Judge Says You Can't Know If Google Spies For NSA

witherstaff writes "A federal judge has ordered that whether Google is spying for the National Security Agency or not, you have no right to know. EPIC, which brought the lawsuit, says the NSA can neither confirm nor deny any relationship with Google. EPIC is worried the 'NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users.'"

Comments

But don't worry

[Opportunist]

After all, we're the good guys. We're just doing it to keep you safe from the red threat. Erh, the terrorists.

Could someone FINALLY update my teleprompter, please?

Re:But don't worry

[TheGratefulNet]

and your sigfile talks about russia, too.

are we at the 'race to the bottom'?

seems kind of depressing.

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

soon we will be just like the shitholes of the world - inheritors of a third-world wasteland. you can have the most wealthy country with the biggest natural resources, if you mismanage it and run it into the ground just so your buddies can have a little political power you won't have a nation anymore.

usa was doomed the moment we became entitlement-happy. the way you end a representative republic is to teach the voters that they can vote their hands into someone else's wallet. the evil demonized rich people are too small a minority to have significant representation at the voting booth. just try getting a job from a poor person. oh wait we're trying that now. how's that working out for the job market and the economy?

Re:But don't worry

[WrongSizeGlass]

seems kind of depressing.

That's OK. Our government-subsidized pharmaceutical industry can produce the perfect antidepressant for you simply based on your Google search terms. It will all be better soon. If you don't believe us, just Google it. I'm sure we'll be able to provide the search results you want ;-)

Re:But don't worry

[Opportunist]

Wow. Way to shift the blame from the greedy investors who think that perpetual growth is not only possible but mandatory. I have to bow to that much chutzpah.

Re:But don't worry

[Sponge Bath]

The race is over. We won!

Re:But don't worry

[memyselfandeye]

It is quite impressive isn't it? BTW, I'm glad to see you do not think greedy investors who think perpetual growth is not only NOT possible, but is a good idea to short, are to blame. Thanks for not holding me to account. No excuse me while I go fill my pool full of dollar bills.

Re:But don't worry

[memyselfandeye]

The race is over. We won!

When I was a teenager, after the wall fell down, a Russian scientist looking to hawk his invention moved in with my family. He was great, and taught me a lot, especially how to drink vodka. But one thing he said will always stick with me - "America and Russia always competed to see who was first. America built first nuclear submarine. Russia build first space rocket. America built first moon rocket. Eventually we had nothing to compete for, so we raced to see who spend money fastest. Russia won!"

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

What did we win? I have been standing by my mail box waiting for my prize.

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

cipralex+Modafinil kick ass. double plus plus good happy

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see you do not think greedy investors who think perpetual growth is not only NOT possible, but is a good idea to short, are to blame.

Jesus, thats one hell of a sentence to parse before morning coffee.

Re:But don't worry

[ColdWetDog]

What did we win? I have been standing by my mail box waiting for my prize.

Bad Postal Service. Sorry.

Re:But don't worry

[hairyfeet]

The sad irony is we won the cold war only to become the enemy by taking the absolute worst parts of their system!

Now we have socialism, only unlike what the republicans want you to think it doesn't have shit to do with giving the poor anything. Instead it is socialism for the rich, where they can gamble like the market is Las Vegas and if they win? Massive profits they then won't pay taxes on by using tricks like the double dutch which is favored by Google btw, and if they lose? Well then they are "too big to fail" and We, the people get left holding holding the bag.

Just as the Russians had we too have a small group of party elite, that through bribery, graft, and corruption shall always come out ahead no matter what happens to the country. Also like the Russians the will of the people is completely ignored, the military sucks down ever larger chunks of our GDP, and they can take you from the street and label you "an enemy of the people" and throw you down a hole and then forget about the hole or even have you executed without trial.

That is why I truly believe that just like the Soviet system we are destined for our own little revolution, perhaps in the form of our very own Arab spring. it is obvious voting now might as well consist of a ballot with two slots "Check here to vote for graft and corruption" and "Let the guys in DC know how you feel...vote for graft and corruption!".

And no matter what the people say, be it an end to the two wars (now three wars! Yay for the MIC! Extra hookers and blow this Xmas!), the securing of our borders and the tossing of those that entered illegally, the protection of medicare/caid and aid to the poor, legalization of pot, stopping of spying and abuses on Americans, increased taxes and the ends of loopholes for the top 5%, no matter what the people time and time and time again say they want they are repeatedly ignored by both parties for the desires of their cronies and those that can offer them bribes.

When it came to the cold war history will most likely record America won the battle but lost the war, becoming as big of a corrupt cabal of insiders as the old USSR before finally collapsing under the weight of all the graft and desire of those at the top to ever enrich themselves at the cost of the people.

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

one day 360 million N Americans will iVote/Open Vote in real time alongside our leaders, a slashdot for politics website/phone aps.

We got HST in BC Canada, combining the federal and provincial taxes so tax applies to more items. 7 billion a referendum for a law no one wanted in the first place. lol.

that could have bought the daily voting website a few times over. I can dream of a full on Open Source Government but Open Vote ap is a nice step forward. :)
www.opensourceg.com - sure as hell worked for Linux! :)
open vote ideas on website awaiting some Napster kid to do it up for us....

fix copywrong, intellectual poverty, unpatriot acts, etc. simply down vote them en masse forcing decisions or bootings from office. :)

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Way to shift the blame from the greedy investors who think that perpetual growth is not only possible but mandatory. I have to bow to that much chutzpah.

See here is where you emotional bleeding-heart types fail the very most basic reasoning. See how I didn't mention investors at all? THAT WAS YOUR CUE. Of course you failed because that would make it harder to knee-jerk, and Lord knows that's more precious than getting the point. Everything I said is true, AND the Wall Street investors who basically own our politicians fail to understand you cannot have perpetual growth in a finite world. You seem unskilled at this to the extreme, so for your edification I will spell this out: they are not mutually exclusive.

Oh wait, you think they are like two competing football teams. So criticising one means I must love the other. I bet you're not too fond of George W. Bush. But, you are taking a page from his playbook. "You're either with us or against us" remember that one? Well guess what, you think just like Bush. That's the only reason why you would assume I don't blame the investors. Based on what evidence? I said nothing either positive or negative about them until now. But you saw a baseless conclusion and by God you just had to jump to it.

I have to bow to that much... oh wait, there's nothing admirable about your utter failure to engage in adult conversation. Congratulations? I bet you wonder why you don't get your way more often in the political arena. Welp, if you'd learn how to articulate your case without such childish emotional thinking riddled with errors in reasoning you might just stand a better chance of convincing anyone who didn't already agree with you. Put that to the test. Try it out. See if I am wrong.

Re:But don't worry

[felix rayman]

Entitlement happy? Paying money out of every paycheck you get your whole life so that you have income and health care when you are old or sick isn't an entitlement. It's called insurance, you stupid asshole.

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone is getting a visit...or at the very least, their own dossier. ;)

Re:But don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, your analysis is right on target. I was a student of the Cold War/USSR and can see the parallels appearing in
our country. Are there no just men/women of intelligence who are not afraid to voice their concerns? There are a few,
but only in a small minority. It's bread and circuses, folks, just like in another era, the Roman days.

Re:But don't worry

[DanTheStone]

You are exactly wrong. It is an entitlement. ("An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation." - Wikipedia) And paying ahead for guaranteed income when you are old is not insurance. Insurance is to cope with a relatively unlikely risk by grouping together; everyone is going to get old, through no unlikely circumstances that they need to pool to mitigate.

Confirmed

[TaoPhoenix]

This is Legal Speak for Confirmed.

Thread Over.

Re:Confirmed

[darjen]

Yes indeed. "We wont tell you" is no different than a big fat "yes". I am sure that lots of people are dumb enough to be fooled by this though. :(

Re:Confirmed

[perryizgr8]

fact 1: people found nsa registry entries in windows xp.
fact 2: google is the new microsoft.

it is but natural that nsa will have deals with google.

Re:Confirmed

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the NSA figures out that Google is spying on everybody, including them, it will not be long before the NSA can neither confirm nor deny the existence of "Google"

Re:Confirmed

[1729]

Yes indeed. "We wont tell you" is no different than a big fat "yes". I am sure that lots of people are dumb enough to be fooled by this though. :(

The intelligence community nearly always sticks to "we can neither confirm nor deny..." That's not a de facto confirmation. Suppose it went something like this:

You: Are you working with Adobe?
NSA: No.
You: Are you working with Twitter?
NSA: No.
You: Are you working with Google?
NSA: No comment.

See the problem? That's why agencies (and individuals with clearances) are not supposed to confirm or deny allegations or leaks.

#googleisnsa

[Anonymous Coward]

History doesn't lie.

Misleading

[camperdave]

The National Security Agency does not have to disclose its relationship with Google amid press reports that the two partnered up after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government, a federal judge in Washington ruled.

It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

No there's not. If you had a right to know, the NSA would have to tell you.

Re:Misleading

[Grygus]

The National Security Agency does not have to disclose its relationship with Google amid press reports that the two partnered up after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government, a federal judge in Washington ruled.

It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.

I'll admit that I just woke up, but the distinction seems academic... I don't see any practical difference at all.

Re:Misleading

[erroneus]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "right" is. That goes into huge and lengthy discussion, but to say that rights come from government is not it, especially not the US government. (Yes, we know the government people are ignoring the constitution and their limits of power.) The government comes from the people and exists to preserve people and to protect the rights of the same people it comes from.

The freedom of information act formalizes the right to know. Often, FOIA requests are ignored or handled in bad faith... once again, people in government ignoring the law.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Security Agency does not have to disclose its relationship with Google amid press reports that the two partnered up after hackers in China launched a cyber attack on the U.S. government, a federal judge in Washington ruled.

It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.

I'll admit that I just woke up, but the distinction seems academic... I don't see any practical difference at all.

There is no difference. It's not even pedantic.

At least when someone doesn't tell you something and when you ask them why, they respond with "You didn't ask." and it's true, then one has a point. And this case, people ARE asking.

But the OP? Please. He's being a jackass.

Re:Misleading

[katyngate]

How do we get all these rights as we are born?

Re:Misleading

[Grygus]

What is his "fundamental misunderstanding"? It seems to me that you failed to articulate any error at all. If he has a right to know, NSA is obligated to tell him when asked; simply because the NSA has the option of acting illegally by ignoring a legitimate FOIA request does not change the underlying concept of rights. By declaring that NSA has no obligation to disclose, the right to know is formally denied, correct? I don't see where you made any point to the contrary.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeebus, go read up on the philosophies produced during The Enlightment, especially Rousseau's concept of "Dignity of Man", and how those philosophies influenced the Founding Fathers as they set out to write the Constitution. Also look up the phrase "inalienable rights"

Idiots like you are the reason we're losing more of our rights with each successive national election.

Re:Misleading

[wickerprints]

I interpreted the grandparent post as meaning that there is a distinction to be drawn between what information we, in principle, should have access to, versus the actual state of what we do have access to. In other words, we do have an intrinsic right to know--it is simply that this right is not recognized by the government.

Not all "rights" are those that are defined and granted by law. The US Constitution attempts to be as broad as possible in codifying certain basic rights, but as we have seen throughout history, that doesn't mean every right we do have is actually allowed to be exercised in practice. That comes down to the subjective interpretations of nine fallible old people, many of whom are beholden to personal biases and political interests. And quite often, the way they rule does in fact deny people of their actual rights on a very fundamental level.

As nice as it may sound to have a state that is of the people, by the people, for the people...that is not what the US actually is, nor has it ever been. The government has always been of itself, by itself, and for itself, and the people are merely a source of money and labor for the powerful to exploit. It's a lie on the same level of communist propaganda. All government exists to rob power from the individual to concentrate it for the few.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a court case where someone pleads the fifth. They cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. You just have to build the case without their testimony.

Re:Misleading

[zAPPzAPP]

The difference comes into play when obtaining this information from a different source (a leak, Google, own investigations...) and then redistributing it.
With one definition, this would get you into trouble (depending on your person, things like espionage, treason might get thrown at you), with the other one, you are fine.

This seems to be a case of the latter one.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is that you don't have a right to know.

The NSA is under no obligation to tell, true.

But this judge also says that you have no standing to find out through the court system if they're spying on you. Thus, you have no right to know.

If I have an affair, I'm under no obligation to confess. But a court that rules that my wife can't subpoena the suspected mistress is saying my wife has no right to know.

Re:Misleading

[Opportunist]

It's not that you don't have a right to live. It's that some TLA is under no obligation to let you.

Soon to come to a theater near you.

Re:Misleading

[Opportunist]

Erh... I somehow think it's NOT a good idea to go investigate whether Google is spying for the NSA. I'm kinda sure there's some kind of law for that, or that they don't need one to make you stop.

Re:Misleading

[zippthorne]

No it isn't. The ruling about subpoenaing your mistress does not extend to prohibiting your wife from hiring someone to follow you around with a binoculars and a camera. She can still find out, and she is not prohibited from retaining this knowledge if she has it.

She has a right to know.

Re:Misleading

[shentino]

Maybe it's "Google is a third party and what we decide to do or not do with them is none of your business".

Google's own privacy might well be an issue, and the judge might just be saying "Ask Google about it".

Re:Misleading

[Requiem18th]

But since their activities are secret who knows, maybe some people have been offed for exercising their "right to know" that.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all "rights" are those that are defined and granted by law.

Rights are not and can not be granted. They exist outside of any laws, constitution, ruler, etc.. If something is granted, it is a privilege, not a right. Privileges can be taken away by the whim of the ruling power. Rights can equally be infringed on a whim (as happens every day here in the US), but can not be taken away. They are inherent in your being.

The rest of that is pretty much accurate. The Supreme Court gave itself the power to rule on Constitutionality, so that is a bit suspect to say the least.

Re:Misleading

[bonch]

It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.

You can't find out if they won't tell you. There is no difference.

You're buying right into what they're doing. They're skirting around the issue of right to public knowledge by simply not saying anything. "Oh, it's not that you don't have a right to know. We just don't have to tell you when you ask. Therefore, we're not violating your right to know."

That's complete bullshit.

Re:Misleading

[perryizgr8]

actually, human beings do not have any intrinsic rights. each and every right is granted by the government. so, if the nsa is not under obligation to tell you, you do NOT have the right to know.

Re:Misleading

[ISoldat53]

We don't impeach enough judges.

Re:Misleading

[djdavetrouble]

Does anyone here know how to read government intelligence agency speak? I do, I watch several relevant TV shows. This case is closed, it quite clearly says the following: "Google and the NSA work very closely together, in fact Google was funded from the beginning with intelligence money and VC with this very idea in mind. None of this ever happened. Nothing to see here, please move along."

Re:Misleading

[Khyber]

Bet you Wikileaks has some documentation on Google spying for the NSA.

Re:Misleading

[HiThere]

You risk your portion of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" and ACT on them.

Rights are sort of peculiar. They exist, but they don't have any effective power except when people choose to exercise them. And there's no guarantee that there won't be heavy penalties in such exercise. There isn't supposed to be, not under our constitution. But that presumes that the government pays any attention to the constitution, or doesn't blatantly misinterpret it.

Mind you, I think parts of the constitution are blatantly unworkable as written in a densely urban civilization with fast transportation, but the appropriate answer is to change the constitution, not to ignore it.

Re:Misleading

[HiThere]

Not quite. The right to know is not equivalent to the right to coerce someone into telling you. I'll agree that it's not obvious how else he would know, but the two are not equivalent.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that some piece of information can be known does not make it true that you or anyone else has a right to know it.

People can hire PIs to look into NSA employees, too. The fact that NSA employees are probably better than the average person at concealing discrete information doesn't mean the right to know is any different in either case. Lower expenditure of resources to discover means nothing to whether or not you have a right to know it.

Re:Misleading

[Roogna]

Actually since by all legal definitions every member of the NSA is an employee of -us- the PEOPLE, we do indeed have a right to know what our employees are up to. Despite that we have proven throughout our short history that we the people are basically apathetic about the whole process which is why our employees get away with all the crap they get away with.

We also have the right to recall (fire) this same judge. But we the people will also be apathetic about that and let it slide.

Re:Misleading

[cheekyjohnson]

What? So where exactly is the evidence for these "inalienable rights"? People seem to like to spout their existence as fact, but from what I see, they're just something given to you by society that can be taken away quite easily.

Idiots like you are the reason we're losing more of our rights with each successive national election.

How do you lose an "inalienable right"? Furthermore, why does it matter whether or not someone believes in inalienable rights?

Re:Misleading

[cheekyjohnson]

They are inherent in your being.

What? Where is the evidence for this? Some people say that freedom of speech is an "inalienable right," but from what I see, it's just the "right" to not be penalized by the government for saying something that someone else does not like. I haven't seen any evidence that you are born with any "rights." As far as I know, you do not inherently have the "right" to do anything.

Re:Misleading

[rtb61]

Excuse me but the case in question was that a group was attempting to exercise it's right to know. The question is whether as a customer you have a right to know of any actions taken by a service provider with others will have a negative impact upon your rights. Especially in regards to network access where using a service can leave you computer network vulnerable to attack and illegal monitoring.

In this case you are forced to assume the worst possible association and work to limit the harm that could be caused by that association.

It really is not about how much information they gain about you, is is all about how edited versions with some information kept and other information excluded and hidden can be used to create a completely false impression of what is really going on. So you should have the right to know about all information that is held about you to ensure information that protects you is hidden and or lost and a false pattern of behaviour is created by the remaining information, a range of assumptions, false connections and associations.

Re:Misleading

[ikeman32]

It's not that you don't have a right to know. Its that the NSA is under no obligation to tell you. There's a big difference.

You can't find out if they won't tell you. There is no difference.

You're buying right into what they're doing. They're skirting around the issue of right to public knowledge by simply not saying anything. "Oh, it's not that you don't have a right to know. We just don't have to tell you when you ask. Therefore, we're not violating your right to know."

That's complete bullshit.

Where in the constitution is it witten that we have the right to know? Our rights are specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, AKA the first 10 amendments. Nowhere is it stated that we have any right to know. The right to know is not even implied, the only rights we have are in the constitution everything else is privilege.

I speak only for my self, let them spy on me. They will bore themselve to death doing so, thus deminishing their capacity to spy on others. Not true but I am entitled to my delusions until they take they away.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Our rights are specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, AKA the first 10 amendments. Nowhere is it stated that we have any right to know. The right to know is not even implied, the only rights we have are in the constitution everything else is privilege.

Either you've never actually read the Bill of Rights, or you're lying about what it says. So which are you: an idiot or a liar? No other options are possible, and any other response on your part (including nothing) is an irrevocable confession that it's "both".

Regardless, the Ninth Amendment was included specifically to address that bullshit argument you're making.

You will now make your choice: Idiot, Liar, or Both.

Re:Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

You have chosen "both". You screamed that confession at the top of your lungs, and you'll never be able to take it back.

Sooooo

[bky1701]

They are spying for the NSA for certain, then. Why else would they not be allowed to say? The US government needs to take a course in being opaque.

Re:Sooooo

[erroneus]

Google doesn't spy. Google is tapped into lots of information. Making information available to the government is not spying. Spying is about going places you shouldn't or wouldn't normally go to collect information which you are not entitled to have. Google doesn't hack and crack to get its information. It reads what's out there and uses program logic to sort and categorize the information of millions of sources to try to make useful sense of it... and then sells it.

Re:Sooooo

[TheGratefulNet]

so, google is a traitor of the people because it rats on the people.

call a spade a spade.

its a whore to the advertising guys and the spooks as well.

both *really* well respected folks, lemme tell you.

not that it really matters, but my going to start my migration away from google, and while I realize that they already know what they know, I see no need to keep filling their till with my emails, etc.

otoh, half - or more - of everyone I email seems to *also* be on gmail. so even if I migrate away, all my comms with x,y and zed will still land on their servers.

we were conned into falling for the easy and 'free' thing. now we pay the piper. maybe next generation will learn from our misplaced trust.

Re:Sooooo

[TheGratefulNet]

google is on the backbones. google can get at traffic. that's one thing. the other is that much of 'the internet' lands on google's servers via direct net.requests from users! no need to sniff when your traffic goes there on purpose!

they have you sliced, diced and ready for the oven.

Re:Sooooo

[erroneus]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Google is an advertising/marketing company and because of that, I only trust them to be what they are and act accordingly. They offer great candy to the people, but I am careful about which candy I will eat. No Chrome for me, thanks. I only run customized Android OS loads with a lot of crap removed. I use Google for searching. That's just about it. The social network? Yeah, not gonna play there.

Re:Sooooo

[Grygus]

That is an arbitrary definition of spying. There is no requirement for breaking and entering or hacking; merely secretly gathering information for potentially hostile use is spying, regardless of how the information is gathered.

Re:Sooooo

[rmccoy]

The NSA doesn't need google to watch all of your internet traffic. They are already on the backbones. Google can certainly add value to the spooks with their search-related technologies but do you really think any US corporation isn't going to role over when the guys-in-black come calling? We allowed the Patriot Act, among other forfeitures of our civil rights, what did you expect?

So, google got big because they did it best. Isn't that what the market is supposed to do? They did it before there were high barriers to entry and when there actually was a little bit of free in that particular marketplace. Even now, when the barriers to entry to search are much higher, they are mostly technical barriers, not ones put up by lobbyists and lawyers. I can live with that. The next search engine should be one that comes up with something fundamentally new, not the one with the best patent portfolio.

What irritates me most is people who are complaining about privacy who won't take any responsibility for protecting it. You can't expect privacy on the internet even if you don't use google. If you want privacy, start using encryption. There are free and open tools for every platform. Worried about traffic analysis? Wow, you must be doing something really interesting with your pron collection but, stil, there are tools for you to use to mask you traffic. Use them.

Use the time spent complaining about your loss of privacy and take it back. Make a personal threat model and respond to it.

Re:Sooooo

[Nick Ives]

I doubt Google has any choice in the matter. Your intelligence agencies can install fibre splitters wherever they please and intercept any traffic they like, as such the NSA will have complete access to Googles networks. If they're going further than that and Google is providing services to the NSA on a commercial basis then it's likely they were made an offer they couldn't refuse.

Here in the UK network admins have to comply with all requests by the intelligence services. It's a criminal offence to tell anyone - including a solicitor - that you're assisting an intercept. Given how information is copied all around the world in Google's cloud and how many countries have similar laws, it's safe to say our information is accessible to many agencies.

Re:Sooooo

[Requiem18th]

I know, honeypots, you have to thrust someone etc but startpage.com sounds good.

Re:Sooooo

[bonch]

Google doesn't spy.

It most certainly does, which is why it's under investigation by several governments in the world. Oh, sure, they claim they "accidentally" archived the data, but that suggests an absurd level of incompetence. Also, Google would never have told anyone about it if the German government hadn't probed for the information.

Also, I'd like to note that if any other company had done this, such as Microsoft, Slashdot would have torn their head off. Because it's Google, however, they got a lot of fan defense in the comments.

Re:Sooooo

[erroneus]

There was no shortage of outrage on slashdot over Google's collection of wifi data. I too expressed negatively over that. But I see Google within its own context. I've been in the advertising game selling free weekly newspapers. I know their hearts and how they think. No, Google's collection of data was not accidental, but it's also not like they parked outside and collected everything an individual had said either.

I don't defend Google here or anywhere. It's like being afraid of fire. You trust fire to an extent -- fire is useful, even necessary. But you must use it appropriately or bad things will happen. It's the same with Google as far as I am concerned. I am sure there are some who worship at the google.com altar. I don't. What's more, I think the general public is waking up to it as well. It is not necessary to hate Google. Just know it for what it is... kinda like a prostitute -- don't love them, don't hate them... they are a business, use them for what they offer and move on.

Re:Sooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Google doesn't hack and crack to get its information. It reads what's out there and uses program logic to sort and categorize the information of millions of sources to try to make useful sense of it... and then sells it.

More precisely, Google uses it to help others sell stuff. Google doesn't sell the information.

Re:Sooooo

[erroneus]

Thanks for turning me on to that. I never knew it existed. I will examine this further.

I've been saying this for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why all these internet website services are free, is because a corporation by NATURE is an Agent of government. Even "United States" is a federal corporation (Title 28 USCode 15(a)) that is animated by a dummy nation in District of Columbia known as The United States (Uniform Commercial Code 9-307 (h)) that has nothing to do with States of America.

Re:I've been saying this for years.

[DJRumpy]

Imagine the conspiracy theorists orgasms if they thought that Google was fronted by the U.S. government to basically get the world population hooked on an information service which happened to know just about everything about you online...

Re:I've been saying this for years.

[bky1701]

If only the government were competent enough to pull that sort of thing off.

Fuck you NSA!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a taxpayer i damm well DO have a right to know.
You know if we FIRED all you spooks. It would go a ways to fixing our budget problems in this country. A DECADE to find bin laden. You spooks all suck at your jobs. You're useless expensive waste.

Odds are google would tell us tho. If they even knew....

Re:Fuck you NSA!

[1729]

As a taxpayer i damm well DO have a right to know.

Should you have a right to know if Google is working with the NSA? I don't know. But being a taxpayer doesn't give you the right to all of the country's secrets; our collective security sometimes outranks your "right to know." You don't have the right to know who the FBI is investigating and the identities of undercover agents. You don't have the right to know the country's nuclear secrets. You don't have the right to know the security details for the White House or the plans for an upcoming military operations. There are legitimate reasons for the government to keep secrets.

Re:Fuck you NSA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly .. Google is NOT a governmental agency.We should be able to know whether THEY collaborate.

They do not need to confirm it

[houghi]

In times where people get grabbed at airports, wiretaps are done at almost random, why would the NSA NOT use and abuse google?

US citizens: you have made your nest (by voting between two evils) now sleep in it.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[shentino]

It's a two party system.

I had to vote for one of them.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because of course it's more free outside the US? Don't think so. At least we have some semblance of laws that protect the rights of citizens. Not for long I think.

Instead of false mockery, how do you propose instead to fix the situation? Both Republican and Democrat parties are in bed with security agencies, the military, and corporations. Obama is Bush III. He has maintained every bad law signed by W and even strengthened some. Shall we vote Green or Libertarian? Do you think they have a chance? No, instead we listened to Obama tell us what we wanted to hear, then proceed to act very differently once in office. So, either the president has no real power at all and the bureaucracy truly rules, or he was a sham to begin with. It is likely the country is turning to the right and will select a Republican next time due to a worsening economy. That will only increase the pace of spying against Americans, abuses at airport terminals, and soon more papers required to travel even by car or rail and complete monitoring of all communications. Eventually we will become like the rest of the world which is sliding ever more into tyranny.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that in the US there are no independent candidates running for either the US presidency or for congress ? I find that hard to believe

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Legion303]

It's a one-party system. You voted for the candidate with a slightly different label than the other candidate from this party.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

FTFY. Next time vote for the candidate that supports electoral reform.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[shentino]

At least someone got the reference.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Opportunist]

Please. Don't even try to convince anyone here that "oh, it's not a two party dictatorship, anyone can run and become a candidate". Please. The US were a two party system from its very start. 200 years of two party system and you really want to tell me nobody bothered to try to crack that duopoly? Aside of a few desperate or dumb enough, only to find out that they couldn't even get close to winning a single state, let alone a national election? It's now almost 100 years since a "third" candidate in a president election came out in front of either party (1912 Roosevelt actually came out second in front of Taft), ever since the "third" candidates were mostly cute side effects with some entertaining value.

Please stop perpetuating the myth that the US aren't a firmly entrenched two party system that ensures with its very system that nobody else can muscle in.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Opportunist]

Vote however you want. If elections could change anything, they'd have been outlawed ages ago.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[jamesh]

In times where people get grabbed at airports, wiretaps are done at almost random, why would the NSA NOT use and abuse google?

Someone gets it. And even if they did confirm it... what then? If I was an American citizen I wouldn't sleep any better with confirmation of the obvious. The next ruling by the judge would be "and you can't do anything about it".

And what does "spying for NSA" mean anyway? It could be "tell me google... how many searches today for 'how to use anthrax as a biological weapon'" or it could be "what has IP address 1.2.3.4 been searching for?". The former is probably a bit of a stretch for "spying", but you'd need a lot more information that "does google spy for NSA" for it to actually be useful.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[jamesh]

Next time vote for the candidate that supports electoral reform.

You mean a third-party candidate?

Go ahead, throw your vote away!

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Xacid]

Shut up and vote 3rd party if you don't like it. That's what I'm doing after voting mostly Dem the past 8+ years. I suggest everyone else do it as well. If we lose, fuck it, nothing new, but maybe we gain numbers and maybe gain traction.

As much as I rooted for Obama and his change it honestly feels like Bush v2.0. That seems to be the common sentiment here on Slashdot as well. So why both with Dem or Rep anymore? They don't represent my interests anymore.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Idbar]

So, to my understanding. This is a double edged sword. If they come out to confirm they DO have access, people may run or think they are being observed. If they come out and confirm they DON'T have access, people will think that's likely to be a harbor for criminals to contact each other.

Clearly, both situations are not convenient for either national security or Google.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[CrimsonAvenger]

"oh, it's not a two party dictatorship, anyone can run and become a candidate"

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, a man named Lincoln ran for President. He was the very first guy from his political Party to run for President. He won.

Needless to say, we didn't have just one political Party before 1860.

In the USA, a third Party has a lot of hurdles to overcome. The biggest, of course, is that, contrary to popular rumour, most everyone is in the middle, not in the lunatic fringes to both left and right.
Right now, the Dems are popular with the middle and the left.
The Repubs are popular with the middle and the right.

And the assorted third Parties are well out to either left or right, with almost no appeal to the middle.

As soon as a third Party understands the country well enough to position itself to be popular with about 40% of the country (as opposed to the 3% they aim to reach right now), there'll be a useful third Party.

Note, by the way, that neither the Greens nor the Libertarians make any real attempt to appeal to any part of the center, so they'll never be a viable third Party.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a party system at all, and you don't have to vote

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[t2t10]

US citizens: you have made your nest (by voting between two evils) now sleep in it.

And where is this any different? European intelligence services have at least as much power to access private data of European citizens, and they have had it pretty much forever.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[jjinco33]

No it is not. Yes, there are two major parties, but since everyone I know complains about both and wishes there was an alternative, perhaps it is time they began voting for the alternatives. I am so sick of the whining and complaining from those too lazy to vote or write their representatives or fucking vote for a different party. If you think you are throwing away your vote by doing so, why bother at all. It everyone that wishes for another choice actually took one of the available alternatives we may end up better off. So stfu and vote for somebody new or run for office yourself, but don't pretend there are only 2 choices.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[JonySuede]

are you serious or are you trolling ?
third party candidates are your only redemption.However, due to the pervasive tribe factor, people belong to a tribe and they stick to it. If more people were aware of theirs sub-symbolic behaviour activation, things would be a lot better. To everyone go reads some papers from the ACT-R community, you wont regret it.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[joocemann]

It's a two party system.

I had to vote for one of them.

It's people like you that reinforce the two party bs by playing along.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[bonch]

I think it's odd that people are surprised by this at all. Eric Schmidt flat out stated that only people with something to hide care about privacy. That is your beloved Google, folks.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[bonch]

Your third-party vote is a wasted vote.

Also, that you ever believed Obama in the first place is funny. The man broke his promises right from the beginning when he didn't use public campaign funds like he said he would, so it was obvious that he was nothing but an empty celebrity politician riding a wave of hype. I'll never understand how former Obama supporters can be surprised about the current state of affairs when it was obvious from the beginning. His policies have damaged the economy so greatly and raised the debt so astronomically that it will take decades to recuperate.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[bonch]

Right now, the Dems are popular with the middle and the left.
The Repubs are popular with the middle and the right.

Actually, Democrats are so unpopular right now that a generic Republican candidate beats Obama in the polls. This isn't surprising since the Democrats have been running the country without a budget for the last two years, in violation of the law.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[dcollins]

I'm pretty sure I voted for a candidate who promised the exact opposite of what he's done for 2+ years.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Opportunist]

You have to admit, Obama said "yes we can". Nobody said anything about doing something actually. You have to read the fine print, ya know...

And vote however you like. Until you manage to somehow wake up at least another 100 Million people or so, and all of them from the US, it's useless. And if you manage to somehow pull of that feat, I know a guy who could use your aid in his attempt to roll a stone uphill. He's been trying for a while now, too, but if you can turn the US into a multi-party system, aiding him should be trivial.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Xacid]

"Your third-party vote is a wasted vote."

No, that kind of mentality multiplied by millions of others is why we're in this situation. I don't care if we "lose" this vote in 2012, we as citizens needs to stick to our guns and vote how we feel instead of "choosing the lesser of two evils". I refused to be corralled into that anymore.

As for you Obama comments - sure, it's our fault. I'll take that responsibility. But I'm changing my voting behaviors as a result. What are you doing? We've still got a Dem/Rep congress that's behind a lot of the mess as well. It's not just Obama either.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Opportunist]

You have to admit, though, that 1860 was a VERY special case with the nation on the verge of the civil war. You will also notice that there are actually a few more moments in the history of the US with more than 2 candidates that actually had a nonzero chance of winning. But these aren't new parties that emerge when there are actually more than 2 serious contenders for the boss seat, usually it's happening when a party is about to break apart.

Yes, 1860 was a special year, and we should celebrate that a candidate from a party without a history could get elected. But the price was a wee bit high, don't you think?

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[ohnocitizen]

Its a two party system where both parties are corrupt, and partially in cahoots. Yet one party hurts people less than the other, so in voting people feel they have some kind of a choice, if not an obligation.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because there's absolutely no difference between Barack Obama and, say, Michelle Bachmann.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Anonymous Coward]

If its a one party system, why doesn't everyone vote for the one that doesn't want to raise their taxes?

Perhaps you should give up on you simplification that is untrue.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[ArundelCastle]

It's a two party system.

Yet the fact that there are typically more than two parties on a ballot, which the majority of voters believe will never win and don't want to "waste" their vote, is exactly why politics continues to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't have change, because you're not shuffling the deck.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[ArundelCastle]

In times where people get grabbed at airports, wiretaps are done at almost random, why would the NSA NOT use and abuse google?

More to the point, from the OP:

EPIC is worried the 'NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users.

Worried? I would think that was precisely something that is in the NSA's job description. Imagine if wiretapping was technically impossible. They would have to come up with an alternative.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Rich0]

I'm pretty sure I voted for a candidate who promised the exact opposite of what he's done for 2+ years.

So has about 95% of the voting population for the last 20 years. For whatever reason nobody ever figures this out...

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[swillden]

I think it's odd that people are surprised by this at all. Eric Schmidt flat out stated that only people with something to hide care about privacy. That is your beloved Google, folks.

That's Schmidt's opinion. It's not the opinion of most (or even very many) of the people at Google, or of the people making the decisions at Google, nor is it the opinion of the current CEO. Google takes privacy very seriously. Yes, there have been a few mistakes, but everyone makes mistakes, and Google has come clean about its mistakes and tried to fix them.

However, when faced with court orders or -- perhaps, I don't know this true, but I'm supposing -- arm-twisting by the NSA or other powerful branches of the US government, Google has little choice but to comply. And, at least for Americans, criticizing Google for complying with government requests is rather stupid. The government is supposed to serve the interests of and be under the control of the American people. We should be fixing the government, not depending on corporations to exercise civil disobedience.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Windwraith]

He's neither, he's quoting something from The Simpsons.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[JonySuede]

d'OH

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[F.Ultra]

Guess why he had to step down from beeing the CEO

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Opportunist]

A vote for a candidate I don't really want is not only a waste, it's actually one more vote for someone I don't want. Why the hell would I choose with my only vote that I have someone I do not want? Just 'cause the other guy is even worse?

We're not choosing the better man for the job. We're choosing the lesser evil. But why does the lesser evil have to be so insanely big? That "lesser evil" is akin to the "better" as answer to "how're you feeling?". "Better" is in this context NOT the comparative and superior to the positive! It's worse than good, but not as dreadful as the other condition was.

I refuse to hand my vote to someone who's just making me feel better but not good.

Re:They do not need to confirm it

[Xacid]

The trick isn't to get the stone over the hill alone. The trick is to wear one of the hills down to a manageable level first and then proceed.:)

Me says

[obarthelemy]

I do: they do.

Sky=Falling

[SomewhatRandom]

Short version = I think I speak for most individuals when I say, Duh.

Long Version =

The illusion of anonymity that is the Internet. Does anyone honestly believe you have any real expectation or right of anonymity online?

When you hit a webserver... Logs are generated/stored
When traffic you generate is either passed through or blocked at a firewall... Logs are generated/stored
When you use a search engine from a company in the advertising industry (ex: google)... logs are generated/stored
Rinse and repeat for just about anything you do online... and add in a dash of other miscellaneous things like tracking cookies, flash cookies, etc...

In some cases logs are obfuscated, but not usually. I mean c'mon - legitimate advertising companies have gotten pretty good at targeting ads for users by datamining and trending data, do you honestly believe the NSA isn't doing this to a creepy scope and scale?

Correlating data mined from multiple sources (logs, cookies, etc...). is an expensive process from a resource standpoint. Anonymity through obfuscation, apathy, and prohibitive costs may be seemingly effective, but it is not absolute.

Re:Sky=Falling

[TheGratefulNet]

The illusion of anonymity that is the Internet. Does anyone honestly believe you have any real expectation or right of anonymity online?

is it worth having? do you think its completely gone? is it preservable? recapturable?

(I know, I ask a lot of questions for someone from new jersey)

I don't think the horse has completely left the barn, yet. maybe we should try to not lose what we DO still have, hmm?

or, shall we just say fuck-it and throw in the towel like smitty over at big-G wants?

Re:Sky=Falling

[HiThere]

If you want anonymity, set up a mesh network. Convince your city to run a mesh network with an internet connection. I'm not sure that onion routing is good security, because I think you are identifiable at both ends. (Could be wrong.)

Just realize that a lot of the anonymous traffic is going to be illegal, and you are likely to be considered suspect. (Less so if your city does set up a mesh network, but I think that the commercial ISPs have set a legal precedent that it's "unfair competition".)

To almost anyone willing to buy it, including the

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is willing to sell their information to almost anyone willing to buy it, including the NSA and other government agencies.

However, I have doubts that the NSA uses google any more than any other business does. I do suspect that the NSA has been using network based methods to access internal devices for years. We're talking about protocols OTHER THAN UDP and TCP here. Cisco, Netgear and other similar types of companies concern me much more than google, since we all know that anything placed into the cloud is fair game for anyone to see (at some point), right?

Even the best cloud companies will either make a mistake or the technology in use will fail to secure our data. Get over it.

Don't blame google. In the specific case involving Chinese attacks against large multinational companies (most US based), I'm certain all sorts of government agencies were involved. I suspect the NSA did a bunch of listening to those conversations, but probably didn't provide much information back to google, if any at all. google is really good at what they do and if the right people were in the room (on the call), then I'm not too worried that they didn't figure out 90% of the scope of the attacks.

Motto makes sense now

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be evil.. Or else.

What did you expect?

[jfroebe]

Seriously, if the NSA said that they were NOT working with Google, would you believe them? It is probably safe to assume that the NSA, CIA and a myriad of other agencies are working with other governments and companies. If they weren't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

Re:What did you expect?

[bky1701]

There is a name for the system of government where semi-secret agencies work with private business to achieve nationalist-themed "security." It's called fascism.

Re:What did you expect?

[HiThere]

That's not quite fascism. Fascism doesn't have any requirements of secrecy. That's an optional extra. And I think that under fascism the state is supposed to control the companies, rather than the other way around. Of course, in practice there's always a lot of give and take, especially around companies that are as powerful as many governments. (And in practice you will always find lots of clandestine activity. It may be an optional extra, but it seems to always be present.)

But stuff that's "in practice" isn't a part of the definition.

The Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is this guy then he was appointed by George W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Leon

So they are then.

[SeaFox]

After all, if Google wasn't spying for the NSA, they'd have nothing to hide... :-3

If you don't like this..

[morikahnx]

Elect officials that will change the laws. Its that simple (well not that simple to do, but pretty simple to say).

Re:If you don't like this..

[bky1701]

Electing them is easy, yeah. Finding them... that's pretty damn hard.

The general public might not have the right,

[EmagGeek]

but shareholders absolutely have the right to know what Google is spending money on, and from where it is deriving its income. Shareholders are entitled to details about Google's assets, liabilities, income sources, and other financial details. If The Google is getting involved in shady backroom deals with the federal government, especially those that might later be found to be illegal, unconstitutional, crimes of War, or crimes against humanity, it puts shareholders at a substantial risk they deserve to know about.

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[sosume]

orly?

I am an Apple shareholder. According to your logic, I can phone Steve Jobs now and demand he shows me the design of the iPhone 5, amirite? As a shareholder I am entitled to details about Apple's assets, liabilities, income sources, and other financial details, amirite?

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. You're an owner of the company. If they refuse, you aren't really an owner and your stock is worthless.

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[Anonymous Coward]

As a shareholder, you're the owner of the frigging company. If you don't agree with how your partners run the company, either buy'em out, or get out yourself. If majority shareholders jumped off a cliff, would you also jump off a cliff?

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[Anonymous Coward]

if your share is above 50% you cannot only phone and ask him, you can grab his char!

Always depends on the numbers....

You definitely have the right to be informed before the general public about important changes and business decisions for the year.

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[Opportunist]

Umm... as a US citizen, ain't you kinda the "owner" of your country according to that old parchment starting with "We, the people"? Bark up the right tree and go to the source.

Re:The general public might not have the right,

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Get the proper clearance and the need to know, and you can find out pretty quick. Unfortunately for you, then you won't be able to legally tell anyone else and the cycle continues.

No Such Agency

[lexsird]

I have a bumper sticker for you; "It's a modern world; Surveillance Happens!"

Our government has been eavesdropping on us since the telegraph. Accept it, get over it. I don't worry because I am a "good ole boy". If they watch the likes of me with an iota of interest, the world must indeed be safe and boring. 99.99999999% of us are boring as hell. Hence is why you have to automate this crap and search for key words, then individual vocal and speech patterns. I bet they have some sweet gear for listening in on us these days. If they don't, I am so seriously disappointed it makes me want to cry. If they don't, lets pitch in and get them something for Christmas, ok?

On a slightly more somber note, I can't imagine what kind of monster computer these guys have. Seriously, what would YOU do with their computers if you were contracting for them and had access to them for a few hours. I would find a list of women who like middle aged fat guys. Make some serious raytraced animated porn? Or would you submit your "mind simulator" into it and see if you create a singularity? I think therefor I am? Or just get everyone in the building to get on a terminal and see what game everyone could play at once? Everyone log into WoW, make gnomes and storm Ironforge to be epically annoying?

Eww! I know, one could steal back all the money and give it to the poor. They would just blow it and the rich would get it again, but it would make a grand holiday.

Come on, people. It's the NSA, they are the weird uncle of the intelligence agencies as it is. They aren't worried about your mp3s, torrents, or your pron. 99.9999% of us are incapable of being weird enough to make their radar. Right? Besides, I am a Google fan, they stood up to China, and probably still are standing up to them. If the NSA is working with Google, that is cool. I bet they have some awesome apps for agents. "Google Agent"; I can see it now.

Can't lick 'em, join 'em?

Re:No Such Agency

[The O Rly Factor]

Those are some pretty contradicting words for someone whose sig says "Free Julian Assange."

"He who is willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little bit of temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Re:No Such Agency

[nurb432]

On a slightly more somber note, I can't imagine what kind of monster computer these guys have. Seriously, what would YOU do with their computers if you were contracting for them and had access to them for a few hours. I would find a list of women who like middle aged fat guys. Make some serious raytraced animated porn? Or would you submit your "mind simulator" into it and see if you create a singularity? I think therefor I am? Or just get everyone in the building to get on a terminal and see what game everyone could play at once? Everyone log into WoW, make gnomes and storm Ironforge to be epically annoying?

Dont worry, you will never find out. They take their job seriously.

Re:No Such Agency

[swillden]

99.99999999% of us are boring as hell

So only one person in 10 billion is not "boring as hell"? That means there are only 0.7 people in the world the NSA finds interesting? I think you have a few too many nines there.

99.9999% of us are incapable of being weird enough to make their radar.

This is a bit better, but still... this means that only 300 people in the US are "weird enough to make their radar".

The mathematical equivalent of using five exclamation points aside, the real problem is that you don't know, and you can't know if you'll ever be "interesting" to the NSA, FBI, etc. Given the vast numbers of laws on the books -- including secret laws you're not allowed to know about -- you have no idea whether or not you're breaking even the written law, much less whether or not something you have done or will do may someday break some unwritten rule or just plain offend someone in power. And you certainly have no way of being sure that something you didn't really do, but only appeared to have done may someday offend someone in power.

We really need to bring our rogue government agencies under control. The NSA is actually not supposed to be allowed to spy on US citizens, you know. Not that it stops them.

Re:No Such Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

"9.9999% of us are incapable of being weird enough to make their radar. "

Unless you're gay, or not a Republican/Democrat, or are a racial equality advocate, or a free speech campaigner, or any other kind of "subversive"

Re:No Such Agency

[n dot l]

Our government has been eavesdropping on us since the telegraph. Accept it, get over it. I don't worry because I am a "good ole boy". If they watch the likes of me with an iota of interest, the world must indeed be safe and boring. 99.99999999% of us are boring as hell.

We may all be safe from official government sanction, but that data isn't just being thrown away, and you don't know who has (or will have) access to it. The people who work at the NSA are people like all others, subject to corruption and incompetence like everybody else. That can, in the absence of proper oversight (which doesn't exist for the NSA) situations like the following:

I have (well, had) a friend who grew up in the USSR. She told all sorts of lovely stories about how the guys running the archives where the secret police dumped the files of people they weren't interested in any more would skim through the data and then go around blackmailing people (including stuff like having young teens rob their own families for them if they didn't want all their embarrassing secrets told to all their peers - you can imagine what that did to some families), or selling blackmail material to neighbors with a grudge. They got so notorious for the actual secrets they'd revealed that they could walk up to people they had nothing on and get money out of them with remarks like, "Say, that's a lovely reputation you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

Wikileaks (which you reference in your sig) has already shed light on some of the modern-day shenanigans our public "servants" are getting up to, as has the UK tabloid fiasco, and those are just two very recent examples. Do you seriously trust those people with all that data, even if you aren't breaking any laws? Could you trust your friends, family, and neighbors if all that data were to suddenly start "leaking" and it became trivial for others to blackmail them?

Re:No Such Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA is actually not supposed to be allowed to spy on US citizens, you know. Not that it stops them.

If you can't spy on your worst enemy, of what use are spies?

Re:No Such Agency

[lexsird]

The whole Assange/Wikileaks thing is a comedy of errors OR its a straw man. I lean towards it being a straw man of sorts, or bait; a kind of honeypot if you will. If they put enough emphasis on Assange/Wikileaks they become more "credible". Then you set back and watch what rolls their way from whom. Lo and behold, they have earned their "bones" by fighting with the US and doing some "incarceration". Hell, they probably don't even know they are bait, that is the best kind, no? I seriously don't think Assange will have much happen to him. They will rough him up so to speak, and turn him back out on the street. He will have an attitude that will play well into his role. Then he and his people become a "fishing hole", the surveillance orgy will begin.

Or not.

But lets pretend everything is as it appears. Assange/Wikileaks are some rogue out of American jurisdiction freedom fighters that have rumpled the tail feathers of the powerful elite and they want him silenced. We can't have people like that dumping state secrets out to the world can we? Of course not, but we have to wait for the slow wheels of the justice machine to grind him up, so we keep him on ice and out of more mischief, because heaven knows, we can't find anyone if they give us the slip. 10 years to catch the most wanted man in the world, right?

So what are we looking at, extradition? Prison time? Oh yeah, a trial of course. This is what one would expect, no? But will it?

What we will have is probably as follows. Extradition of course, then a trial, then he gets freed. The case will be made that we need tougher laws, more comprehensive ones for situations like this and budgets will swell. It will play out with boring predictability, much like the DSK situation is. I say free him now, spare us the charades and the elevated drama.

Re:No Such Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're too boring to worry" is a standard pro-surveillance argument.

The standard reply, which you haven't addressed, is "I may be boring, but what about the people who speak up for me, or the people I vote for, or anyone who is in a position to make a difference for me?"

You can bet these people are actively surveilled.

And if you act for yourself you will be too.

Re:No Such Agency

[lexsird]

I had a nagging feeling in the back of my mind as I was mashing down the 9s that someone would take them literal. But on the other hand, why spoil someone's fun of scrutinizing them? Please keep in mind, as I do, the following; 76% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (that number just was..lol) And there are liar, damn liars and statisticians.

The point was, to the average Joe, this is all meaningless. Honest people seriously don't care. Which is a problem of course, because it enables such entities in question to operate off the reservation with relative impunity from the prying eyes of the public. You aren't going to interrupt the average Joe's interest in American Idol or whatever brain dead past time, long enough to even explain the problem.

Secondly, just what are you going to ask, "Hey, are you guys watching me?" To which they should naturally reply, "No, should we?" This whole conversation reminds me of my home state, we have a Tax Stamp for marijuana, if you don't have this on your weed and you are busted, you get charged with not having a tax stamp. Nobody in their right mind who is up to no good is going to apply for a Tax Stamp for their weed nor are they going to knock on the NSA's doors and ask for a cup of sugar and by the way, are you watching me?

Third, most people are small boring fish to them. We are creatures of habit and if you have a file, it's probably a small boring one at that. Now if you are a person of interest to them, then you probably know about most of this anyway unless you are "low hanging fruit". Now as far as our 300 number, that is a serious amount of trouble makers to keep track of. Again, consider UBL and how long he evaded us. Even if they knew about him and let him romp around free to extend the war and their budgets, we still get to kid them about it. Anyway, consider 299 more of his ilk running around. That suddenly becomes a big number when you put the right magnitude to it.

As far as them going rogue, I doubt it. This isn't the USSR, we have an iota of accountability here. Which means one thing to me, if your co-worker or boss is doing something against the rules, you can burn them, get rid of them and either move up or get a pain in your ass out of the way. Then you have agency squabbles over jurisdiction. Also, someone mentioned the private sector's intelligence agencies, these are seriously disturbing, but then again, that is human nature. All of this to me equates into some twisted check and balance system. They are NOT going to make enough racket to wake the sleeping giant.

This is why you have a judge looking at some law nerds wanting to beat on the NSA door, thinking they are some pseudo-tea party out to liberate us from "the man", and he tells them "NO!". It's all very complicated and if you are late to the party, please STFU. Besides its like playing Whack-a-Mole, (no pun intended), you get rid of one batch of these assholes and 3 more pop up to replace them. Better the devil you know over the devil you don't.

Re:No Such Agency

[lexsird]

The problem with USSR was the commie party was a bunch of thugs. Thugs don't report other thugs and move up the ladder. They had it all nailed down tight and there was an element that allowed them to rule with fear and the iron fist.

It's not that we are more moral here, but we have a system that isn't completely locked down by any single element. You pull crazy extortion stunts like that here, and someone is going to lose their mind on you eventually. It's just the kind of chink in your armor that someone probably near to you will exploit and stick it to you. In this free range environment, too many things can go wrong with a good conspiracy, and you really don't have the solid system that the USSR did to fall back on and protect you. There is going to be someone playing "goodie two shoes" and spoil the party, especially if they aren't getting their cut. Or you can just have enemies who will find something out and burn you. Let's not forget the "crusaders", those who really are absorbed in "doing the right thing."

Freedom of speech and press are complete buzz kill for this kind of stuff. As screwy as our system is, it's working in spite of us, them and itself. So far anyway...sort of ...lol.

Re:No Such Agency

[swillden]

I think yours is a very dangerous attitude... and all the more dangerous because it's so common.

Of course!

[Whuffo]

You can't have secret police unless you keep their activities secret, right? Close your web browser, citizen - you're not cleared to receive this information.

Re:Of course!

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR...

non-elected Government is the aggressor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Elected governments are always the mascots of the private world. What the elected government can't legislate to collect publicly, they'll send their swarms of private adminsitrative bodies to invent social mediums and fads that collect intelligence that everyone freely gives but have the strange preminition that if ever was in the hands of an elected government would be a security issue. Typical retards.

Re:non-elected Government is the aggressor.

[MightyMartian]

So the Winkelvoss twins should have been suing the US government, and not Mark Zuckerberg after all, right?

Right or Wrong ?

[whychevron]

The most important acts of a civilization, be they atrocities against life or acts of compassion beyond understanding, are always done in the name of the greater good. And no one who acts in the name of the greater good believes they are wrong. That is why " right " and " wrong" are so often indistinguishable.

Let's try it the other way.

[slasho81]

Can Google confirm or deny a relationship with the NSA?

Re:Let's try it the other way.

[russotto]

Can Google confirm or deny a relationship with the NSA?

If Google were to deny it, would you believe them? If the NSA were to deny it, would you believe them? If the NSA were to demand information from Google and Google were to refuse, do you think the NSA would simply give up and go away, or would they find some way to obtain the information?

IMO, it's a pretty safe assumption that if the NSA wants information from Google, they can get it, by hook or by crook, no matter what either of them say about it.

To assume they are not helping "them" is silly...

[Desmoden]

Trailblazer and like programs crawl data to look for behavioral patterns. It's quite logical, if a wee bit over reaching.

To assume that anything you do, say, click, view online is not subject to search, record, and data mining is to have a basic misunderstanding of reality.

Well, this is an EPIC fail...

[herojig]

Consider this: the internet was not created and then we began to lose our right to privacy, but instead, the internet was created to bypass our right to privacy, and we all fell for it.

I for one welcome our conspiracy pverlprds!

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA can neither confirm nor deny that (insert name of any web organization here) is another tool to toss speculation and uninformed opinions into the political soup.

Might even be able to apply that to this website, but I'm sure the NSA has better things to do than violate domestic surveillance laws. It used to be the CIA got blamed for everything and then right around the late 80's and the beginning of the 90's the vogue scapegoat was the NSA. The CIA loved that, and the American public left the theater with glazed over eyes thinking that NSA and government conspiracies were evil. I sure am glad I live in a republic and not a straight democracy.

Patriotic duty to test their exception code

[Anonymous Coward]

Their code is going to have to get good at finding things like blow up the pentagon and distinguish between that and real threats. Especially if everyone decides to put blow up the pentagon in every communication and every email. :-P

No Such Agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember it has only been a few years since you had the right to even know the NSA existed.

BTW Hi Brian, Brian, Mark, John and Josh

Most users should care

[Murdoch5]

Okay so what, the NSA is looking into it's user base, so what! Unless you have something to hide you really shouldn't care. If people in this day and age can't realize that when your on the net your business is available to everyone then they shouldn't be using a computer. RMS and others that preach about freedom and the right to not be found etc... etc... etc... have the right idea but unless you willing to give up the very technology that can easily point you out and look into you then don't complain. It's like people complaining that they can be tracked with the GPS in there phone, you bought the phone so deal with it. The sooner people deal with the fact that you can no longer really be left alone the better.

Re:Most users should care

[Jerry]

"...Unless you have something to hide you really shouldn't care."

And who decides if that "something" is suspect or not, and who gives them the right to make that decision, or even do the search? The conundrum is exactly why the Founding Fathers wrote the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

When I put my private information into a safe, or hide it under the mattress, or paste it behind a picture, it is obvious that, for what ever reasons, I do not want others to view that information without my consent. To obtain that information without my consent authorities have to convince a judge that probable cause exists that a crime has been committed and the proof is in that hidden information. Their search warrant, which must be presented to me, is not a fishing expedition, it must list specific items. That I decide to pass or store that information in or through email systems or Internet servers does not change the condition between me, my information, and the 4th Amendment. That government authorities are using "security concerns" to violate both the 4th and 5th Amendments (it is the government doing the searching at airports) is only a prelude to further violations of our civil rights. We are passed the nose of the camel. It has stuck it's entire head into the tent. The body will soon follow. What else is a 250,000 person "civilian national defense force", armed as well or better than our military, good for? And, why do we need a "CNDF" when we have the National Guard?

Re:Most users should care

[Murdoch5]

Your not making a fair comparison, your comparing military and the Internet. Do you have the right to be pull over when ever and have you stuff gone through, NO. Do you have the right to be prosecuted for private documents NO, do you have the right to a voice YES. But this has very little to do with the Internet. A better comparison would be take a picture and stick it in your car window and drive by police, if the picture is harmless your fine, if it's a 3 year old spread egg and naked you better be getting pulled over. Thats the point, if you put information on-line then ANYONE can have access to it, period!!! If your worried about someone coming by and reading it then encrypt or secure it, doesn't mean they can't take but it will a lot harder for them to actually get to the proper information.

Another good contrast to make here, if you have documents on your computer then they aren't public either, the same way as if that picture in your window is hidden in a suitcase in the car. No one has the right to come over and take a look at it because it's in a private and personal place. There is NO where on the Internet that you can point to and call private. The Internet was never designed to be a highly private invention, just because people today want it to be doesn't make it so. If what you have to share with everyone is so important no one else can read it then find another way to get it to them or just don't.

Also the founding fathers never had to deal with the Internet, I'm sure the documents that form any country would be radically different if it was around. The final point is the Internet is a public place, you put anything on it, anyone can get it. Deal with it!!!

Re:Most users should care

[Murdoch5]

I'm not trying to bust you up but when people say the Internet and then compare to something else I see it as comparing apples to oranges. I'm not saying your wrong, but in my view point your wrong, and thats different.

There are better search engines out there

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to viral websites or anything but I've been using some other search engines that are pretty awesome.

http://www.duckduckgo.com
http://startpage.com

Both use Google but apparently are high in privacy (they don't track you etc).

Starpage works great.

Re:There are better search engines out there

[Jerry]

StartPage uses Google.
It appears that DuckDuck.com is for sale.

Re:There are better search engines out there

[perryizgr8]

duckduckgo uses bing.

Re:There are better search engines out there

[perryizgr8]

its duckduckgo.com

Re:There are better search engines out there

[Anonymous Coward]

ixquick.de

No logging, https throughout, & free https proxy

I'm so surprised...

[peppepz]

Who could have thought that giving away our personal information over the Internet was a bad idea...
I wonder if further concentrating all those information into the hands of a single company will make things worse? Naah, they're "not evil", what could possibly go wrong.

Why is it confirmed?

[Karljohan]

Isn't it legal speak for "hmmm... but... if we deny this, won't you just keep asking the same thing about all companies until we say that we can't comment?"

Microsoft and NSA have been cooperating since XP..

[Jerry]

A NSA official admits.

You Can't Handle The Truth

[shinehead]

'nuff said.

Here is a clue

[WindBourne]

Which companies have fought the gov. and which have not? I would look a lot closer at the companies that do not fight with the gov, then the one that likes to fight them. Bing anyone?

Won't you gentlemen...

[ringmaster1982]

...have a Pepsi?

nothing new

[t2t10]

Intelligence agencies all over the world can look at lots of things and you won't find out. They get Internet connection data, packet contents, data stored in the cloud. Both in the US and Europe (as well as elsewhere), they can install key loggers and viruses on your computer to track what you type, get your passwords, access your data, etc. This didn't start with 9/11, it's been there since the cold war (although it has been more restricted in the US than elsewhere). It's questionable, but it hasn't been such a big problem in the past because very few people were ever accused of being spies or terrorists.

What's worrisome is that these powers are now being extended to the police and that the definition of terrorism has been extended so far. Those are the changes you should really be worrying about.

Three Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Luks VirtualBox Tails

Paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone has a case of paranoia. Let's all stop using technology, cell phones, credit cards, etc. and become recluse in under ground caverns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

Singnaling network

[Anonymous Coward]

Google server network is a signaling network, or a receiver of signals like any other. The NSA was created to do this.

lmgtfy

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+google+spying+on+me+for+the+nsa%3F

What about Societal Information Systems collection

[sgt_doom]

After all, that NSA/CIA department which does that (officially now known as the Arizona college system) must be kept busy for receiving all those government monies?????? And payoffs for claiming that Ivens from Ft. Detrick was the "responislbe party" for that Anthrax???? Surely you're not serious, shirley????

Re:Microsoft and NSA have been cooperating since X

[Anonymous Coward]

Link is quite broken. Here is it fixed: http://michaelstechnology.blogspot.com/2011/04/nsa-helping-microsoft-with-windows-7.html

You're sooo riiiight, mccoy dood...

[sgt_doom]

...after all, THE CONSUMER is always the responsible perpetrator in Amerika!!! Why, we were the ones at McSoftware who created the advapi.dll, after all. And we created that Narus box over in Israel, financed through the Walden private equity fund, whose funds flowed from the Amerikan DoD. But why quibble over trifles, heh????

Re:You're sooo riiiight, mccoy dood...

[rmccoy]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say but, gosh, you're saying it so badly it must be important!

I'm not saying we're always responsible and that governments and companies should be given a free pass. Exactly _not_ my attitudes. What I'm saying is that, if you're paying attention, the internet was not built with security in mind. If you think that google "not being evil" would make you safe, you don't understand how things work.

Piss and moan all you want about evil empires but take fucking responsibility for using the tools other have made for you if you really need security. Whining isn't going to do it, dude.

lexsird, a k a, Mr. Sesame Streeter!!!

[sgt_doom]

Sorry, dood, but while you doubtless believe you sound really, really hip, Mr. Hipster, you really sound like the classic douchebagger who is clueless to the existence of the Financial-Intelligence-Complex, which has long existed --- NOT for any National Security Purpose --- but to collect financial intelligence for their very own profit and gain, and for ever greater control of the masses (which would be you and me, dood). It's always been their thievery of the economic surplus (Thorstein Veblen), or the thievery of public funds for private use (Gustavus Myers), or Other People's Money (Louis Brandeis). It's called grand theft-larceny, douchebagger dood, and they've been getting away with it for far too long.....

Re:lexsird, a k a, Mr. Sesame Streeter!!!

[lexsird]

I loved Sesame Street, leave it alone!

As far as espionage, it's being going on since Cain and Able, and they have been spying, stealing, killing ever since. What does civilian intelligence have to do with this anyway? If you have an axe to grind with civilian intelligence, please have at it. Have fun, wallow in it, I will applaud. But seriously, don't you find it kind of silly to be busting the NSA's balls over working with Google?

For me it's a tell that they are working with Google. Frankly if they are, it's kind of a disappointment. To me, they shouldn't have to "work with them". They should have things nailed down, and working with Google to me is a sign of weakness. WTF is with that? Shouldn't they have the resources to get the job done already? Or have they been hamstrung by politicians so that they are weaksauce and easy to dance around if you are a multinational corporation wanting to stick your dick in everything in sight without being fussed with by the NSA? I see far too many government regulatory agencies being castrated and lo and behold we end up in some serious shit from the lack of proper oversight of the real assholes. Look at Wall Street and how the regulation of it was cut down to nothing and now "the bubble burst". "The bubble burst" translates into "We fucked everyone until it all collapsed."

This might all be fine and dandy to us, but China doesn't give a flying fuck. They have us by the balls financially if you haven't noticed. The fuckers have had a field day with us since Clinton. Google stood up to them if you don't recall. Then Google gets attacked by them. Are we suppose to take it? And if we do something official, then doesn't that mean we can anger our "Chinese Overlords?" That's all we need right now is some law geeks poking around for conformation. If you haven't noticed, we are in a game for all the marbles with these Chinese cocksuckers. Sure, we have plenty of assholes, but at least they are OUR ASSHOLES. Get with the program or help teach Mandarin.

Re:lexsird, a k a, Mr. Sesame Streeter!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

" They have us by the balls financially if you haven't noticed. The fuckers have had a field day with us since Clinton. Google stood up to them if you don't recall. Then Google gets attacked by them. Are we suppose to take it?"

Negative, the corporations, or Transnational Capitalist Class has been pumping jobs over there (and elsewhere) while using OPM (other people's money) to build all their foreign factories, facilities, etc., meanwhile part of the financial scheme is for the Chinese Totalitarian Capitalist State to buy American junk paper to keep the pyramid structure afloat. It's not "them against us" --- only the lowbrows such as yourself fall for that simpleton claptrap, sonny. Get with the program. Learn languages plus math plus finance plus econ.---------sgt_doom

Assault on Assange

[sgt_doom]

Well stated The O Rly Factor....although I rather despise your handle, as I despise that Irish-American cretinous draft-dodger.

But let us not forget the many tentacles of the Bonnier media family (Bonnier AB, among the top 10 media corporations in existence) to every single accuser on the Assault on Assange, along with the connections between Wallenberg family and the American DoD, etc. (Anna Ardin worked for several Bonnier publications, and also through the Swedish foreign office; Thomas Bodstrom publishes his fiction through a Bonnier company -- he's attorney #2, and former Justice Minister who aided the CIA in their unlawful, and as it turned out, incorrect, extreme rendition of two Swedes of Arab extraction; Claes Borgstrom, attorney #1, whose two sisters work for Bonnier companies, Carl Bildt, a close associate of the Wallenberg family (they attend all those Bilderberg meetings, don'tcha know?), and Bildt was the first to appoint the present Justice Minister, Beatrice Ask, to a cabinet position when Bildt was a previous Swedish prime minister; and Ambassador Elisabet Bonnier, a member of the Bonnier family, who expedited Anna Ardin's entrance into Israel and Gaza when she was escaping media attention in Sweden. (Wallenberg is heavily invested in ABB and Investor AB --- Rumsfeld was a director at ABB during the '90s, when ABB sold nuclear technology and materials to North Korea.)

No answer = an obvious answer, if you are smart.

[Anonymous Coward]

This stooge disguised as a judge telling us "we cannot know" is tantamount to telling us that
the answer is that Google does of course work closely with the NSA.

An intelligent person will operate based on the assumption that
NSA can and does get virtually all data Google has on hand. Think about
it : why wouldn't NSA be able to do this ? Do you think Larry or Sergei
want to have an "accident" ? We are talking about the highest level of
power in the ( not for much longer in terms of decades but for now ) the most powerful country
in the world. What the NSA wants, the NSA gets.

GOOGLE IS THE NSA

[entertainment]

DUH

It's societal induction through commerce.

[Anonymous Coward]

The link between the corporation as agent for a government is like how a transformer inducts a secondary winding of copper to move another circuit indirectly. When you have adhesion contracts that are legislatively existential, then that is the key to jurisdiction: appearance. That's why ZIP codes, otherwise known as Zone Improvement Plans, are the commercial services loophole that overlays the jurisdiction of agents from District of Columbia into the Several States west of the Mississippi River and the States of America east of the Mississippi River. ZIP Code and Street Addresses having nothing to do with mail but is a commercial service matter that is separated from lawful assemblies meeting at the general post office of the County-seat. Why address you with a number on a street, other than the address of "secretary" or "treasurer of your assembly? Jurisdiction is why. Anything addressed with a ZIP code is a trust indenture granted and you are suited through a regulated alter-ego principal known by a registered Birth Certificate minted on Security-bond paper most-likely from American Banknote Company and stored in Depository & Trust Company over in Washington DC. Welcome to another Torrens system, where the only way out is to die or Revoke & Rescind all signatures for lack of trust or misplaced trust and counterfeiting. Just because the United States gained liberty and freedom from Brittain, do you think they wouldn't use the same tacticts on Americans as the Brittish used against American statesmen?

Irrelevant.

[jakeroberts]

Can you trust the government? No. That's why we have regular elections to minimize exposure. Can you trust big corporations? No. The CEOs of huge corporations like Google are responsible first and foremost to their share holders. Pissing the government off tends to lead to troublesome inquiries and so on, so fo course Google is going to play ball. Can you trust yourself? Yup. Google is NOT the internet. You can limit the information they have on you. There are other search engines. Duck Duck Go is a good example of this. No free email service is secure, but you can use plugins like thunderbird-enigmail to encrypt and sign your messages, or, if you have the technical chops, run your own mail server in-house. You can use anonymizing technologies like TOR and I2P to keep your browsing habits private. Your privacy is always going to be in far better hands with yourself than with a third party anyway.

SSL Cipher Renegotiation

[Anonymous Coward]

Do a sniff of your gmail and https traffic to google from anywhere outside the US, and you will see that it changes the cipher key to a smaller bit length after the initial session is negotiated.

Sure, "performance reasons", but performance for whom?

& the world's 2ND oldest profession is...

[vaporland]

...marketing. not much different from the world's oldest profession.

when you have a scorpion on your back, don't be shocked when it stings you.

you knew it was a scorpion before it took you for a ride...

Bumper sticker

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a bumper sticker for you; "It's a modern world; Surveillance Happens!"

Right.

Our government has been eavesdropping on us since the telegraph. Accept it, get over it.

Wrong.

If aynone is eavesdropping on me (be it the government or the local branch of the Salvation Army) I want to know. And I want to make that task as difficult as possible (the reasons have been hashed ot so many times that I won't even pretend to give some).

You're a fagot

[Anonymous Coward]

Letting yourself get raped and such.

WoW... well said!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever see the film "They Live", hairyfeet? What you said reminds me of this part:

"We have one that can SEE!"

* I feel much the same myself @ times & a lot more than usual lately...

(It's because too much tells & shows me me the same things you have said... Especially over time (& I do NOT like "jumping the gun" on decisions of any kind about people especially - I give them time to show me otherwise, either way, good or bad... same with nations too! Everyone has a "bad day" or gets "ill" now & then, is why... out of fairness, I wait it out...))

APK

P.S.=> Sometimes (heck, lately, MUCH OF THE TIME), I have to admit - I am in complete agreement with you... though parts of me has "blinders on" not wanting to though!

(I.E./E.G.-> Because I still think this nation's the BEST THING GOING ON THE PLANET even now, & an example of what humanity COULD BE, because we are composed of all of the races of humanity in 1 nation, proving that we can live & excel together)...

I just hope she "rights herself" is all.

There's little question we have "problems" now - time to fix them is all! It starts with being aware of the problem first though...

... apk