Google Gives the US Government Access To Gmail

schliz writes "Google condemns the Chinese Government for censoring its results, and Australia for planning to do the same. Meanwhile, its lawyers and security experts have told employees to 'be intentionally vague about whether or not we've given access to end-user accounts,' according to engineer James Tarquin, hinting that Google may be sharing its data with the US government. Perhaps Australia's most hated communications minister, Steven Conroy, could be right in his criticism of Google's privacy record after all."

Comments

If not China, why US?

[sopssa]

If China government cant get access to Gmail, what it makes it ok for USA? Especially to those accounts not owned by US citizens.

If China tried to get access to gmail accounts of those who tried to start revolts in China and that wasn't ok, what makes it ok for US government to get access to those who try to start revolts in US (aka terrorists)? After all, USA also has a long track record of killing those it considers its enemies and even civilians and journalists, in addition to detaining people and ignoring their human rights along with sexual abuse and torture. US does exactly the same to it's enemies than China. Like most of Chinese people, US people also deny this or say it's not as bad or try to justify it by saying they're enemies or "terrorists". In the end it's all the same.

Re:If not China, why US?

[hedwards]

Because they're over there and we're over here. Google has a substantially larger user base and operation here than in China. Pulling out of China is likely to cause them less loss of revenue than trying to pull out of the US. Assuming they could even do so. With most of the work being done stateside as well as a lot of the communications gear, it's questionable as to whether or not saying no would even make a difference.

Not that that makes it OK, it just suggests that if they don't play ball then the laws can be changed. Admittedly we do have Democratic control of 2 out of 3 branches, but SCOTUS has shown itself to be somewhat less than impressed with things like the constitution in recent years if it doesn't please conservatives. If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law, I can only imagine what kind of consideration this sort of thing will get.

Re:If not China, why US?

[forand]

If Google is abiding by its user agreement then it provides data on users if given a subpoena from a court of law under which it operates. The problem with China was that they did not go through their own legal process but turned to hacking Google's and users' computers. I believe that in the past Google HAS given Chinese law enforcement information on users when requested to do so by a court and when the data was within that courts jurisdiction.

Re:If not China, why US?

[StWaldo]

So by your reasoning, a terrorist is a revolutionary, and (at the risk of sounding jingoistic) the 9/11 attacks, Madrid bombings, London, Moscow, etc., were all on a par with Tienamen Square or any number of peaceful demonstrations for Tibet or human rights in general.

And are you seriously suggesting that the US at large is culpable for the actions of William Calley, Jesse England, and any other rapist, murderer, or degenerate who manages to make it into the uniformed service.

Careful using a broad brush when you paint your pictures, it smacks of an untrained eye and mind.

Re:If not China, why US?

[mea37]

What do you mean "Google doesn't think China has laws"? They made just as much a show of obeying China's laws when they operate there, as they make of obeying U.S. laws when they operate here.

They also made a show of disagreeing with the principles on which some of those laws were based, and in the case of China they made a business decision that it was no longer worth access to the Chinese market. Anyone who claims this was solely based on their alleged disagreement with the principles behind Chinese law is being naive, but that's beside the point.

If Google didn't think China had laws, they would continue operating there and evade Chinese efforts at censorship and spying.

Re:If not China, why US?

[mrcaseyj]

The difference between giving access to US law enforcement and giving access to the Chinese government is like the difference between giving access to a police officer or a mafia criminal. The US government does criminal things sometimes, but the Chinese government IS criminal all the time, because it's a dictatorship. In the US, you can openly criticize the government, and if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate. In China a reform candidate can't even run, and the people aren't allowed to openly complain about it. If all the Chinese government wanted from Google was info on thieves and rapists and such, then nobody would complain about them handing it over. Somebody who wants to overthrow the Chinese government violently isn't a terrorist, because the people have a right to overthrow a dictatorship by any means necessary. But the people of the US have the freedom to criticize the government and vote it out of office, so someone who tries to overthrow the US government by violence actually is a terrorist or criminal. The US government isn't perfect, but the Chinese government is in a whole different class of bad.

Re:If not China, why US?

[DIplomatic]

Checks and balances. The Supreme Court isn't the ultimate arbiter of anything. Their power is balanced by the Executive and Legislative branches.

I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress.

Hoo boy would that be a bad idea! Our government is a balance. Legislative/Executive/Judicial, State/Fed. If individual states could undo any law, where is the balance there?

Re:If not China, why US?

[Stoutlimb]

"if the people want to they can elect a reform candidate"

In most democratic countries, there are very healthy and active reform and fringe parties that regularly get a significant percentage of the popular vote. Where are these parties in the USA? News media don't even give them the time of day if they were to exist. It's not because nobody would vote for them... there are artificial barriers put up to creating any meaningful opposition to the existing two headed beast you call democracy. These barriers would be considered a horrible crime in any other democratic country, but for some reason USA'ers tolerate them, or rather, like the people of China, have no choice in the matter.

The main difference between USA and China is that the USA system is far better at managing it's people into thinking they are running the show. Look beyond the USA to see how democracy works.

Re:If not China, why US?

[commodore64_love]

And once again, I get called a "racist" by somebody.

Yes I know you didn't use that word specifically, but you implied it. I joined the Tea Party protests in December 2008 (immediately after Bush signed that idiotic TARP bailout bill - I hate Bush). That does not mean I am not in favor of Jim Crow laws, since I don't give a damn if you're black, brown, white, or pink with purple poka-dots. I'm not racist.

- BTW which president was it that rounded-up Asian-Americans and threw them into concentration camps?
- Which president was it that arrested Suffragettes like Alice Paul, arrested reporters who published anti-war articles, and also belonged to the KKK?

(Hint: They were both Democrat.) Blindly loving any Democrat politician and hating a Republican politician (or viceversa) is foolish. As Judge Napolitino says frequently, "There is ONE party, the big government party, with two branches. One wants war and the other wants socialism - either way, BOTH want more control to run your life."

Re:If not China, why US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the significant disparity in state population sizes (California and Texas vs. Alaska, Hawaii, etc.) what you are advocating is replacing tyranny of an elite cabal trained in the law with tyranny of a minority mostly untrained in the law. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

Re:If not China, why US?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

And are you seriously suggesting that the US at large is culpable for the actions of William Calley, Jesse England, and any other rapist, murderer, or degenerate who manages to make it into the uniformed service.

How do you know its not the same thing with Chinese army? They even have hundreds of thousands larger army so theres probably more such immoral persons.

Just like China, US also has detention camps and is one of few countries in the world who still have a death penalty (like China).

And just like China the US govt throws people in prison for criticizing the government. That's why Obama had Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck thrown in prison.

Re:If not China, why US?

[CrimsonAvenger]

If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law, I can only imagine what kind of consideration this sort of thing will get.

You are aware that SCOTUS is primarily responsible for ensuring the Constitutionality of laws, right?

And that you don't need either case law or precedent to determine the Constitutionality of a law?

And that the DC handgun ban seems to be at odds with that Amendment which ends with "shall not be infringed"?

Or are you one of those who argues that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment refers to the States? If so, does "the People" in the First, Fourth, Fifth (arguably - the 5th uses "person" instead of "people"), and Tenth refer to the States as well? And if it does in each of those cases, why does the Tenth distinguish between "the States" and "the people"?

And if "the People" only means "the States" in the Second Amendment but not in any others, why?

Re:If not China, why US?

[plague3106]

The states used to have the power to reject laws before they were passed. They appointed their own representitives to the Senate. So if you think states should have more powwer again, lets repeal the direct election of Senators so state governments DO have a say again.

hinting that Google may be sharing its data with

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words this is the opinion of someone who read an article which quotes someone as saying that he was told to do something suspicious. Good stuff.

Summary and Title doesn't seem to match

[Reapman]

Why does the summary say "May Be Sharing" while the Title indicates this has already happened?

Re:Summary and Title doesn't seem to match

[Arancaytar]

Because the headline is more scary that way.

You can't fight a subpoena.

[tjstork]

Look, it doesn't matter who or where you are. The government has guns, you do not. If they want something, they will get it. What separates, or is supposed to separate, this process in places like the USA, from places like China, is that there is supposed to be accountability for the government that gets that information. This is at the ballot box and also due to separation of branches.

That Bush argued that the executive was allowed to unilaterally search due to a commander in chief doctrine was what really got him in trouble with the left, and, I think on that score the lefties were correct. What's interesting, though, is that the present administration seems to be adopting the same doctrine, but is making the "personality" argument, and really, once you start using personality arguments, rather than supportive of a legal process, you've shredded civil rights. To wit, just because Obama might be a nicer dictator for some people doesn't mean that he is still not a dictator. If it is bad for a President to do something when you voted against him, it is bad for a President to do it when you vote against, and vice versa.

Re:You can't fight a subpoena.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The government has guns, you do not. If they want something, they will get it. What separates, or is supposed to separate, this process in places like the USA, from places like China, is that there is supposed to be accountability for the government that gets that information."

actually that should read: "The government has guns, you do not. If they want something, they will get it. What separates, or is supposed to separate, this process in places like the USA, from places like China, is that there is supposed to be many well armed and trained militia made up of pirvate citazins who don't answer to the government for the purpuses of stopping this kind of thing". That's what the second amendment was for.

Re:You can't fight a subpoena.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Julius Caesar's rise to power was illegal; Auschwitz, terrible though it was, was not.

In fact, you have these completely backwards.

Caesar's rise was to power was largely no more or less legal than most Roman standards at the time, in fact mirroring Pompey's earlier rise. He himself was subjected to several injustices before finally deciding to cross the Rubicon. In the end, as was typical of Roman politics, he who controlled the army controlled the state, and Caesar was appointed Dictator for life by a vote in the Senate. Whatever you might say about it, his Dictatorship did have legal backing.

Auschwitz however, did not. Despite popular opinion, The Nazi's in fact embody a state almost totally devoid of the rule of law. Murders, beatings, property seizures, etc, etc were all ostensibly illegal in Nazi Germany, but political opponents were arbitrarily subjected to all and more as a matter of course. The only really firm "law" was the the principle of "working towards the Furher". Decisions were made in view of this principle at all levels of officialdom without any recourse to legalities or even much towards policy. Nazi rule was largely arbitrary, ad-hoc and indeed chaotic.

The documents defining Caesar's powers and rights are well recorded. But you would be hard pressed to find the legal paper trail that leads to Auschwitz. There is indeed a difference between what we call "law" and "order".

first word in article was "opinion"

[peter303]

"No facts to see here. Move along" -Obiwan Kenobi

Ask Eric Schmidt

[tomhudson]

"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"

I don't know how many times I've been criticized for pointing out that gmail TOS do not include anonymity - the government can just ask and google will roll over on you - it's nice to see others finally "getting it."

Re:Ask Eric Schmidt

[TheCycoONE]

"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"

- sounds like the antithesis to freedom... just saying.

It Depends

[b4upoo]

If a person is sending email to those suspected of contributing to terror groups then our government needs to be able to study those emails. That does not imply that the government has either the intention or the man power to be studying every trivial bit of email that we send or receive.

Re: It Depends

[Marcika]

If a person is sending email to those suspected of contributing to terror groups then our government needs to be able to study those emails. That does not imply that the government has either the intention or the man power to be studying every trivial bit of email that we send or receive.

1. "Terrorism" is a very loosely defined word in the US these days.
2. "The government" might not have the intention or manpower to snoop on Jane Harmless, but the disgruntled ex-husband in the local sheriff's department might. Especially if there is a handy fully automated subpoena tool available for all kinds of "law enforcement".

Huh?

[JustinOpinion]

The article fails on numerous levels.
1. It cross-compares two different rights issues: censorship and privacy (specifically contrasting Google's rhetoric against government censorship with their compliance to discovery requests under US law). It isn't necessarily inconsistent to argue against censorship but not worry about privacy.
2. Google's compliance with US legal discovery requests (under PATRIOT and other laws) is used to imply that Google advocates breaching privacy. The fact that Google complies with the law isn't evidence that they agree with the law. Indeed they specifically say (and have demonstrated, as far as I can tell) that they fight discovery requests and only deliver private data when the request is necessary/legitimate.
3. The article is also contrasting governmental policies (censorship, etc.) with policies of a private company (Google). The article states "We have far less power over Google." which is true in some sense (Google is not beholden to democracy directly... though it is controlled through laws and through consumer pressure/choice). But this "we have less power over Google" has to be counter-balanced with "Google has far less power over us". If the government mandates censorship, then every citizen and company is affected. If Google mandates censorship on its own, consumers will flock to other services. The difference is huge, and actions taken by government are far more scary because they are far further reaching.
4. Also, no evidence of Google breaching privacy is actually provided. Certainly no evidence that there is a systemic problem; merely that Google is acknowledging that they will comply with US law.

Really the article is just a weak attempt to set-up some a non-existent conflict between Google's open stance against censorship, and their grudging compliance with US discovery laws that could infringe on privacy. But the argument is laughably weak. I'm not trying to give Google a free pass here... but let's focus on the real issues and not trumped-up hypocrisy charges.

Get yer pitch fork out

[linuxguy]

Almost sounds like the guy who submitted the "story" works for Microsoft. "Google *may* be sharing data with govt. Time to get super mad at Google!"

Sensationalist stuff like this really pisses me off. CmdrTaco posted the story and sure got some ad impressions as a result. But man, do you really have to sink this low?

Re:Special Memo To Slashdot:

[0ld_d0g]

I don't think even google can process hundreds of petabytes *DAILY*. NSA might want to, but they don't have anywhere near the processing power (nobody does) to even piece together the individual data packets together in their original form much less identify the individual end-points accurately (people behind NAT,proxies,etc) or decrypt voice/email communication packets.

Re: hinting that Google may be sharing its data wi

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words this is the opinion of someone who read an article which quotes someone as saying that he was told to do something suspicious. Good stuff.

Seriously.

This sounds like what you would expect from Glenn "Did X do Y? Why hasn't X denied doing Y?" Beck, not Slashdot. It sound like fun, let me try.

Your Rights Online: Slashdot Sells User Data to the Chinese Government.

An Anonymous Coward writes: Certain American corporations are potentially working with the Chinese Government to sell user data. Slashdot is a Corporation. Slashdot is an American Corporation. This Anonymous Coward takes it on good presumption that, therefore, Slashdot is colluding with the Chinese. Given the evidence that Slashdot has not denied selling user data to the Chinese, these suspicions can be nothing but true.

Journalists: Meet integrity. Integrity, meet journalists.