Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-snooping-zone dept.

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.

12 of 281 comments (clear)

  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.

  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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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!
    4. 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.

  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."
  4. 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....

  5. 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)
  6. 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.

  7. 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.