Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Asks Court To Keep Secret Google / NSA Partnership
SonicSpike writes "The Justice Department is defending the government's refusal to discuss — or even acknowledge the existence of — any cooperative research and development agreement between Google and the National Security Agency. The Washington based advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center sued in federal district court here to obtain documents about any such agreement between the Internet search giant and the security agency. The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called 'Glomar' response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington sided with the government last July."
China can neither confirm or deny that the U.S. contracting out almost all its intelligence work now to third-party private contractors like Google, Stratfor, etc. makes it a lot easier to steal classified intelligence and code from you dumb yankees.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Since NSA took over Facebook all of the data they need is on there.
It's super effective!
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussolini
What we currently have is corporations acting as arms of the government, and government acting as an arm of corporations, to the point where they aren't very distinguishable.
I am officially gone from
The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called 'Glomar' response in which the agency said it could neither confirm nor deny whether any responsive records exist.
The NSA Representative then followed up that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of the NSA as well. The reporters counter question was, "So you're saying that there may, or may not be an arrangement between Google and an agency that may or may not exist?" To which the NSA representative simply replied, "I'm not saying anything." And then promptly morphed into a bubble which shrank out of existence over a three second period of time and vanished with a small pop.
Go ask for docs on NSA and MS partnership, or NSA and Apple, or NSA and Yahoo, or NSA and even Bull. You will find that many companies, even those not based here have something going on.
Now, go ask Apple, MS and Yahoo there involvement with China. If you get an honest answer, you would be shocked and PISSED.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Do I want the government to know about X?" If you don't, never post anything about X on the Internet and don't tell about X to anyone because they post stuff on the Internet.
FTFY.
Occasionally, when in the name of security, someone says "we can neither confirm nor deny x", x isn't happening (for whatever value of "happening" is appropriate to x). In this case, given the US attitude to jurisdiction the reality may be quite simple. Any data or communications processed on or passed through any system that is owned, operated, managed or otherwise controlled by any US entity or subsidiary thereof may be arbitrarily hoovered up by the NSA or other similar agencies. They will then analyse it however they wish for whatever purpose they want. This can happen regardless of what connections are known to exist between the US authorities and any individual provider. Attempting to discover the scope and extent of those connections may thus be a pointless exercise. The same thing probably happens in many other countries too.
If I could borrow from Mr Rubin, there's no "firewall" between Google and the NSA.
Google and Facebook were just NSA and CIA fronts. The best part would be that they have an almost self-sustaining business model so the cost of running it is defrayed. People get cheap software, and the government gets cheap information on the users plus surveillance and tracking devices in every pocket...
The first rule about X is never talk about X :)
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Well, theres PGP (or other encryption software ) and proxies so in theory there is but theres always someone with more knowledge that can beat that privacy with something else.
Not so secret now, is it?
X? What X? There is no X.
quote:
EPIC said its records request does not seek documents about NSA's role to secure government computer networks. "Google provides cloud-based services to consumers, not critical infrastructure services to the government," Rotenberg said.
once google 'grew up' and got cozy with the government, I don't think there's any going back. they are *both* for the consumer (if you think that way) and now they are also a source of info feed for the government agencies.
I don't think google set out to do this, when they were a 1000 person company or less; but at their huge successful size and power, now, I don't see how you can exist and not be forced to 'play ball' when ask^Htold to by those who really run things.
with all the data google has, do you really think the gov would sit back and not ask for a fiber tap and a cut of the action, so to speak? come on.
only some of the googlers would be able to deal with this, and it ruins the whole 'do no evil' sunshine and ponies bullshit game they play. whatever ties there are, it won't be confirmable or made public. not even from inside the normal rank and file. but the same as any large powerful company that has things the government wants.
its always been this way, though. don't be shocked. companies and governments are powerful entities and from time to time, they 'have lunch' together.
"its all part of the plan" ;)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'm not too worried about Google. IMHO, if there is somebody out there to worry about, it's your ISP. They have a much better idea of what it is that you do on the internet and they have a well established history of doing whatever the government asks them to do. Thankfully TLS is quickly becoming the normal way of connecting to sites, so this does quite a bit to shield you from the prying eyes of your ISP.
And you tell me this now after I've spent all my school years finding it?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Not really. The NSA has a lot of power to blackmail, and we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right, but there's a non-subtle difference between violating the Fourth Amendment and destroying a company.
So even assuming there is data big enough and black enough to destroy Google out there--not a point I'd concede--even then, I'd be hesitant to say the NSA is destroying them or would destroy them absent actual evidence. Frankly, if they got caught taking down a multibillion dollar American company, they would face a real risk of being defunded or decapitated (i.e. leadership replacement). Congress listens to multibillion dollar companies.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Generally this response has the informal meaning of Confirming something, but it avoids perjury.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If he's wrong that you can't have privacy on the internet... does that mean he's wrong about sex in the champagne room?
Because I swear, that stripper was TOTALLY digging me... she even asked to see me again at the club sometime!
Why must geeks see everything in binary? If you are doing something which involves communication with other people, they have to know at least something about what you're doing. If you choose the Internet to communicate, then it stands to reason that you will not use a centralised service the primary business of which is datamining (for advertisers).
You could assume our benevolent masters have all the resources to record every single packet to and from everywhere, and decrypt a good deal of what we consider to be strong. But this requires a much greater leap than simply assuming one government intelligence agency has full read privileges to Google's (or Yahoo's, or Microsoft's...) activity databases.
So basically you're saying that girls with iPhones are sluts? Good to know :-)
Actually, you can replace google with any large technology company - not just microsoft or apple, and the issue is the same.
Don't forget: Cisco, Riverbed, any MPLS complaint devices, any internet-facing devices, DNS, ISPs, TIVO, etc.
The list is way, way, way bigger than Google. Not a good thing but something worth highlighting.
I'm surprised that so many people are taking NSA's "neither confirm nor deny" as proof of Google's guilt. Ask them if they had a ham sandwich for lunch and they'll give you that response. It is the STANDARD response and means absolutely nothing. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were or were not working with the NSA but the NSA's statement gives no information as to wether they are or not.
The problem is if you want to know something about X one thing you do these days is a Google search about X, followed by clicking on links in the results. If you are afraid Google is tracking your search queries maybe you will use DuckDuckGo or go to some other website. Whatever, when you get to the web site on X there is a fair chance the web site will have embedded in it HTTP connections to doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com, googlesyndication.com, googleadservices.com or the Google API like apis.google.com/js/plusone.js.
You don't actually need to post anything about X, or tell anyone about X, you just need to leave bread crumbs scattered about the Internet showing you have interest in X, and Google will know.
All the bread crumbs Google tracks would, no doubt, be extremely interesting to any intelligence agency.
@de_machina
In fairness to Google and the NSA, it's possible for them to be involved on projects together that *don't* involve assembly of a complete dossier of every citizen alive today, with realtime updates.
There are lots of people around the world - many of whom even live outside the US! - who might view Google's systems as an attractive (and critical) piece of infrastructure that would be valuable to penetrate; the NSA is tasked with monitoring and collecting foreign signal intelligence and other communications... it's entirely possible that their collaboration involves detecting, monitoring, and responding to foreign threats, even the establishment and monitoring of honeypots and the like, the existence of which would be confirmed by documents detailing the relationship. This would serve to tip off the organizations trying to penetrate Google's systems, and they could adapt and circumvent the monitoring Google & the NSA have put in place. Being able to monitor these penetration attempts lets the NSA collect data on the methods & capabilities of other intelligence agencies.
There ARE possibilities that don't require careful application of tin foil to your cranium. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be prudent with the use of Google's services, but a collaboration between Google and the NSA *need not* be solely for evil purposes.
TLS does nothing to prevent your ISP from knowing which sites your are going to, only the data you are sending and receiving from them.
Listen to my music.
Voting Ron Paul, or any member of any third party you like, IS voting none of the above. It would not take a majority of voters doing such a thing, to get the parties to notice that swath of potential swing voters isn't buying the current political narrative, and then cater to those voters by changing the narrative. But because everyone is so concerned about picking a winner, we ensure that we only get losers in office.
Voting isn't a bet like picking a horse in a race -- unless you're donating millions to candidates you aren't going to get anything from being in a winning politician's camp except for the feeling that your candidate won. But when that candidate turns around and screws you, what is that winning feeling really worth? Nothing, and worse, you gave up your chance to actually vote for change -- the change that comes when politicians realize that people aren't sucking up their BS like they used to and that sticking with the status quo can cost an election. For the average American, this represents a much bigger win than the temporary happiness of being on a winning team, but in order to win the war, you have to be willing to lose some battles along the way to prove the point.
Here's a list of third parties. Pick one that reflects your values and vote with pride:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
That's the wrong response -- acquiescence is acceptance. Be a third party voter and join those willing to tell the government it doesn't represent them AND that you're willing to put your beliefs where your vote is. Cost a lesser-evil-candidate an election or two, and just maybe, we'll start getting some candidates of a greater-good type. Worst case scenario is that it doesn't do any good, but there is no question that choosing to not vote will do no good.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
So much for Obama's promise of government transparency.
Romney will be no better either. Too bad it isn't practical to pull a Monty Brewster and check "None of the above." I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses. :-(
Not marketable enough? You mean not desireable enough for the corporations who market the likes of Larry King to the drooling masses, to market him, because if he was, they'd be able to market Paul. The media in the US could get a literal monkey elected, if it was pro corporate enough. And by now it's hardly the drooling masses. To quote "How to get ahead in advertising" on marketing and the PR industry...."...if you breathe, it works on you...".
Here's a bit of a warning, mate: girls dig guys who use Apple gear.
Apple = cool user.
Microsoft = corporate user.
Linux user = nerd loser*.
* this comment is not aimed at unix on servers.
Then I am proud to be a nerd loser (Ubuntu 10.04 on both desktop and laptop).. Being 61 and happily married for 26 years
I'm not gonna worry about "the girls not digging me" cuz I don't use rotten apple gear..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
I want to write in Ron Paul, but he hasn't a chance of getting elected. He just isn't marketable enough for the drooling masses. :-(
Ron Paul Newsletters Controversy. /. is for sci/tech not politics usually, but since you brought it up - how can you support someone who would, say, refuse to hire you because of your skin color, instead of your skills? Shouldn't we tech people be better than that?
Really? This is a man you would endorse for president? I think
I learn from all my mistakes, I intend to be a genius at the end of my life.
It sometimes confirms something, but only if the person (or agency in this case) accidentally confirming it isn't particularly clever.
Monday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "Of course not!"
Tuesday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "Of course not!"
Wednesday: "Did you steal my sandwich?" "I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I may have stolen your sandwich."
That doesn't work. If you want "I can't confirm or deny" to work you have to use it consistently.
In this case it's a one-time allegation about something EPIC has little or no proof even exists. Can "give me all your secret information NOW!" be responded to with anything other than "I'm not even going to tell you if I have secret information much less give any of it to you?"
...There ARE possibilities that don't require careful application of tin foil to your cranium. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be prudent with the use of Google's services, but a collaboration between Google and the NSA *need not* be solely for evil purposes.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Too bad the only response to try and confirm "do no evil" from either party is "we cannot confirm or deny", so I guess we'll just have to open up the history books and start making some (likely accurate) assumptions...
Y
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
And that's fine, and perfectly reasonable - but if you're truly making assumptions based on past performance, make sure you take note of the number of times that the NSA and other intel agencies have legitimately acted in America's security interests and "done the right thing" - not just the "Top 50 worst moments in American intelligence agency history, which prove they're all inherently, irredeemably evil because assuming that fits neatly with my biases."
They are just wasting it anyway!
Sounds good in theory, but domestic counter-terrorism efforts falls under the FBI's jurisdiction, not the NSA's.
1. Virtualbox container - Debian Privoxy/TOR server
2. Virtualbox container - DSL LiveCD set to use Debian TOR server
3. ???
4. Anonymity
Good thing Google operates many overseas & international businesses. Also, good thing that the Information Assurance Directorate (IAD), which is one half of the NSA, is tasked with protecting the information systems owned by the US government.
It takes a mobile supercomputer to manage all those relationships.
What if "X" is simply showing up to a friend's party? These days, I ask my friends not to tag me on Facebook when they take pictures of me at parties.
The one obvious telltale is the size of the Golden Parachute.
there is a fair chance the web site will have embedded in it HTTP connections to doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com
*cough* Slashdot *cough*
Case in point: strengthening DES. It's pretty clear that the NSA doesn't care if they are viewed with suspicion.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
NSA: "Why yes. We have been working with Google to secure their IT infrastructure and protect their user's data."
Or: "We have been working with them on techniques applicable for mining large quantities of data."
It could even be correct, although an incomplete explanation. But it will satisfy most people's curiosity and explain the presence of NSA personnel on Google property. For the tin foil hat crowd, there is nothing anyone could say to allay their suspicion.
If I have a safe in my house, and people suspect that fact, I'll place a cheap locked box where its relatively easy to find, with a few hundred dollars in it. That'll satisfy most stupid burglars and keep them from looking for the real deal.
Have gnu, will travel.
I seriously believe that the NSA is downright giddy to be able to use data about and monitoring of attacks on Google's information systems from foreign sources to learn about the capabilities and methods of foreign intelligence agencies and non-governmental organizations who might be interested in gaining access to Google for illegal or unethical purposes.
I also seriously believe that Google's systems are increasingly used by an increasing number of government agencies, which makes their security very relevant to the agency tasked with securing the US government's information systems.
Seriously, I'm neither naive, nor do I work for the NSA. Seriously.
Also seriously, what sort of fucked-up metaphor is "can barely wipe their own ass without having the balls to admit wrong doing?" I'm struggling to parse that statement in a way that makes sense, and all I'm left with is a headache. I seriously believe that your tinfoil hat might contain lead, and is causing you irreversible brain damage. You should probably seek medical help.
neither does steve job's rectum, but that's never stopped an apple fan.
Rectum!?!? Damned near killed 'em!!!
Oh, wait...
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
What if "X" is simply showing up to a friend's party? These days, I ask my friends not to tag me on Facebook when they take pictures of me at parties.
I think I'm on the verge of not caring anymore. A couple weeks ago I got curious about what happened to a childhood friend whom I haven't seen for over 20 years. So I Googled him. I now know where he lives, where he works, how much his house is worth and when he bought it, the year/make of his car, his marriage date, his wife's maiden name and family try (and income, professions, etc...)... This is all with perhaps 15 minutes of idle Googling, and I quit after that because this started feeling creepy (with more work I could have found his criminal records, magazine subscriptions, and income). All this from just wanting to confirm that his Facebook profile was actually his. Imagine if I REALLY wanted to dig down, or had the resources of even a medium sized corporation (much less the Government).
Curious, I did an even more invasive search on myself... And while a lot of it is inaccurate (my house of two years is still for sale? My biological mother is my stepmother? I make a hell of a lot more money than I actually make.), it still is a bit eye opening. I'm planning on filing a FOIA request on myself soon, just to see what the gov't admits to knowing...
Privacy is dead. Dead an buried. Should I really care about saving its remnants any more? Most of my information is completely banal. Go dig through my Facebook page, and decades of accumulated online droppings, what will you find? I'm in my 30's. I love video games, books, horror movies, bourbon and craft beers. I spend money on computer components. I am generally politically liberal, but associate with Libertarian circles. I went to college, I majored in philosophy and psychology. I am into amateur, photography, and have occasionally tried my hand at both writing and art. Occasionally I go on a vacation, generally to somewhere in California, and if not generally somewhere on the West Coast or Desert Southwest. Digging deeper: I sowed wild oats in my late teens and early twenties, and have one or two very minor misdemeanor offenses from that time (both harmless and victim-less). I give money to both the ACLU and EFF, and used to give money to environmental causes in the past. Etc...
None of this harms me. Most of it bores even me. And if I had real secrets I would care about them. But, if I had real secrets they wouldn't be posted on the internet, nor would I share them on Facebook. I would fund them with CASH, and use fake names and such as much as possible. I, like in the pre-internet days, tell no one, or limit disclosure to a small circle of trust.
The internet is a small town. Everyone knows more about you than you would like.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The fact that Google still exists is confirmation that they comply with whatever the NSA asks of them.
ergo
The fact that you still exist is confirmation that you comply with whatever the NSA asks of you.
OMG RUN!
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
"we know that they have no scruples about violating the Constitution left and right"
Citations? If not, you're talking out of your ass about things you want to believe are true.
99.9% of people DONT use TOR, a VM, or even a blocker in their browser. The NSA may not even be looking for a well trained "terrorist" or a "spy".
They can just mine a vast treasure trove of information on what most of the people on the planet are interested in by looking at all the data Google and Facebook are accumulating. I wouldn't be surprised if you could use the data to fairly accurately predict which countries are ripe for or on the virge of a revolution just by looking at the X's its people are interested in.
@de_machina
I'm sure that mounting Moby Dick...er.... your wife is great....fun?
I haven't had a complaint about her yet.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
TLS does nothing to prevent your ISP from knowing which sites your are going to, only the data you are sending and receiving from them.
That's why I use EFF's HTTPS Everywhere . Neither my ISP, nor any other entity between my machine and destination address, have a legitimate need to examine the contents of my traffic. I'm astounded by the number of users here that don't prefer secure connections, as evidenced by number of http links to sites that support https.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Not that there's anything wrong with your comment, but I was pointing out that ISPs will still know which sites you are visiting (by IP address). This is a well known problem in secure communications; they know who you are talking to even though they don't know what you have said. And with the current belief of guilt by association, that will still be a problem.
Think 'dissidents read slashdot'.
Listen to my music.
Not that there's anything wrong with your comment, but I was pointing out that ISPs will still know which sites you are visiting (by IP address). This is a well known problem in secure communications; they know who you are talking to even though they don't know what you have said. And with the current belief of guilt by association, that will still be a problem.
Think 'dissidents read slashdot'.
I know; I know they know the IP your client's requesting, I just wanted to point out the availability and benefit EFF's plugin provides. Certainly, it's preferable to leak only your 4-byte destination IPs to Eve (and Mallory), as opposed to leaking destination IPs, plus kBs-GBs of cleartext payload data transferred to/from said IP. Using HTTPS will still allow Eve to know the site you're communicating with, but not the individual, nor the topic of discussion, without using techniques that are more costly in terms of time, money, effort, risk, reliability, etc.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
There is no need to protect the free speech rights of people who are involved in corporations, or other legal entities, by granting those organizations these rights.
History has shown differently. Corporate personhood evolved as a response to government abuse of power (incidentally, McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional in at least two ways, it's selective free speech restrictions on corporations are only one of those ways). Corporate personhood isn't needed in itself, but something is needed.
As to your assertions that corporate personhood only exists for the rich and unions, it's worth noting that the same legal infrastructure prevents a hostile government in most of the developed world from seizing assets of NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Wikileaks, or Amnesty International, that conduct actions or speech which the government finds threatening.
Not really. Citations just show to you that I am not doing so; that doesn't mean I am doing so.
Google for it. For example, there was a big article in rolling stone that was well done on the wiretapping of US Citizen as part of the war on terror. To be fair, the system had been designed to carefully avoid this, so the members of NSA who *designed* it cared about rights, but then it was retasked. There are some great observations in there, however, about the what-we-can-get-away-with/lack-of-oversight mentality. And the person who responded to the problem was prosecuted, basically for being a whistleblower.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Nice effort, but it's still not quite the way it all shakes out. The way you prove it is use their own new laws/proto-laws against them. (Enforcement is a problem, but that's the next problem.)
"We can neither confirm or deny that we have secret info".
"Sudo you stole an iPad and downloaded a Journey album and violated a patent on a method of being a weasel. Now give us your secret info."
"Okay, here's our info!"
It's a government agency. Of course they have Non-Zero info about *everything*.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine