Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Why does the summary say "May Be Sharing" while the Title indicates this has already happened?
Or even better, use www.scroogle.org
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.
This is my sig.
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.
Do you live in the USA? You do realize that all data handling companies are subject to the same US laws, so move your email anywhere you want, the government can still get it at will.
Take mail hosting from prq.se (the company hosting WikiLeaks and earlier The Pirate Bay) and use SSL IMAP/POP3 to access it. Looks like a quite good package too.
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.