Slashdot Mirror


Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

jfruh writes Google Chairman Eric Schmidt told a conference on surveillance at the Cato Institute that Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA spying shocked the company's engineers — who then immediately started working on making the company's servers and services more secure. Now, after a year and a half of work, Schmidt says that Google's services are the safest place to store your sensitive data.

281 comments

  1. Or better yet by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just keep everything on your hard drive on a computer that is *not* connected to the Internet.

    1. Re:Or better yet by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Or better yet by sansprivacy · · Score: 1

      In a fire safe, in a concealed, steal reinforced, concrete bunker.

    3. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the bottom of the ocean.

    4. Re:Or better yet by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Damn it! Now I have to recalculate where to put my Evil Bunker(tm) so that no one will ever find it! Thank you very much! Shame too... Would have been perfect for my Shark Mounted Laser research. I mean, not even Branson would have been able to find it for quite a while!

    5. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the bottom of the ocean.

      On another planet

    6. Re:Or better yet by rvw · · Score: 2

      At the bottom of the ocean.

      On another planet

      In another dimension

    7. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every security precaution can be gotten around, either by subpoena, black bag, or a number of attacks. However, an offline machine does guard against virtually all but targeted attacks. One can add enhancements to the offline machine (only use SD cards, various levels of encryption, etc.) However, if there is an air-gap, that protects against a lot of things, mainly network-based attacks, be it active stuff, or passive items like Trojans and malware obtained from web browser and browser add-on holes.

      There are a number of tasks which are best done offline. For example, PGP/gpg signing/validation [1].

      In general, it isn't a bad idea to have an offline machine. With a SD card and a KVM, it isn't that awkward to use.

      [1]: Best thing is to have two levels of keys. One level for general online decrypting of E-mail, and a second level where stuff is only signed/read offline.

    8. Re:Or better yet by xyra132 · · Score: 1

      or random theft. Then gets sold on eBay.

    9. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      At the bottom of the ocean.

      On another planet

      In another dimension

      With voyeuristic intention

    10. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the bottom of the ocean.

      On another planet

      In another dimension

      With voyeuristic intention

      Dammit, now we're back to the same problem we started with!

    11. Re:Or better yet by Zanadou · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Beware of the leopard."

    12. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy shit , how did you find where I save my hard drive ?

    13. Re:Or better yet by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      And you would have succeeded too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    14. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. Scientologists dropping out of the ceiling and stealing one's data. We have to have a protocol to deal with this. Meeting in my office in one hour...

    15. Re:Or better yet by Woldry · · Score: 1

      That's easy. Just don't have ceilings!

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    16. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start a campaign to attach a "truly random" file to each and every Email sent. Give the file a .pgp extension.

      Post script every Email with
      "p.s. President, bomb, jihad, nuclear."

      Watch as hilarity ensues when NSA has the equivalent of a denial of service attack.

    17. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mm ... better, don't store your secrets.

    18. Re:Or better yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In quantum encrypted code.

  2. Under US Jurisdiction? by xophos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it.
    Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.

    1. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell that to SpiderOak.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it.
      Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.

      Thus far, the most popular way for companies to circumvent this pressure is to try and design encryption systems where they (the corporation) do not hold the ability to decrypt user data.

      At that point, law enforcement can ask all they want, legally or otherwise.

      (I give this circumvention tactic about another 17 seconds before it is deemed a "terrorist loophole" by the government, so IF you find it, enjoy it while it lasts.)

    3. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google is not a US corporation. Last I heard they were Irish.

    4. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Framboise · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google is investing massively abroad, such as in Zurich, Switzerland, where privacy laws are especially strong. Expect that if US laws continue to have negative effects on Google income, the company is going to be more and more international.

    5. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google is investing massively abroad, such as in Zurich, Switzerland, where privacy laws are especially strong. Expect that if US laws continue to have negative effects on Google income, the company is going to be more and more international.

      HQ is in the US, main engineering offices with tens of thousands of programmers are in the US. Not gonna happen, sport.

    6. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not going well for Microsoft. They are requesting data from the servers in Ireland.

    7. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      Well, at least according to the summary, he never spoke of "safe". He said "safest" Big difference.

      And I'd even go further and say that he might be right. Unless I'd go completly offline, I can't afford half the brainpower and expertise that Google buys for their datacenter to keep my desktop machine clean and safe. (to be honest. I couldn't afford hiring a single person from their security department)

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by bickerdyke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thus far, the most popular way for companies to circumvent this pressure is to try and design encryption systems where they (the corporation) do not hold the ability to decrypt user data.

      At that point, law enforcement can ask all they want, legally or otherwise.

      The grey bearded nerds here may still remember the legend of yore about a company called lavabit and how they tried exactly that....

      --
      bickerdyke
    9. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google is investing massively abroad, such as in Zurich, Switzerland, where privacy laws are especially strong. Expect that if US laws continue to have negative effects on Google income, the company is going to be more and more international.

      Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to a US Court requiring them to turn over the data if they have it. It used to be, in the age of paper, that stuff could be kept off-shore making it essentially unreachable; especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities. Now, a US corporations data is essentially one big collection of stuff to be made available on demand; and refusal to turn it over could result in fines and contempt charges. In the end, he with the biggest stick wins.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    10. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Aye. I had an account there. It was a wondrous time. But then the darkness came...

    11. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would that not apply to paper records of yesterday? "Make copies of those records and make them available to us.."

    12. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it.

      Who says they need to be forced? They'll protect their interests but they seem to be fully in sync with the state. You know, the good guys.

    13. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. What is a bit worrying is that this has to be told to people time and again.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amplifying the OP here. I know people in general seem to be getting dumber and dumber with every passing decade, but have people reached the point where Google can say stupid shit like this and really expect everyone to believe it? You may as well just call the FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, and whoever else wants to snoop on everyone, and ask them to create a share on their servers for your most-personal, most-important data, and store it in the clear, at least that way you'd save some tax dollars. For fuck's sake people, 'the cloud' is a bad joke. You want to keep your personal data safe from snooping? Do as at least one other commenter on this story has said: Put it on a storage device not connected in any way to the Internet. We do not live in a day and age where the government gives a flying fuck about your 'right to privacy', if these bastards had their way we'd all be living in a world where George Orwell's 1984 would look warm and fuzzy by comparison.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    15. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by dhjdhj · · Score: 2

      Crashplan lets you use an encryption key that (I assume) they can't decrypt.

    16. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the purposes of the US legal system, every person and corporation is American.

      For the purposes of the Constitution, none are.

    17. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it.
      Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.

      Didn't the Megaupload case tell us that data going to any corporation is unsafe as long as US laws remain unfixed?

    18. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a company called lavabit and how they tried exactly that....

      . . . next, the usual suspects inside Google seized on this as proof there was no political need to lock Google out of user data, and so no reason to give up their treasured opportunity to play around with interesting ways to search and score and process it. It's a convenient answer for them, and an easy one to get to using slashdot argument rules.

      After that happened, Apple did exactly the same thing Lavabit did and left Google with egg on their face.

      What is possible for an enormous company with more wealth than the median country and an entire floor full of lobbyists and lawyers is not possible for one twitchy guy with a manifesto.

    19. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      it wasn't that long ago, was it?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    20. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      ah, sure begorrah, pull the other one, it's got bells on, bejaysus.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    21. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're after me lucky charms! - Bill Gates

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    22. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how Google is going to able to avoid giving the NSA everything they want. Hell, locating the servers outside the USA would make it easier for NSA from a legal prospective. Even more hell, Swiss Banks; not the biggest international ones which are no longer private enough to be traditional Swiss banks; are refusing to open accounts for people who hold American Passports. They won't let their executives travel to countries that want to prosecute or extradite them. I think they don't even leave Switzerland because doing so would require flying through those countries airspace.

    23. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For the purposes of the US legal system and the IRS, every person and corporation is American.

      For the purposes of the Constitution, none are.

      FTFY

    24. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Long ago for that AC to forget about it.

      And in a related note: If we have to discuss if and how to avoid supporting law enforcement, something went really, really wrong.

      --
      bickerdyke
    25. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Americans who put their money in a Swiss bank. Sorry, the Swiss have blown their carefully cultivated discretion. They did better for the Jews under Hitler than for Americans under the Tories.

    26. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that you are putting the cat with the milk putting your data on their servers. The least you can do is keeping your data with you. Then they might be deterred by the hassle of getting access and the possiblity of being caught.

    27. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wont stop the NSA sending Ninjas to their offices and demand the files.

      Would YOU say no to ninjas?

    28. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been? Something HAS gone horribly wrong with law creation, law enforcement, law prosecution and law detention! First you appease, then you run, then you hide, finally you fight. Guess where we are in that chain?

    29. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      Aren't US laws and respect mutually exclusive?

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    30. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the government works for the corporations.

    31. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      And every person is a corporation.

      That is to say that legally YOU are not a person - you HAVE a person.

      Sad but true.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    32. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by willy_me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Google makes money from targeted advertising - and they need to see your data for that. Google will always have the ability to view data stored on their servers because that is their basic business model. One has to pay for what you described. Apple claims to provide such a service. You pay for this indirectly by purchasing an Apple device.

      So unless you shell out some cash there is no way to get free stable encrypted storage. The idea is nice, but economically unfeasible.

    33. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      No but if you got a government request for your keys you'd know about it. If google gets such a request you wouldn't know you were compromised.

      It isn't like they are sending l33t hackers to break in and get the data.

    34. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Good that there are privacy laws, because we know how much the US Agencies and especially the NSA respect the law.

      The time of paranoia is over. You don't have to THINK that your could be cvomprimised. You must act as if it IS compromised. Almost all companies are stillin the 'let's protect our data' but have NO clue what to do if that fails. "Yeah, but the IT guy said that if we change the password every 30 minutes, it would be safe."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Grey beards? So what of us who remember them as nerdshack.com? Before the great rebrand?

      Fossils... right? :-)

      But yeah, on the topic, I go out of my way now to not store data on US servers, nor do business with US based companies. It is rather hard in the IT world, but slowly and steadily I'm making progress on it.

    36. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 2

      The fix could be legislation or it could be a firm Supreme Court decision. The Court could, at some point, decide that the Fouth Amendment applies to cloud services exacly the same way that it does to rental property in the physical world. Renters have the same rights as home owners under the Fourth Amendment. A landlord is not allowed to just let the police into your appartment to search without a warrant. So far, online storage has been treated as information in the possession of a third party rather than information in your possession using rented space.

      The other decision that needs to be clarified is that the government can't just use a third party to collect information that it could not legally collect itself. This would be anything analogous to hiring a private security firm to search someone's home and arguing that they are not subject to the Fourth Amendment because they are not part of the government. An argument like that, relating to the physical world, would never get past a court of law. We need a decision which says the same thing about the virtual world.

      Both arguments above, in my opinion, are things which should already be obvious under existing law and do not require additional legislation. Google and others, should understand that this is the only way that people will trust cloud storage.

    37. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whether or not the corporation is in the US, if the data is being served to a customer in the US, then the government has the ability to force the corporation to hand over the data. So much for the safety of non-us corporations.

    38. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Long ago for that AC to forget about it.

      And in a related note: If we have to discuss if and how to avoid supporting law enforcement, something went really, really wrong.

      Exactly.

      Who gives a shit about storing your data with google or anyone else, at this point we should be storming the Pentagon / White House / Senate en masse to demand and take real freedom. There is no terrorist threat that actually warrants this level of intrusion, our own police seem to be better at killing defenceless citizens than terrorists anyway over the last year.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    39. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft isn't an Irish corporation, is it? Didn't think so. Point is automatic moot.

    40. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 5, Informative

      As I remember, Lavabit was intended to not have the ability to decrypt user data but, in fact, there were at least two ways unanticipated by the designers. One way is to wait until a user logs on again and capture their key. The mistake here was that encryption is performed on the server and not on the user's own machine before sending to Lavabit. The other thing, which is apparently what was requested in the court order, was to give up their private SSL key which the government agencies would then use to decrypt previously captured network traffic and recover the keys of, potentially, every Lavabit user. One issue here is the same as before. They were sending keys over the internet when the only safe way to do it is to keep the storage encryption process entirely client side. The other thing was that they were not using Perfect Forward Secrecy, which would have created a different temporary key for each SSL session and discarded it after transfer. They were using traditional SSL where every transfer going to the server is encrypted with the one public key matching the site's SSL certificate.

      Levison (owner of Lavabit) also made the big mistake of trying to answer the court order himself without getting a lawyer first. He bolloxed the legal argument which is why he ended up getting finded.

    41. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is possible for an enormous company with more wealth than the median country and an entire floor full of lobbyists and lawyers is not possible for one twitchy guy with a manifesto.

      Which is exactly whats wrong with this country and it's "Just-Us" (laughably misspelled as "justice") system.

    42. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, once Google have aggregated your data they don't need your emails and documents anymore. They probably know you like horses or whatever, and that's enough for them. You read to much Apple sites because that's the place I've seen this FUD spreading. There is no evidence of what you are suggesting, only FUD on Apple centric sites.

      At least you didn't suggest that Google is selling personal information to the highest bidder, seems to be the truth at certain sites.

    43. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be missing the most obvious threat to the data - Google itself. I mean, seriously, the company makes it living scraping your information and reselling it. I would trust the government with my data before I trust Google with it.

    44. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that naive? What gets subpoenaed is the data and the encryption keys. Get a clue.

    45. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by non0score · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the major providers can't talk about it, not all gov't requests get served. The point is that yes, there is always that possibility that your account gets handed a request, but at least with Google services, you won't get picked up in random dragnet-style surveillance. That's difficult to claim for all the other major providers, and is precisely what Eric Schmidt is claiming.

    46. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't say ANYthing to ninjas: you never see them, so who would you be talking to?

    47. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by shaitand · · Score: 4, Informative

      The government doesn't need to request your account, they can request google's own keys and never tell google what they are actually looking at.

    48. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > But Google makes money from targeted advertising - and they need to see your data for that.

      I'm no google apologist, but the problem with your analysis is that it is black and white. The question that really matters is how much of your data do they need for that? For example, their push for client-side PGP encrypted gmail means they don't get the content of your messages. They still get the metadata, but they don't get ALL of your data.

      They seem to think that's still enough for them to make money - perhaps they've calculated that its better to keep users in the fold and get some data on them than to lose them to some other system where google gets no data on them.

    49. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      But Google makes it living spying/ collecting of our data and emails so they must be able to decrypt user data. Plus they do store everything for at least 18-24 months. So if they have the ability to decrypt then the government will also. I have 3 hard drives I store and save everything on my own PC its not that expensive to add multi hard drives AND I don't waste any internet bandwidth uploading. so it just boggles my mind why people use theses services its a waste of bandwidth, its not save, its not private.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    50. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Google is not a US corporation. Last I heard they were Irish.

      All the employees and assets within US borders are under US jurisdiction.

      Renting a mailbox in ireland and calling it your primary residence doesn't give you the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

      (Although it does give you some tax advantages if your big enough, until / unless they close the loophole.)

    51. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Cederic · · Score: 0

      Why, to the shadowy figure stood behind you with a beautifully crafted knife to your throat of course.

    52. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      Antediluvians. (Not the vampiric kind).

    53. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      at this point we should be storming the Pentagon / White House / Senate en masse to demand and take real freedom. There is no terrorist threat that actually warrants this level of intrusion, our own police seem to be better at killing defenceless citizens than terrorists anyway over the last year.

      The problem is that most Americans are perfectly happy with the police acting this way. Yes, there's a minority of Americans who are outraged, but most of them thing it's just fine. Just look at the online comments any time one of these incidents happens; most Americans think the victim got what he deserved.

    54. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not a one-way street.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... where privacy laws are especially strong.

      Unless one is a US citizen. People forget Switzerland created an exemption a few years ago to appease the US government. The US also claims the internet is US territory, making every internet-connected computer subject to US law. Many extradition treaties allow international kidnapping based on extra-judicial scope, including Switzerland.

    56. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      They also have unrestricted root/administrator access to your machine.

    57. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Would you care to expand on that statement, since I don't see how it relates to what I said?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    58. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You know, the good guys."

            Which ones are those, anyone?

    59. Re: Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not lying through his teeth and neither is he being dishonest about. It is you who doesn't deserve the truth and it is you who deserves to be told whatever is necessary. If you believe Schmidt you can also get a 10% discount on your grocery shopping if you submit to a flu shot. If you have half a brain you are going to do what I did, chuckle about it and move on.

    60. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      The main problem is not whether they're really good guys. The main problem is that when a system of checks and balances gets skewed you don't even need really bad guys to make the system turn ugly.

    61. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I mean war is the health of the state. And really that's all driven by the military-industrial complex. Surely, Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, etc., are not going to let war policy hurt business. Why, in this time of transferring warmaking to the digital landscape, would we think that the government policy will be detrimental to those who are best positioned to take advantage of government contracts for digital warfare (covert or otherwise)?

    62. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      They will. Like they told that to Lavabit and SilentCircle.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    63. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not going well for Microsoft. They are requesting data from the servers in Ireland.

      The USA has worldwide jurisdiction. As long as Microsoft remains a US corporation, they have to abide by US Law.

    64. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would that not apply to paper records of yesterday? "Make copies of those records and make them available to us.."

      Re-read the OPs statement, especially this part: "especially since no one might even now it existed unless someone told the authorities."

    65. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      The point of forward secrecy is there are no such keys to seize. The "master keys" are only used for identification, not encryption. So whilst a gov could theoretically seize Google's keys, this does not help them decrypt wire traffic. They'd have to do a large MITM attack, and to get everything? They'd have to decrypt and forward ALL Google's traffic. Not feasible.

      Good use of applied cryptography means that realistically the only way for a government to get data out of it means requesting it specifically from the providers. In places where the warrant system has been vapourised (which certainly includes the USA and UK), this might not seem like much, but it does help prevent fishing expeditions.

    66. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      But Google makes money from targeted advertising

      Google makes significant sums of dough from paying corporate customers who use Google Apps. These clients can switch off advertising if they like. These are also the places where some of the most sensitive data is stored.

      So Google have both the financial means and incentive to solve the end to end crypto problem for such clients. The difficulty is not financial. It's technological. Matching even just the feature set of Gmail with end to end crypto is insanely hard, and that's before you hit the "everything is a web app" problem.

    67. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      No but if you got a government request for your keys you'd know about it.

      The government "request" would come in form of customised malware and you'd never even know you got hacked.

      If google gets such a request you wouldn't know you were compromised.

      You aren't gonna know, no matter what.

      It isn't like they are sending l33t hackers to break in and get the data.

      Schmidt isn't an idiot, despite how the press like to portray him via selective quoting (note that TFA does not provide much context for this quote). When he says Google is the safest place to put your data, he's probably comparing Google to other companies that provide similar services, not some hypothetical fully self hosted system - bearing in mind self hosting of email is rapidly going the way of the dodo even in business situations (it died for home email a long time ago).

      Given that Yahoo still have not fully deployed SSL everywhere let alone encrypted their internal datacenter links, and if Microsoft have a similar effort they aren't talking about it, there's some evidence that he might be right. After all, if you get a government warrant for your data you're just as stuck as Google is: not much you can do about it. On the other hand, you are unlikely to secure your infrastructure as well as Google does.

    68. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google could client-side extract some statistical information about hot commercial keywords, then encrypt the data, then send the user-encrypted data along with the Google-encrypted keyword stats to the Google servers. The User data is stored encrypted. The keyword data is decrypted, used to update a profile, then deleted.

    69. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not lying. Schmidt suggests, if you don't want to be the NSA's bitch, you should become Google's bitch instead. Google would then offer typical pimp services to you and your data. Sure, you'll still be bent over and taking it, but Google will make sure that the John pays up for using your info. You may even receive a small percentage of that payment if you turn a lot of tricks.

    70. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also expect that google will agitate for government to keep violating privacy as a way to privatize privacy costs.

      gg google.

    71. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google can make more money.

      They create an entity called Tier 2 and tier 3 storage or how many tiers and or combinations are needed.
      Users can 'push' their' data to these tiers or legal ring-fenced jurisdictions.
      Data in two countries, and keys split to another two will make it harder - bar brute force.

      Tiers 2 and 3 are completely foreign owned on foreign soil, and only pay licensing fees to a tax haven of googles choosing.
      Users can elect to push data to tiers 2 and 3 where the key changes, and there is a complete hand-off where Google has no control over what next. Sure US can read the draft going over, but not the final copy. The transfer process should also use latency as a side channel, where timing is used for really sensitive stuff such as keys.

      In theory, privacy conscious users can access the tiers, that now have ZERO US jurisdiction, unless the source or destination country, or the fibre optics in the middle are tapped or otherwise compromised.

      Any which way, the smart alecs who collect data for the hell of it, the cost of collecting this stuff rises 2^n where n is the number of safe haven jurisdictions used.

    72. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "They'd have to do a large MITM attack, and to get everything? They'd have to decrypt and forward ALL Google's traffic. Not feasible."

      You are aware that the snowden leaks revealed they are doing this for not only all google traffic but all internet traffic on a buffer of like 6mins right? Every major provider is onboard and every non-major provider is buying connectivity from those who are onboard. There are NSA offices at the major providers with taps to explicitly insure that mass MITM attacks are not only feasible for the NSA but routine.

    73. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Google has and wants a hell of a lot more than just your email. Frankly, it's time for email to go the way of the dodo.

      "After all, if you get a government warrant for your data you're just as stuck as Google is"

      On the contrary, unlike Google I might be willing to risk liability on my behalf and fight the order. Or better yet, trash any data I don't care to have seen. Google will never do that. But warrants are so last millennium.

    74. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most Americans are perfectly happy with the police acting this way.

      Then by definition, they are not Americans. They should go form their own fucking gestapo somewhere else. It is not welcome in America. Such things are blatantly against the spirit and letter of the laws that America was founded upon.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    75. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Don't be stupid. Anyone who's an American Citizen is by definition an American, whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with them (and their idiotic ideas) or not. They certainly are "welcome" in America, they're Citizens and they were born here. Whether something is against the "spirit" of the founding laws is open to debate, and quite frankly, totally irrelevant since, as a representative democracy, this country (and any other with the same form of government) is supposed to reflect the will of the citizenry. If the citizens are a bunch of fools who vote for police-state laws, then that's what they're supposed to have. You're obviously the one here who opposes democracy and wishes to have an authoritarian government, because any government which does not reflect the will of the voters can only be authoritarian.

    76. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Okay my friend, you just picked a nasty fight; however, I first have to say this:

      You are correct, they are still technically American citizens.

      Now, on to the fight: America is explicitly NOT a democracy. Your attempt to frame my desires to the other extreme, an authoritarian government, is a common Fox news tactic. You should be ashamed.

      America is a democratic Republic. It was formed that way EXPLICITLY to prevent mob rule. The Constitution and Bill of rights spell out what America is supposed to be. If there is a true need for the Republic to change the rules it is built upon, then there are mechanisms in place to do that... but THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED.

      Why? We can argue about that forever. Regardless, the basic rules from which all other rules rest upon, have not been changed. That means a police state is incompatible with American law; both in the letter and spirit of the law.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    77. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Now, on to the fight: America is explicitly NOT a democracy.

      Yes, it is. You even say so yourself:

      America is a democratic Republic.

      "Democracy" in modern parlance == "democratic republic". When the word "democracy" is used in regular conversation, NO ONE is talking about Athenian-style direct democracy, unless they explicitly say so. It's only pedants like you who even think of this.

      It was formed that way EXPLICITLY to prevent mob rule.

      Democratic republics exist for several reasons. One is because no one citizen can possibly be competent at voting on every single issue that faces a large and populous nation, nor can every citizen be expected to invest that much time into the governing process. So we "outsource" most of the work of governing to politicians called "representatives", and elect them to represent us and do our bidding. The rules you talk about do exist to make sure there's a longer feedback loop, so people's short-term reactionary tendencies don't make a mess of things, and so that there's a rule of law: people have to follow laws, until the laws are changed.

      The Constitution and Bill of rights spell out what America is supposed to be. If there is a true need for the Republic to change the rules it is built upon, then there are mechanisms in place to do that... but THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED.

      Yes, they have. The Constitution has been amended dozens of times since it was written, and countless Supreme Court cases have further changed laws. And if you have some kind of problem with a court effectively legislating and deciding law, then you have a problem with English Common Law, which this country was explicitly founded upon.

      Why? We can argue about that forever. Regardless, the basic rules from which all other rules rest upon, have not been changed. That means a police state is incompatible with American law; both in the letter and spirit of the law.

      Completely incorrect. If case law and legislation (at all levels of government) have resulted in a police state, then a police state is indeed compatible with American law, by very definition.

      It's sad how poorly educated in basic Civics most Americans are these days.

    78. Re:Under US Jurisdiction? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Yes, they have. The Constitution has been amended dozens of times since it was written

      We were specifically discussing:

      The problem is that most Americans are perfectly happy with the police acting this way.

      I was saying that it was against the letter and the spirit of the laws that all other laws in America are founded upon. Of course, none of the "dozens" (27 total) of amendments actually reverse or otherwise negate the 4th so your refutation of

      but THEY HAVE NOT BEEN USED

      falls amazingly flat.

      and countless Supreme Court cases have further changed laws.

      Changed is a charged word in this context. In all actuality, all that the judicial branch can do is strike down or remove. They can not add. At most, they can "clarify", but that does not create new law. That is reserved for Congress, aka the legislative branch.

      Completely incorrect. If case law and legislation (at all levels of government) have resulted in a police state, then a police state is indeed compatible with American law, by very definition.

      No. No it is not compatible. The thing about the laws in America is that some laws are "higher" or "stronger" or more relevant than other laws. The highest, strongest laws are the ones that were written as a basis for the country (America in this case) to even exist. Congress can pass whatever laws it wants and they become "real" laws upon passing. The Supreme Court is there to decide if any of these lesser laws are compatible with the greater laws. If not, if Congress really wants that law to be real, then it has to pass a law that explicitly nullifies the greater law.

      In this instance, we are talking about the 4th Amendment. No law, no Executive Order, no regulation, etc can violate the 4th Amendment. If indeed America wants to pass a law that is incompatible with the 4th, it has to actually nullify the 4th with another constitutional Amendment.

      And if you have some kind of problem with a court effectively legislating and deciding law, then you have a problem with English Common Law, which this country was explicitly founded upon.

      Completely incorrect. If case law and legislation (at all levels of government) have resulted in a police state, then a police state is indeed compatible with American law, by very definition.

      It's sad how poorly educated in basic Civics most Americans are these days.

      Indeed. It is very sad how poorly educated in basic Civics most Americans are these days. Even Congress and the President seems to not have a good understanding despite pledging to uphold such laws. Your understanding is also deeply deficient. Perhaps you should educate yourself.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  3. For sure. by ruir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not keep the data in the police station? I am sure it would work better than at googles. Is this article a freaking joke? It is not the 1st of April yet last time I checked.

    1. Re:For sure. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      google: "we're upping our doublethink. so, up yours!"

      this is a 'trust me, the sky is green' moment for google. they have had lots of those, lately, too.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:For sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Eric Schmidt: To Avoid NSA Spying, Keep Your Data In Google's Services

      Reporter: "But how do we avoid Google spying?"

      Schmidt: "Next question...."

    3. Re:For sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sentence was a masterclass in punnery. I'm still in awe after the 6th read.

    4. Re:For sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the very interpretation of the law according the the us courts, the minute you submit YOUR data to a 3RD PARTY the 4th amendment no longer applies.
      Therefore GOOGLE !=SECURE.
      Under us statutory code they are required to provide information based on legal requests by your favorite 3 letter agencies.
      Lovely illusion of PRIVACY.

  4. [sarcastic comment suppressed] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google FTW!

  5. "safe" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think it means what Google thinks it means.

    1. Re:"safe" by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Ah, this is obviously some strange use of the word safe that I wasn't previously aware of.” - Arthur Dent

    2. Re:"safe" by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I don't think it means what Google thinks it means.

      Actually safe doesn't mean what you think Google thinks it means. S.A.F.E. is a new acronym at Google that stands for"Send After Federal Exaction" Or "Send After Federal Enquiry" if you are in the UK.

    3. Re:"safe" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      "you either die a hero, or live long enough to turn into one of the bad guys"

      yet another Dent quote that is quite fitting for this subject.

      google is not going to die a hero.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:"safe" by webanish · · Score: 1

      Mod up please!

  6. Under US Jurisdiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That just shows how evil google is. Eric Schmidt is lying throught his teeth when he is saying sensitive data is safe with him.

  7. Captain Obvious here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It should be obvious, but in order to protect your data from the US government agencies, you have to keep it from companies that have business presence in the USA.

    It is a no-brainer actually.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious here! by znrt · · Score: 1

      It should be obvious, but in order to protect your data (), you have to keep it from companies ().

      It is a no-brainer actually.

      ftfy. yw.

  8. Penny says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this where he says bazooka or something?

    1. Re:Penny says by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 0

      Isn't this where he says bazooka or something?

      Bazinga!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  9. Distributed Sync.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or you can keep your data on your servers (At home or w/e) using SyncThing (open source, decentralized, syncing)

    1. Re:Distributed Sync.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, have no data.
      NSA, it's associates and most of their enemies, have more than several ways to enter any server, in any configuration, in any country.
      If it's important, and you can, make sure it isn't available in any digital form... other wise some people not only can, but will get it if they want. Not have it in any kind or form including paper is better yet! The spies will then take the person to Guantánamo (or similar) and torture the person until they know everything from that person. They may also kill the person if they get nothing... or kill it after they get everything.

  10. This is a good business model ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... encrypted phones that self-destruct in the wrong hands, near realtime incremental cloud backups to anonymous sites, anonymous Facebooking, etc.

    There's a new market for privacy on the Internet.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:This is a good business model ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... encrypted phones that self-destruct in the wrong hands, near realtime incremental cloud backups to anonymous sites, anonymous Facebooking, etc.

      There's a new market for privacy on the Internet.

      Uhhhhh....anonymous Facebooking?

      There are things in life that justify the statement "what the FUCK is the point?"

      That would certainly be one of them.

    2. Re:This is a good business model ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... encrypted phones that self-destruct in the wrong hands, near realtime incremental cloud backups to anonymous sites, anonymous Facebooking, etc.

      There's a new market for privacy on the Internet.

      Yes there is. Better have your corporate headquarters and manufacturing facilities located on the moon as there is not a country in the world that would allow such a thing to exist inside their jurisdiction. And just like Cisco routers, all your shipments would be stopped at the boarder until surveillance equipment could be surreptitiously installed. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/05/30/1226202/ups-denies-helping-the-nsa-interdict-packages

    3. Re:This is a good business model ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I am anonymous on Facebook. I enjoy the benefits of having a forum, venue, and a way to keep in touch with family and friends and fellow IT enthusiasts.

      I think it's a serious mistake for anyone to use their real name on Facebook.

      Facebook thinks I am using my real name.

      I am not.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:This is a good business model ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... anonymous Facebooking.

      There's a new market for privacy on the Internet.

      That's a non-sequitur right there!

  11. As Bender would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To quote Bender:

    HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Oh wait! You're serious. Then let me laugh even harder!

    HAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    1. Re:As Bender would say... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      That is the most real, authentic, hysterical laugh of my entire life.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  12. The cloud is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...about control.

    Them moment you put ANYTHING in the cloud, you are relinquishing control of your data. PERIOD.

    Who gives a shit if they are reading your stuff....if you are that concerned about it, it does not take much to make it unreadable via encryption....

    The real issue is you are basically giving the keys of your kingdom to somebody else.....Encrypted or not, they can block your access to it and shut you down. Any time they want. PERIOD. And if/when it happens THERE WILL BE NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sure you can sue and spend years in court, but I do not know any company that can survive years and years without producing/selling anything until this mess is sorted out.

    Offline copies you say? Then you basically got suckered into paying for services for a cloud provider AND keep your own infrastructure.....
    Pay 2 cloud providers? At that point I think it is cheaper to simply not pay anybody and build your own infrastructure.....

    The cloud is an interesting idea, hardly new concept though: we are essentially transitioning back to the days of big powerful central mainframes that companies such as IBM had a stranglehold on and had their clients paying "protection" money that would make the mafia green with envy....

    1. Re:The cloud is... by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The cloud is more than just storage, but usually people use the storage functionality for this.

      Realistically, the cloud needs to be treated as another storage medium, just like optical, tape, floppy disks, HDDs, SSDs, and everything else. You plan for media failure, and you build in anti-compromise measures.

      The cloud is the same way. If you are an enterprise, you turn on encryption in NetBackup or other program, create a storage pool, and have a mirror on other media (be it an Avamar, a tier 3 disk, or a LTO-6 silo.)

      If you are a home user, you encrypt your cloud backups, either by storing things in an encrypted container (TrueCrypt, BitLocker protected windows image, Mac Disk Image, LUKS, PGP Disk volume, etc.), or using a backup program that encrypts. At the worst, there are utilities like BoxCryptor which act similar to CryptFS and map an encrypted layer on top of the cloud drives. Any of this is better than nothing.

      Of course, with encryption comes the major bugaboo -- key management. You may have the data securely stashed on the cloud... but without keys, it will be inaccessible. I like having several printed out physical notebook with keys in it, as well as archive grade optical media, and a USB flash drive. Each copy of the notebook goes with a key person (corporate officer), and there is one kept in the local tape safe. This way, if the data center gets completely flattened, it may take days to weeks, but data is still recoverable. This also helps if there is an audit or motion of discovery.

      The cloud has its big issues... but treat it as its own piece of media, and it can come in handy. To be more specific, treat each cloud offering as its own media. Amazon Glacier is great for long term archiving, but one needs to well index it, to minimize the stuff retrieved, and Glacier should be the absolute last resort if data is needed, due to the charges for fetching data.

    2. Re:The cloud is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we are essentially transitioning back to the days of big powerful central mainframes ..."

      We are currently in a maze of twisty passages when it comes to software innovation. Old concepts are repackaged, de-featurized, and marketed as the NextBigThing(tm), but where is the innovation? Where is my peer-to-peer FaceSpace? Open access fiber optic to the home?

      +1

    3. Re:The cloud is... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not totally true. If *you* encrypt the data before you store it in the cloud, it's a decent backup mechanism...provided you have a totally separate backup mechanism for your keys. A couple of unlabelled usb keys in two separate places, one of which you remember, and one of which you document in a sealed letter held by your attorney (or some other place that it can be retrieved from in case you forget). You might also have a couple of dummies. ("Well, that used to be the key. I must have forgotten to update it.")

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  13. Do no evil, right? by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is my problem: Google has a long history of cooperating with NSA.

    Don't believe me? Fine: read these links instead... Yahoo News article about cooperation between Google and NSA, Guardian article, Tom's Guide article.

    Even if Google does not/did not/will not cooperate with NSA, Eric Schmidt himself has been cooperating with the US Government, which cast serious doubts about his desire to protect the private information of Google clients.

    Again, don't believe me? Fine, read this instead: Julian Assange on Eric Schmidt. Or (even better) this transcript.

    Even if Eric Schmidt does not cooperate with the US Government, he has said himself, repeatedly, that privacy is dead and that it's something for hackers.

    Don't believe me? Fine, read this instead: EFF article, Gawker article.

    In other words, a company that cooperated with the NSA, led by a man who does not care about your privacy (but cares very much about his) is telling you that there is nothing to see here, sure we are protecting your privacy, please buy our products, we are safe and professionals and there is nothing to be afraid of.

    Seriously? How come this gasbag is a freaking CEO, paid millions of dollars a year?

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Do no evil, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eric Schmidt stepped down as CEO in 2011. The current CEO is Larry Page.

    2. Re:Do no evil, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell yeah , AT&T and verizon just gave NSA users passwords , but Google gave them root account of all servers

    3. Re:Do no evil, right? by mac_beggar · · Score: 1

      egh, Re: Mr Schmidt, this dude make's my eye's bleed, take him away - please! Larry Page maybe CEO but Schmidt is still executive chairman of the board! Some of us that Program with Linux know exactly what google does with it - Robot! Funny how GNU/Linux doesnt include candy like "CA-Certificates" for "Root Authorities" into you machine, thats because in general GNU/Linux is used to assign such authority to a given domain... Yet here we have Microsoft Windows & Macintosh Apple & Google itself, bundling such domain authority into every piece of the heavily ladden Digitally Rights managed bogus hokum! One could almost theorise that such things could in fact be used for MD5 collision and mapping of other people's personal and private network's... Go one better and reflect about how the domain authorities lost almost 200 such signing certificate into the hands of "t3h 3viL h4x0rZ!" and you can rapidly reach your own conclusions as to why those certificates are actually in your machine, an something tells me it's got sweet FA to do with SSL.

    4. Re:Do no evil, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the question is why, I mean what the flying f*** does someone require that amount of cracking capability for? If they had a problem with RSA being the security designator they would have shut down RSA period. Something tell's me this has nothing to do with terrorism or pedo's. I mean lets look at this logically, the navy is involved and we all know how those guys love there quantum mechanics, so why the hell would anyone require a quantum computer? What is it they're so desperately trying to crack?!? They're still insistant that what they recovered in Roswell was nothing but a weather balloon, somehow all of this has a huge stink and none of it seems like it wants to wash off.

    5. Re:Do no evil, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      egh, Re: Mr Schmidt, this dude make's my eye's bleed

      Your eye's what?

    6. Re:Do no evil, right? by mac_beggar · · Score: 1

      re: your eye's what... It's a witty pun, like 5-eyes, 9-eyes and many more! He makes there eye's bleed (heart-bleed!)

    7. Re:Do no evil, right? by mac_beggar · · Score: 1

      Everybody know's about t3h "leet" super computer, they knew all about it back in the 80's and they knew they where out there with a huge collosal crypto crunching computer the early CRAY now on display in the museum archives in the early 90's, seem's encryption has always been a thorn in there side. So you can deduce that crunching the numbers didnt work back in the 80's and 90's so they've built an even more collosal super machine "titan" to carry on trying to crunch the numbers that are supposed to be resistant until the Sun collapses! But of course when they figure out that that one isnt big enough, watch they'll ask for a bigger budget! Cryptography is wonderful, because keys dont have to be 64bits in size, they can be billions of bits in length, when it comes to programming such algorithms there are no contraints!

    8. Re:Do no evil, right? by mac_beggar · · Score: 1

      We can all spout a theory, but my theory is they've got there grubby little hands on something, that they desperately would like to open an for the moment IT like the rest of the world, is happily giving them the finger!

    9. Re:Do no evil, right? by mac_beggar · · Score: 1

      They say reigan gave them directive 12333, reigan also made this stunning speach! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    10. Re:Do no evil, right? by Branciforte · · Score: 1

      Dude, the first thing you cite is a speculative article that was printed when Snowden first released incomplete information. Within weeks it was also revealed, BY THE SAME SOURCE, that Google was not cooperating with the NSA but rather that the NSA was tapping into the transatlantic cables and stealing information. Any data between Google datacenters is now encrypted, by the way.

      How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you are posting bullshit like this? Does it make you feel important or something?

    11. Re:Do no evil, right? by Branciforte · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? The NSA doesn't have any accounts on Google servers. Where did you get this information? Oh, you just made it up.

  14. Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google share ALL information with NSA, FBI and ALL agencies.
    So better stay away from google services heheheheheee more monitoring than NSA jajajaa

  15. No - Keep Your Data Home by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, if you want to avoid NSA spying then keep your data out of the cloud and off the web. Keep your data at home. It's that easy.

    1. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's that easy.

      Email is a lot less effective when kept exclusively on the sender's computer.

    2. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's not. If they really wanted to, they can still access it. It's just much more expensive to do so because they would need to send a team to monitor your movements, figure out when you are not home, break in, copy and analyze at HO.

      That is assuming your hardware such as keyboard and mouse was not already compromised and already sending data back wireless to them.....

      They are quite good at what they do, they have been at it for a long time and got all the angles covered.

      We, as a people, can only defend ourselves by keeping the cost of monitoring all of us prohibitively expensive....

    3. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. It's not hard to run a mail server. Google's only convienent because you're tied to the phone with the real players with it. It works much like Crackberrys do- what they won't tell you is that you can still have that with the corp server. If they're using Exchange, as long as they've got the web edge exposed, you've got a way to do it on most platforms and you don't even need a "native" client. They've got native IMAP and POP clients (Don't use Google's offerings- with at least Lollipop, they've munged IMAP and POP mail into the GMail client. But there's apps in the app store that do a better job with an IMAP server anyhow...)

      For the rest, it's quite simple. There's loads of very useful tools for IOS and Android that do basic word processing/spreadsheet/presentations- and they're working on finalizing a version of LibreOffice for at least Android tablets now. There's only benefit in all of their Cloud servers and services- if your data's disposable and you're not concerned about it being snooped. If so, it renders it more accessible under more contexts. But...that accessibility...it's why you don't want it there unless it's non-important. If you can get at it that convieniently- others can too.

    4. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you have never heard of TEMPEST.

    5. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also more private if you only send it to the receiver and not to the entire world (which is basically what you do when you send it to Google).

      If Google is so serious about privacy, why don't they start offering privacy services? Anonymous remailers, anonymous VPN, anonymous proxies. Not that I think many would trust them. It takes time to build trust and I'm afraid they have to start from below zero. But yeah...

    6. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also more private if you only send it to the receiver and not to the entire world

      You don't understand how mail servers work, do you?

    7. Re: No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I admin my own. Why? Now tell me why it's a good idea for me to store all my mail on someone else's server. Especially at a company that makes its money by reading people's email.

    8. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      Are you...an angel?...God? My morning has been transformed. Speak to us, anonymous deity.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    9. Re: No - Keep Your Data Home by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      You don't understand how mail servers work, do you?

    10. Re: No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Email -> Server -> Feds.
      It works like this.

    11. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Email is a postcard.
      Did you ever really believe postcards were secure?

    12. Re:No - Keep Your Data Home by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      You assume too much and you make too much ado about nothing.

  16. Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now your confidential information will be accessible by a third party whenever you upload or download it.

  17. What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this statement from 2009 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/184446/googles_schmidt_roasted_for_privacy_comments.html):

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." -- Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google

    Bottom line is the only real privacy is privacy that protects both criminals and innocents equally. If you can't protect both you aren't really protecting either. Everyone is a criminal if the government wants your data badly enough.

  18. comments like that... by Cardoor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    can discredit anything and everything you have ever said before publicly. then again, i wonder if it's reached the point of kabuki theatre such that he's trying to deliberately be ridiculous to communicate in the only way he can. kind of like when a hostage deliberately oversells his 'newfound devotion' to his captors' cause to try and communicate that there's a gun pointed at his head.

  19. Absurd by artlu · · Score: 2

    As anyone knows, Google receives several federal subpoenas, and it attempts to cooperate with as many as possible. It has to as a public, U.S. based entity. It seems ludicrous that Schmidt would make this claim, but unless someone has gone through this system like I have (read my story here The Market is not Random), I guess they wouldn't know everything the governments are capable of doing.

    Careful, Mr. Schmidt.

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:Absurd by jaseuk · · Score: 1

      No not absurd. If there systems are designed so they have no access to this information, then they can't hand it over. They can't be compelled to re-engineer their systems.

      Apple and Microsoft can most likely offer similar assurances soon, but probably won't.

      Now - none of this helps you if the spies have certs + network TAPs, but a lot better than how things were sounding before.

      Jason.

    2. Re:Absurd by artlu · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but the problem is that the government can gain access to any information it wants. In fact, if you are dealing with commodity/futures data/accounts, the CFTC was given blanket subpoena power after the 2008 crash.

      --
      -------
      artlu.net
    3. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big assumptions -- nowhere in the article does it say that Google itself (or its employees) do not have access to this information. Actually, to the contrary, the article says that google still collects and uses the information ("Google collects data to help deliver its services...").

      That is the problem with companies like Google and privacy -- they make their money by keeping your data NOT private.

    4. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems ludicrous that Schmidt would make this claim, but unless someone has gone through this system like I have (read my story here

      We get, you wrote a book. Quit spamming.

    5. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Market is not Random -- Anthony J. Klatch, II. I really trust you. I have 10M$ to invest. I'm looking forward to work with you. But before may you send me 50k$ to initiate all the procedure for the fund transfer?

    6. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Market is Not Random - nothing is. Do you have any other books with obvious titles? "Rain Is Wet" maybe, or "Damn, That brick Wall Hurt My Head"?

    7. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop spamming your dumb book in every article
      thanks

    8. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have an axe to grind with the Feds after they convicted you for defrauding investors, do you?

    9. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh this is rich! Your financial fraud scheme collapsed due to an investment in Google, you were convicted of multiple federal felonies, and now you come onto slashdot to criticize Google.

      http://blog.al.com/live/2012/08/fraud_gets_hedge_fund_manager.html

    10. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market is not random but it does follow game theory and from that perspective it is essentially "random" unless you're in the know. In other words, if enough people "know" how the system works then the system will change against them (ie. "random" to most people).

    11. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but if you are cut off from your information while they try to get access, your situation has not improved in the slightest. (And this doesn't just take cloud, witness Steve Jackson games from back in the day, where lost access to data had a signficant impact on their bottom line.)

  20. Cato = Koch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1]

    1. Re:Cato = Koch by footNipple · · Score: 1

      The Brookings Institute is funded by Soros and other proper leftist billion and million aires. So, what's your point?

      http://www.discoverthenetworks...

  21. Is it snowing in Aplril? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, either this guy doesn't know it's not April 1st...
    or I'm gravely confused and Christmas is now in the April's first half.

    1. Re:Is it snowing in Aplril? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has always been known for their excellent April Fools pranks. This year they successfully convinced most of the world that it's December.

  22. F*ck you Mr. privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone who says privacy is dead and then says their service is the safest place to store data is not exactly a trustworthy source.

    If you want safe data use services like SpiderOak. Or an email service located outside of the US. Don't do anything with any company under US jurisdiction and preferably give your business to Swiss companies who will give the finger to any subpoena or grand jury.

    1. Re:F*ck you Mr. privacy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes because Swiss is so much (not) secure!
      Swiss also has secret services, and they also want access to all data!
      Swiss is sharing everything when they are pressure by politics! Not even in baking they are secure... let alone data!
      At least one Encryption Swiss company has been cough with backdoors in their products that they sold to Vatican and many other country's, courtesy of the NSA.

      You either make it and make sure someone else also good on the thing also tests it, or you simply can't trust. Besides you need to make the hardware, operating system and the programs by your self... and be really really good or else any good hacker will still get the stuff in no time.

  23. the more i think about it by Cardoor · · Score: 2

    the more i think that maybe eric shmidt is trying to do the right thing, and so making such an outrageous statement to communicate the OPPOSITE. in other words, 'to avoid NSA spying, NEVER store ANYTHING in google services.' this might be the only way he can 'say' it with a gun at his head.

  24. I feel safer with NSA than Google by david.emery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All things considered, I trust the NSA more with my data. At least they're not in the business of selling it.

    1. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by Kardos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google won't torture you by mistake. Well, as far as we know, anyhow.

    2. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by david.emery · · Score: 2

      Neither will NSA. You have your Three Letter Agencies mixed up.

    3. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      Google won't torture you by mistake.

      That's what I used to think, until I tried to decipher my first AdWords bill.

    4. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by digitig · · Score: 2

      I want to avoid Google spying on me. Does the NSA have some servers I can use?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to retort your first and second statements: the NSA WILL give away your data to not just our other USA governments branches (MIL,CIA,FBI, DEA, etc) they also share some of it with other governments.(and some of the recipients of your data from the USA to abroad will torture you if they so choose).

    6. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sig worthy!

    7. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by rwiggers · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? As not "selling" it to promote unfair competition in favor of some white house supporters?
      If you search you'll see various companies had secret data searched and stored by NSA, oil&gas has a lot of examples. It's believed that this data has been used b some companies as an advantage on international biddings...

    8. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by david.emery · · Score: 1

      "it is believed" - conspiracy theorists will believe anything that supports their theories.

      Last time I checked, I'm not an oil&gas company.

    9. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was intentional.

    10. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by rwiggers · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're not. It was meant to show that NSA may be sharing that data with "private partners". You'll never be sure.

      Conspiracy theorists will believe anything, agreed. They also like to post things as facts. But this has been partly proven, and a full prove will probably never appear.
      Since I don't like conspiracy theories, I made clear the fact it's not completely proven...

    11. Re:I feel safer with NSA than Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet says the CIA owns google.
      and that their employees are on their pay role....
      I guess I am not allowed to state the truth...
      Or I will be censored????

      My last post seems to have disappeared????
      I will give the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe it is merely because I posed a link as well...
      to back up my statement...

      Remember the media controls the mob mentality
      through lies and social programming....
      Please put all of your information in the hands of the so call "security agencies"...
      Information is a Weapon! You can trust them... Don't you trust people.....
      who don't trust you????

      My problem is that I have never seen organizations that hate....
      The US Constitution as much as these guys... Maybe we have put the rats...
      in charge of guarding the cheese????
      They seem ready to pave the road to a new Nazi Germany... right here in America...
      And all under phony guise on 'National Security'

  25. +11 funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because this dial goes all the way to 11.

    Now really. Back in the early 2000s I earned more than one puzzled look when I said that Google *is* the NSA. You can do worse in constructing a conspiracy theory, can't you?

  26. What a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of this statement from 2009 (http://www.pcworld.com/article/184446/googles_schmidt_roasted_for_privacy_comments.html):

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities." -- Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google

    If you can't protect both criminals and innocents equally you can't really protect anyone. US laws make it impossible for Google to provide the level of privacy people need, and as such is a horrible place to store actual sensitive data. If a government entity wants your data badly enough, they can force Google to grant them access.

  27. Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha hahahahahahahaha

  28. Here's a clue by jbrown.za · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the original article:

    Back doors are a bad idea, Schmidt said. “It’d be great, if you’re the government, to have a trap door, but how do we at Google know that the other governments are not taking over the trap door from you?” he said.

    He is not saying the government (presumably the US government) shouldn't have a backdoor. He is only expressing a concern that other governments might find ways to exploit it.

    Bottom line ... it still seems like Google will hand over any data the US government wants.

  29. Re:He's telling the truth by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    The CIA and NSA are bosom buddies who only withhold information from each other when there's an actual threat. But if it's just an ordinary citizen, they'll be more than happy to double-team you.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  30. Great News! by neurovish · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was wondering what I could do to keep the NSA from spying on me. I'm glad that Google has it figured out. Time to upload all of the documents I have stored locally on my desktop to the Google servers so that they can keep a watchful eye on them. I was worried that this was going to be hard and require a lot of dilligence.

    I'm going to tell my boss that we need to move away from all of these Microsoft products to and only use Google cloud services for security.

  31. Nice try, NSA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I wonder how much it will be succesful.

  32. ...or an alternative view by neurovish · · Score: 1

    Fast forward to the year 2017.
    Headline: NSA outsourced to Google
    In a cost cutting move, the US Government has outsource all NSA activity to Google. In a statement from President Hillary, she gives the reasoning that "[they] recognized a duplication of data collection efforts between the NSA and Google and decided to take advantage of those synergies."

  33. on that note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time for me to stop using google at all.

    captcha: bondage

  34. Is it safe? by matbury · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's worse than most people seem to realise. Schmidt isn't just lying, he's willingly getting Google in deeper with the NSA because, you know, the bottom line: It's very, very profitable (tax payers dollars are always the most profitable source) and the market insists that corporations go where the money is. Google appear to be doing everything they can to get into the international espionage business via their departments like "Google Ideas", which is effectively a department within the US State Department. They consult with governments and corporations to help them with their commercial and political "issues." You know, the kinds of issues that some governments and corporations don't like, such as popular protest movements, environmental campaigning, human rights protection and enforcement, exposing political corruption, etc. Google can provide such governments and corporations with very helpful data on who these "trouble makers" are, where they've been, who they've talked to, and what they may be planning to do next.

    Perhaps we should be more insistent when interviewing Schmidt about our data: Is it safe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... I mean, it's the kind of thing that he's endorsing, enabling, and promoting by getting into bed with the current NSA, CIA, DoJ, and State Department. It's only fair that he should be treated equally.

    1. Re:Is it safe? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I would not reduce someone like Eric Schmidt to someone who's just in it for the money. This underestimates how ideology and interests tend to blend. I suspect that for someone like Schmidt working together with the NSA just feels morally right. And people who want to hide things from the NSA well, they're doing something they oughtn't to be doing.

    2. Re:Is it safe? by matbury · · Score: 1

      I would not reduce someone like Eric Schmidt to someone who's just in it for the money. This underestimates how ideology and interests tend to blend. I suspect that for someone like Schmidt working together with the NSA just feels morally right. And people who want to hide things from the NSA well, they're doing something they oughtn't to be doing.

      While there is some truth to this (Who doesn't try to rationalise their actions to make themselves feel better about it), I wouldn't underestimate the relentless, intensive sense of urgency of keeping a corporation "competitive" and chasing every opportunity that might pay off and keep it afloat and keeping shareholders happy. I wonder what he says to shareholders and potential investors about collaborating with the NSA? It might be a very different line to the one we get to hear.

  35. Ha hee hee ha ha ha by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And then they are one court order away from being unlocked.

    Seeing that it turns out that nobody's tinfoil hat was big enough, I am going to make a prediction. It will turn out that Google was sharing data with the NSA as part of a deal where the NSA would share software patent data from potential foreign competitors with google so that google could keep the market on just about anything it wanted.

    I wonder how many foreign companies went to file a patent only to find that an American company that was friends with the NSA had filed the patent days before? Siemens filing patents only find that GE had done so the day before?

    The NSA would only have had to monitor a very few IP lawyers' offices to vacuum up a huge number of patents. This would then give the NSA something that they could afford with which to trade and it would "Protect" US commercial interests; as it would be a complete disaster for the next facebook or Google to be in a country that isn't friendly with the NSA.

    Even within the US I suspect that it would be easier to not have to negotiate a new data access deal with even domestic companies so why not hand their patents over as well.

    Think of it this way. If a company were to come up with a better search algorithm (one that didn't always bring up yellow page directories for every damn search, or spammy product sales sites) and I said you should try boobla.com (I made that up) as a search engine and you tried it and it was so much better, would you ever use google search again? How fast would you tell all your friends about boobla? Thus how long before google was seeing 40% month on month drops in search traffic? Unlike companies like Ford where a better car coming along doesn't get you to dump your ford and immediately buy the better car google can see the rug swept out from under them. If they lost search then all their other services combined would not be able to prop up the company. Plus there is no reason that boobla.com can't be Chinese, Korean, Icelandic, German, or Tanzanian?

    1. Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Google does have a practical lock-in, though theoretically there is no lock in and boobla can swoop down and eat Google's lunch.

      So many people searching Google gives it the input it needs to improve itself. Even Microsoft has complained about this. So - many more people search Google, so Google can improve itself better than boobla, so that its search results are better, so many more people search Google.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    2. Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

      I am thinking of a whole new algorithm; just like Google did to lycos, yahoo, altavista, etc. Basically with those search engines you looked up gravel and got porn, looked up bird watching and got porn, looked up pictures of cute pandas and got porn. Then suddenly google came along and you would search gravel and get gravel. Now with google you search gravel and get a wiki page on gravel (which any idiot could build) and then you get things like yellow pages and other aggregate sales sites; basically SEO porn.

      But most importantly if I search a very specific search for things like local pizza places I am unlikely to find their poorly SEO'd sites while aggregators will dominate for page after page.

      So it I don't see someone beating google by a slightly better system but an aha system that is fundamentally different and completely blows aggregators out of the equation.

    3. Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      This aha system might be mathematically impossible. The aggregators are also intelligent , and more importantly, numerous. It is a tough monopoly that can be broken only by technology of which even theoretical underpinnings are doubtful.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    4. Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      You are probably right that the SEO types would eventually game the system. But if it were way better than google for even a year then google could lose out big time. But my long term prediction is that the best search engines will end up being highly curated. Nothing beats going into a library to look for a book and they introduce you to a local guy researching to write that very book's replacement. It blows an automated card catalogue out of the water. But in that example it is not that the automated cart catalogue is bad but that the two together are very powerful.

      At a glance I can tell if a site is aggregated or original with few errors (I did find a recent site on lasers that looks about as domain squatting as is possible but wasn't).

    5. Re:Ha hee hee ha ha ha by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yes, a curated system beats Google. It turns out to be expensive, and tech history shows that cheap+worse beats better+slightly expensive, as long as convenience of payment is similar. Our web is in an awful situation where the cheapest (advertisement supported) is the most convenient in payment. Once that problem is solved, yes curated search engines should take over.

      The human expert IS a curated search engine - the right part of human brain is the best search engine ever made. It is too expensive to be of any use for casual use, like Google is used.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  36. They will keep it for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really want it to be safe, keep your data in an NSA database.
    That's where I keep all my private data.

  37. Spit Take by CimmerianX · · Score: 1

    ... well almost anyway. This was the funniest thing I read this morning and that includes my daily romp through the funnies.

  38. Out of the frying pan, into the fire by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Seriously?

    I trust google with my data even less than I trust the government. It's why I no longer use any of their services. This article is not for anyone with a functional brain, it's for the masses that believe what they're told to believe. I'd also suspect this wasn't something Schmidt said without some "guidance" or "suggestions" from some of his high powered friends in the government.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    1. Re:Out of the frying pan, into the fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed I deleted my gmail and wouldn't use anything google. I also deleted facebook, I think they are bad also.

  39. Who is Schmidt talking to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “Google’s job is build stuff that delights customers. When governments illegally invade their privacy, that’s like a negative. It’s easy to understand why we’d make these systems stronger."

    Was this written by the CEO of Google or a teenager?

    1. Re:Who is Schmidt talking to? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      If the service is free, that means that someone else is the customer.

  40. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Google's services are the safest place to store your sensitive data.

    -Eric Schmidt

    God himself could not sink this ship!

    -Unknown Titanic crew member

      When asked during an interview for CNBC's recent "Inside the Mind of Google" special about whether users should be sharing information with Google as if it were a "trusted friend," Schmidt responded,

    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

    The attitude, people here should do their due diligence and look at who Mr Schmidt hangs out with, that will answer all your questions.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  41. NOC NOC who's there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOC NOC, who's there?
    Mr. Schmidt.
    Mr. Schmidt who?
    My non official cover is Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Grey, Mr Black, or Mr What Ever.
    Any of the team, who is the NOC?
    It only takes a few infiltrators to break your unbreakable paradigm.

    Who is that NOCing on my door.
    Quoth the Raven,
    Never, More.

  42. Schmidt represents the NSA himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Eric Schmidt has close and deeply political connectinons with the very
    regime that he is claiming that Google will protect you against.
    This is someone who has deep personal associations with the Washington
    estabilishment, and a very similar imperialistic neo-liberal worldview
    to the ruling junta in Washington.
    Google needs to move out of the United States, and change its senior
    management to regain any credibility.

  43. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a hilarious statement, coming from a person like him who has deep ties to the corrupt U.S. government. He's like a dirty man trying to lure children with popsicles, it doesn't get any more dishonest.

  44. No - Keep Your Data Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My home is in the cloud, you insensitive clod!

  45. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why should we believe that Google and Eric Schmidt will not share our data with the NSA? For them to say that they won't is nowhere near good enough.

  46. Except SOPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except SOPA 2.0 has been added to the law. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2p2ars/sopa_20_was_passed_under_the_radar_under_hr_4681/
    This lets them store everything encrypted forever. This will include your 'safe' gmail data.

  47. Someone has to say it. by spacefight · · Score: 1

    What a fucking asshole.

  48. Just laughable by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    So it takes a year an a half to get something done at one of the biggest tech companies there is and in all that time bugger all said about that company's failures before that? It is really a tacit admission of failure and collusion and should not be construed by any means of any change in the status quo. Schmidt is a bullshitting rich asshole who will at this point say anything that sounds like his shit doesn't stink. But it does and we know it.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  49. distributed raid by delvsional · · Score: 2

    Can someone design me a distributed raid app that encrypts and splits the data between all the major cloud options? It would be pretty hard to decrypt if they only have a fifth of it.

    --
    Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    1. Re:distributed raid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      already done. tahoe-lafs

    2. Re:distributed raid by ZeroWaiteState · · Score: 1

      Chinese remainder theorem

    3. Re:distributed raid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also hard to decrypt if it's properly encrypted.

    4. Re:distributed raid by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Implement true one way encryption by sending everything to /dev/null

      Saves on disc space, too!

      --
      -
  50. Place your bets! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm taking bets that the article was NOT written by or motivated by NSA pressure.

    No takers?

    Damn. There goes my get-rich-quick scheme. Which makes it doubly ironic that this posts capcha is "Paycheck"

  51. To protect yourself from the Lion ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    put your head in the tiger's mouth.

  52. Google, NSA-Certified by AqD · · Score: 1

    Now the USA government can start selling NSA-proof certification for foreign data centers!

  53. I believe him by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    They will fight any NSA letter tooth and claw to resist handing over your data.

    After all, they still want to sell it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  54. HAHAHAHAHA! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!.... breathe..... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  55. google and privacy do not mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google will hand your data over to the government or if it is profitable for them.

  56. June 1, 2015 is it by bigpat · · Score: 1

    They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it. Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.

    Yes, but I think you mean until US laws EXPIRE on June 1, 2015. The most egregious parts of the Patriot Act are still set to expire on June 1, 2015. After that it appears that demanding ALL the records from a business or institution (or person?).... including phone records, email logs, text message logs, web site visitor logs, library records etc etc... will again require an actual constitutionally valid warrant naming the cause, the person and the things to be seized.

    1. Re:June 1, 2015 is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will be immediately forced to hand over everything and be silent about it.
      Until US laws are fixed AND respected, data going to a US Corporation can by definition not be safe.

      Yes, but I think you mean until US laws EXPIRE on June 1, 2015. The most egregious parts of the Patriot Act are still set to expire on June 1, 2015. After that it appears that demanding ALL the records from a business or institution (or person?).... including phone records, email logs, text message logs, web site visitor logs, library records etc etc... will again require an actual constitutionally valid warrant naming the cause, the person and the things to be seized.

      The politicians will vote to extended the PATRIOT Act for another term. President Obama has been an extension of his predecessor's administration and policies. The current and previous administration in Washington, DC, should be charged with treason and summarily executed. The corporations which facilitated these abuses should have their boards of directors and senior executives charged with aiding and abetting criminal acts as well as providing aid and comfort to the enemy; summary execution thereafter with no appeal. All such corporations shall forthwith be dissolved and any assets applied to the national debt.

    2. Re:June 1, 2015 is it by ghettoimp · · Score: 1

      Hah -- good one!

    3. Re:June 1, 2015 is it by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Hah -- good one!

      Yes. But this time, all it would take for good to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

    4. Re:June 1, 2015 is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most egregious parts of the Patriot Act are still set to expire on June 1, 2015.

      HA! What have you been smoking? Parts of the patriot act have been "set to expire" in 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2011. In each and every time congress and the current president have conspired to extend it despite resounding opposition by corporations, security consultants and the people. What makes you think this time will be any different? Once a corrupt government gives themselves more power they never give it up.

    5. Re:June 1, 2015 is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't that thing had, like 3 renewals already? Given the desires of the Three Letter Agencies, I don't give any "automatic expiration" nonsense the time of day. In today's legislative world "automatic expiration" can correctly be read as "automatic extension & renewal".'

  57. What about Google spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent - Google has given me a way to avoid NSA spying!

    Now - How do I avoid Google spying?

  58. Attn: Eric Schmidt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go fuck yourself, you arrogant little prick

  59. Re:He's telling the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parrallel construction then...hehe.

  60. noob question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you upvote the original post as funny? Thank you Eric Schmidt, for the holiday mirth.

  61. His wife can't trust him!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure the hell am not going to trust him.

  62. Hmm.. by tyroneking · · Score: 1

    I know I'll get s**t for this but ... Google and you-and-your-own-PC are not so different, a single court order and both have to give up any and all information requested; but in Google's case they have more lawyers than you do.

    1. Re:Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they can demand in USA, but not in another country's! If you live in Russia, North Korea or China you can't demand from the USA that they go to citizen A or B and take their computer! They may do that in those country's, but probably won't share anything with them (USA).

    2. Re:Hmm.. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      A third party does not have to notify you when this happens and the legal protection is less not even requiring a court order. At least your own hardware will allow you to know when this happens.

    3. Re:Hmm.. by tyroneking · · Score: 1

      And yet the outcome is the same ...

    4. Re:Hmm.. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Except for the part about knowing or not knowing and the part about an administrative subpena versus a warrant, sure, the outcome is the same.

  63. *Snort* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's usually some witty comment that makes me snort my current beverage out of my nose.

    This time it was the headline.

  64. laces out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is the NSA

  65. AND ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe THAT one, I have some of Saddam's nuclear weapons to sell you!

  66. Already exists, no cloud needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.symform.com/ -- 96-way encrypted RAID.

  67. Good news even if not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because it means they have recognized the market for security. It's critical that people believe security of their data is important. So at least there is a requirement to appear secure. This is much better than when Eric was telling us "there is no privacy on the internet. get over it." His tune has changed, because the people are changing. Security is important. This is good news!

  68. Terrorists and Pedophiles by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    I remember a quote from a security whitepaper which basically says something to the effect of "Unless your security method is being utilized by the worst of the worst criminals, say pedophiles, human traffickers and terrorists...then assume it is compromised."

    Now, how one would find out what those sorts of people use for data security, you got me...but it seems like a good assumption.

    1. Re:Terrorists and Pedophiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do think that criminals are smarter! If they where smart they wouldn't be in the criminal branch (at least does kind of worst criminals... lets not forget that the government's can call everybody, and anybody a criminal if they don't like that person! Everyone is braking several local laws a day, they just need to catch in a few and people will go to jail in no time. You are not braking any laws? No problem they will just pay some people to plain lie and the person is screw!).

      Some people do have good security because they have their own teams doing it, and they hire several others to look in the specifications / original code to find the mistakes. They still get cough in some other way! example: follow the money trail/ taxes.
      And also some of those "smart" criminals buy their secure phones (for example) from FBI stores in USA to use in USA or other parts of the world... NSA, FBI, CIA all can listen those "secure phones"... so not all are very smart!

  69. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Mwahhhahaahaaahaaaa!
    -- Eric Schmidt

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  70. We are all exposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We think that we are safer if we don't use Google to store our data. We are mistaken. If we have a smartphone (android or ios), if we have an email account, if we buy goods with credit/debit card, etc, we are giving our info to other, be it government, nsa, fbi, ..you name it. Others already have access to out data. You think because you don't upload your photos to facebook, you're safe? If you used your smartphone to take the pictures, they are already in hands of other. You send it by email? They have access to them. Don't be stupid.

  71. Laugh My Arse off by SwampDonk3y · · Score: 1

    LOL... yes, lets put my data on Google's storage... because you know; Google and the NSA do not work together... (sarc)

  72. airgapped computers are NOT safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let's put an end to this lie.

    just because you have a system which may have never touched the net, it's still vulnerable to a large number of attacks and that's even if your op-sec is 31337. badbios and badusb are just the tip of the iceberg.

  73. But Google can Analyze the data by aberglas · · Score: 1

    People forget that the NSA is now a huge government bureaucracy. Sure they sniff a lot of data, but I'd bet pennies to pounds that the software that they use to analyze it is as broken as most other large government systems.

    Google, on the other hand, has yet to become an unworkable bureaucracy (I give it another 5 years). They do have tools and expertise, so your data on Google is not only available to the NSA, it is actually *accessible*, which makes it far more potent.

  74. Yes but... by ControlsGeek · · Score: 1

    What if Google is who you are trying to keep your information safe from ?

  75. PRISM by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Nobody commented on PRISM? It is nice to have inter-datacenter encryption, but if the NSA can directly tap the data from the datacenter, the privacy claim is overstated.

    1. Re:PRISM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MVVM framework, it was called Prism before Microsoft rapidly changed the name to "CompositeWPF." It's in Microsoft SilverLight & Android-Binding..,

  76. Google = NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always just assumed that Google was practically RUN by the NSA. They're not exactly unknown for "going big" when it comes to secret projects. I mean, think about it... every one of Google's services is designed to extract as much info about you as possible. Who else would best benefit from that? Oh yeah, NSA. And they're an American company, so they're under US jurisdiction...
    "No, citizens, we'll keep your data safe! Don't worry about the NSA, we've got your back. Just hit "accept" on this dialog box asking for your location, phone contacts, job history, access to all of your files...."

  77. Eric Schmidt is sincere by Righ · · Score: 1

    What better way to avoid NSA spying on you than by willing giving all your data to one of their most trustied proxies?

    1. Re:Eric Schmidt is sincere by DickMardy · · Score: 1
  78. Seriously?! by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    What kind of STOOP-PID does Eric Schmidt THINK WE ARE?!

  79. At least we know by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Where the biggest honeypot is.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  80. Reminded me of this by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    From the Eurythmics

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Fun listen anyhow.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  81. Project Prism by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    Find out what Project Prism is. This article is Full of Shit.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  82. Who keeps Eric from blanket spying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but at least with Google services, you won't get picked up in random dragnet-style surveillance.

    Who keeps Eric from preforming dragnet-style surveillance? Google's whole business model is based on surveillance of its customers and harvesting their data. Eric Schmidt is the biggest Peeping Tom in the world.

    When I was a kid the worst thing was to be called "nosey". It wasn't nice to stick your nose in other people's business. Nobody wanted anything to do with or to talk to the nosey kid. You were better off being a bully even. Bullies got more respect. No we live in a world where having your nose in other people's business is standard operating procedure.

    I gave up using a smart phone because I got tired of Eric's nose up my ass. This cromebook I am using is running Ubuntu also because I got tired of Eric's nose up my ass. (actually runs better too!) No I don't use google search or email.

    I find it appualing and obsecene that Eric Schmidt would even speak on this matter.

    Eric I don't care how much money you have made spying on your customers it doesn't change the fact you still nothing more than a nosey asshole.

  83. The difference is bigger than you realize. by component · · Score: 0

    If an individual gets that court order, they have other options, to include forgetting passphrases or preemptive countermeasures. If you think you are a likely target of bad people or bad governments or whatever, you can encrypt your secrets with a symmetrical cipher. Then you store your 50 random character passphrase in a text file and have a program that continuously monitors connections and wipes that text file if your computer becomes disconnected from your home router for more than some number of minutes. (This would also be a reasonable thing to do if you feared burglars. Possibly an effective defense against an obstruction charge.) That's the best I can come up with just now and I'm not especially motivated or even knowledgable on this stuff. I'm sure more creative people can think of additional options.

    If Google gets that court order, you can expect them to just comply. That's a pretty meaningful difference as far as I can tell.

  84. Google's services are the safest place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mwahahaha" + "ha" * 100 + "!!!"

  85. Eric Schmidt, the spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just last month it was revealed that several of the Google founders have very close ties to the U.S. State Department and have been pushing U.S. policies globally. I very much doubt Google would fight the government over a data request unless the request was blatantly unethical.

    I'm using Wuala for cloud storage because they have an extremely secure storage model specifically designed to thwart spying from the U.S. or Britain. While it isn't free, it's really cheap.

  86. Don't not be evil by DickMardy · · Score: 1

    Yeah - working with Schmidt's company is really going to keep your stuff away from the US government... http://www.newsweek.com/assang...

  87. The CIA owns Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.consciousape.com/2012/05/03/google-bankrolled-by-the-cia/

  88. Weasel Mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another gunless draft exempt cop kisser who would help the authorities get rid of their american untermenschen in the blink of an eye.