against exactly that event. Funny? Don't believe me? Do a couple google searches, like "9/11 Truth", "9/11 Conspiracy". There is an element of truth in there, just remember that mostly it is opposite side of propaganda, than the U.S. Govt propaganda, truth lies in the middle and likely is way more stunning than anything leaked to public combined. Furthermore, Google for Bush's family tree and Rockefellers, World Bank, and combine with the fact that World Bank lended money to Nazis and Vietnam to wage war, while lending money to US to wage war. :) Combine that with who's currency US Dollar really is, who issues it, and who collects your personal income tax, with the legality of the income tax and who pockets it. But, most of everything: Think For Yourself.

Snooping is going on everywhere in the US, and mostly secretive, only the very tip of the iceberg hits the media. For example, know Second Life? How about their age verification program? Well, it's NOTHING about age verification, and EVERYTHING about snooping. Hell, their practice is even illegal on many countries, yet they try to enforce it. Gullible, Ignorant people goes for it however. The company (Aristotle, http://www.aristotle.com/) very likely gives the data to U.S. Govt, while Linden Lab promises they do not store that data, only stores the return value from Aristotle, however, if you look carefully on Aristotle policies, you'll notice that they DO NOT promise confidentiality, only where they promise confidentiality is for surfing their website. Furthermore, it's not Linden Lab's legal obligation nor liability to verify the age of their customers, nor practically they can, only for a small minority. Kids stealing their dad's credit card to buy Linden Dollars, can just as easily use their Dad's information to fullfill the age verification. Aristotle is also heavily political company, not security company, but POLITICAL in nature.

Fortunately, we now have Wikileaks, and we have Europe here to rescue the day, along with highly ethical companies, like Qwest and Google, who dislike bending over and giving up their data, along with their customer's private data. :)

Re:Nothing new ... Unfortunately

[monxrtr]

I'm European, and damn i'm happy to be european and not live in the US these days. Where are all privacy and human rights? U.S. Govt is corrupted, and badly, starting from Mr. George W. Bush, who has the office for manipulation of the elections. Oh please, European government is just as corrupt if not even more corrupt than US government. Privacy and human rights? No European government believes in privacy. They don't force registration of your name, address, and income whenever you receive a paycheck? That don't force registration for social welfare benefits? You people started the invasion of private information to mandate your social engineering welfare redistribution schemes.

Your government doesn't know how much money you make and take deductions directly from your paycheck? That's 100% pure invasion of privacy which fools like you wholeheartedly embrace. So stop bitching if the government (any government anywhere in the world) reads your email. It's extremely minor in comparison to the government reading your paycheck stubs, and taking deductions before you ever even touch that money. You don't believe in due process, you don't believe in privacy. So stop lying, you dumb socialists.

Re:Nothing new ... Unfortunately

[Skal Tura]

someone mod parent troll. :)

However, i must still say the parent is obviously highly ignorant and likely republican. The kind of people who does rip your privacy away.

U.S. Govt watches your income just as well, they do collect tax, don't they? ;) Last time i checked, they collected legal and ILLEGAL taxes :D Atleast, we have only LEGAL taxes.

Self-righteous republican bastards like bastard always says Europe is corrupt and socialist. However, your mails don't get read here, hell, you won't even get sued for millions for piracy around here, especially if you are 12yr old kid downloading 2 songs of your favourite artist (however, those higher up in distribution hierarchy of pirated content does get punished, and in some countries, they tend to be catched.)

Plus, you got to admit the perks of having * FREE * education and health-care, albeit some of it isn't the best, but it's still free, and good schools and healthcare for * FREE * does exist in large degree, you just got to pick where you go :) Nevermind the fact that they infact ** PAY YOU ** to goto school here and get educated, and govt ** PAYS ** for innovation, and sometimes for employing people too. Nevermind that no one even cares if you have a passport if you travel within EU in practice (tho, take it with you, rarely they do ask questions), snoops through all your stuff, collects passenger information, past associations, criminal records, professional records etc.

Never mind the fact that we DO NOT wiretap masses at will, we DO NOT track where you are by your cell phone at will if you do not approve. We do not kill prisoners neither at a whim, but actually punish them by having them to live for their actions. Neither do we torture ( http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm, http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usai_torture, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/dec/10/usa.comment, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/apr/30/television.internationalnews) people at will, nor arrest without any due reason, or sentence without having proven quilty first. Nor do we stop you leaving the country DeCSS tattooed on your back

Nevermind the tiny fact that here our presidents are chosen by the people, not by the chosen few.

Re:Nothing new ... Unfortunately

[monxrtr]

Plus, you got to admit the perks of having * FREE * education and health-care, albeit some of it isn't the best, but it's still free, and good schools and healthcare for * FREE * does exist in large degree, you just got to pick where you go :) Nevermind the fact that they infact ** PAY YOU ** to goto school here and get educated, and govt ** PAYS ** for innovation, and sometimes for employing people too. Education isn't "FREE". Just because the costs are hidden from you, and the net result being far inferior quality at a massive waste of resources cost (employing a massively wasteful bureaucracy), doesn't make it "FREE". 90% of the teachers, including professors, are nothing more than day shift + night shift ditch diggers digging in and filling in the same hole. Most of those teachers can be fired, and all the students can access video lectures of the very best professors on the internet for the majority of education subjects. 90% of the money spent on education is pure welfare queen subsidized waste, that isn't voluntarily paid by free market buyers and sellers.

Never mind the fact that we DO NOT wiretap masses at will, we DO NOT track where you are by your cell phone at will if you do not approve. We do not kill prisoners neither at a whim, but actually punish them by having them to live for their actions. As I said originally, and you were unable to refute, you take property without due process, and you have no respect for privacy whatsoever, as EVIDENCED by your totalitarian mandated registration of personal data, including name, address, income, race, etc. What part of *EVIDENCED* do you dumb socialists not comprehend? Wiretaps and cell phone tracking is far less egregious than tapping, tracking, and reading peoples' paycheck statements and withdrawing funds directly from those paychecks. And you made not even the slightest argument to the contrary. Your phony cries about pretending to love privacy is pure BULLSHIT LIES.

Who is responsible for the original massive invasions of privacy? Who is blind and stupid that they cannot even realize how they massively invaded and enabled further fascist invasions of personal privacy with paved precedence? Dumb socialists. So take your phony privacy pretension elsewhere. And may many more leftists like Eliot Spitzer suffer their just desserts.

I'm no troll. You're just upset that I pointed out your hypocritical lies.

Google search on port 443?

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're on this topic, can anyone tell me why there is not the site https:\\www.google.com (it redirects to http:\\www.google.com)? I would like to search without my ISP knowing what I'm searching for.

Re:not everyone behaves this way ...

[enselsharon]

My backup/storage provider doesn't.

This pretty much says it all:

http://www.rsync.net/philosophy.html

especially the "warrant canary", which is why I am essentially a lifetime customer of their organization and recommend them at any opportunity:

http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

Protecting Rights == True Patriotism

[eyenot]

I don't mind, by all means, protect *our* rights, by any means necessary. Take up the second amendment if you have to or feel so inclined; I consider myself a constitutional/libertarian. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" and so on. But there really is no need to be afraid of yourself and what you do with your privacy. If you find that you're afraid to reveal yourself to others, this brings up in everyone the same question, "what's causing this fear"? I think too many people hide handily behind the excuse "unconstitutional legislation, greedy and purposefully paranoia-inducing conspiracy, tyranny, etc." Most people don't need those excuses. Most people are protected from criticism by their own innocence, indifference, or indecency and have no need to ward off disclosure with even the most righteous flag-waving. I'm sorry but so much of the liberal socialist campaign against tyranny stands as a tyranny in and of itself. It happens time and again, the rebels are righteous and embraced but the tipping point comes when they start to become just like those they are deposing and fail to recognize the transformation. Where do I stand? I don't care if I have a camera in my home, so I don't care if you have one in yours, either. Just don't put it in my face where I can see it while I'm eating, I HATE THAT.

Military actions ARE govenment services

[leftie]

Do you see any U.S. Army corporate board meetings? U. S. Navy Stockholder meetings? Obviously not.

The building of the first nuclear weapons most certainly was smooth sailing. Did the 1st one work? Yep. The 2nd? Yep. The 3rd? Yep. The science / engineering world doesn't get any smoother than that.

The radiation effects experiment was a smashing success by the terms of how the experiment were defined and carried out. The military wanted to find out what would happen to people that got exposed to a lot of radiation. They military exposed a lot of people to radiation. Then the military tracked the effects.

You didn't see anyone in the scientific community throwing out results of the experiments, did you? Nope. Lots of government scientists analyzed the data collected on those experiments on human radiation exposure for decades to come.

Re:Military actions ARE govenment services

[db32]

You are still stretching "government service" quite a bit by trying to include the military. The military is the military, all the other non DoD organizations (IRS, Post Office, INS, FBI, CIA, Department of anything other than Defense) are all civilian. Even so, accidentally shipping live nukes across the US, accidentally shipping ICBM nose cones to Taiwan, and a HUGE list of near nuclear disasters and mishaps and a few outright "we kinda lost the nuke" would seem to indicate that the Nuclear Weapons program isn't exactly a smashing success.

Protect your Indentity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, just came across this great VPN software called ProtexxVPN. It does up to 2048bit encryption and hides your identity. I have been using it for about 3 months and want surf the NET without it. Protexx.com is the website. Good Luck

Re:between government and a profit-seeking corpora

[rtb61]

You seem not to understand at all. People are complaining about the privacy invasive excesses of government agencies precisely because their activities are subject to public disclosure so that they can be reviewed. If their activities had not been disclosed people would not be discussing their perceived excesses and seek to review the laws to ensure the public is protected from privacy abuses. Ultimately all government activities should always be subject to public review.

With corporations like google we have to wait for an executive with a conscience to step forward and disclose exactly what google have been up to especially when it is very likely that the general public will not approve of those activities, obviously highly unlikely as greed typically takes precedence over conscience for most corporate executives.

The more likely route, the general public seek privacy audit laws which allows random inspections of corporate data archives that contain private about the public, ensure full disclosure of those activities and allow the public to have their, I repeat, their data removed, combined with significant fines for when privacy invasiveness exceeds the bounds of tighter privacy laws.

Re:between government and a profit-seeking corpora

[reiisi]

And the one is different from the other, how?

Well, let's see. Google, at any rate, can't yet sick cops with guns on you, I think.

Everyone is on the watchlist

[elucido]

How do we know there really is a terrorist watchlist? What if the government simply monitors every human on earth? No need to keep a list then. If the government doesn't have enough information about you, they'll monitor you to get the information, regardless of who you are. Even the President is monitored.