Skip to main content

View Diary: Google asks government to allow publishing of national security request information (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was wondering when we would start seeing (8+ / 0-)

    fissures emerge between the corporate entities and the government as a result of these spy program revelations.

    •  Is this a genuine fissure? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blukat

      Or a PR stunt? Google has a spotty record on censorship in China.

      •  If many people start typing "Yahoo" in (8+ / 0-)

        their browsers rather than Google, they've got a problem.  

        I do not believe that their motivation is anything other than financial and trying to protect their brand.

        I would not be surprised to find out that Verizon is or soon will be pressuring  the government to make it clear that they aren't the only telephone company that is providing data on all users.

        When profit and damage to a brand are at stake, companies will fight the government.

        •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart

          Service providers can only remain in business if customers can trust the service provider to keep their private data private. That's why Google is trying to show that they complied with legal court orders for specific data (which, IMO, they should do), but didn't give the government access to all the data, which is the claim.

          •  Contradictory claims (0+ / 0-)

            could be simultaneously true. Google denies the allegations that the NSA has direct access to Google services. I wonder who Google buys their bandwidth from? Maybe the NSA has servers co-located at various Internet backbone facilities where they do deep packet inspection on trunk data and copy all the network streams for Google traffic. It may well be that Google never gave the NSA total access, but the NSA didn't actually need Google to do so and got it anyway.

            +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

            by cybersaur on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:46:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's already been reported. All the companies (0+ / 0-)

          have accommodated the government, so you cannot escape it.

          The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

          by helfenburg on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:48:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Minor Spat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychodrew

        quibbling over some details.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 12:45:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not yet dertermined yet what it means (4+ / 0-)

        Facebook is still doing the legalistic/PR denial

        Google is breaking from pure denial

        Others are remaining silent

        What concerns them by the way is not just the US by also Eu

        •  Facebook seems to have joined Google (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, psychodrew

          In asking for transparency for something they deny.
          http://newsroom.fb.com/...

          tatement from Facebook General Counsel Ted Ullyot:

          As Mark said last week, we strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. In the past, we have questioned the value of releasing a transparency report that, because of exactly these types of government restrictions on disclosure, is necessarily incomplete and therefore potentially misleading to users. We would welcome the opportunity to provide a transparency report that allows us to share with those who use Facebook around the world a complete picture of the government requests we receive, and how we respond. We urge the United States government to help make that possible by allowing companies to include information about the size and scope of national security requests we receive, and look forward to publishing a report that includes that information.

          •  Their CEO is still using from what I saw (4+ / 0-)

            quotes that are very legalistic like "We don't work directly with the NSA or any other program in order to proactively give any user information to anyone"

            That's a lot of parsing and specific language that's obviously written by their lawyers and PR

          •  The FaceBook statement underscores my (0+ / 0-)

            point which is that without the trust they need to be able to engender with users, their brands and their financial models are at risk.

            It is important to remember that the government is effectively piggy-backing on these companies' businesses in order to do their spying.  The government's aim is to stop terrorists, etc. while the companies exist to make money.  These internet businesses attract customers because of their services or opportunities for social networks and if their ability to attract customers is compromised, there will be a problem for them.

            Meanwhile, the government really needs these enterprises to be attractive and to retain customers/traffic because whether or not they know it, the government is not going to ever be able to get people to join a government social networking enterprise or use a government sponsored search engine - right?  See where this goes?

            So, the government has to be careful not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg; and the goose has got its own agenda which is to profit off of that golden egg.  It is ironic that no one would nationalize banks when on some level if the government is not careful to keep these businesses in tact, they would have not only in effect nationalized the businesses, but also caused them harm potentially to the point so as to make them useless to the spying program.

            So, there's a lot here and not everyone's objectives are completely aligned - and big money is at stake.  It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

            •  Facebook (0+ / 0-)

              Facebook is already in decline. The PRISM revelations will only hasten that. No one can put that genie back in the bottle. The damage is done.

              +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

              by cybersaur on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 03:54:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  FaceBook is just one example of many. (0+ / 0-)

                Reread what I said and replace the name FaceBook with any and all of the social networking sites - this conflict of interest applies to all with respect to this government spy program.

                •  other sites (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't disagree with you

                  +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

                  by cybersaur on Tue Jun 11, 2013 at 04:43:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The main point - and FB is still important (0+ / 0-)

                    in the mix no matter how you feel about them given their worldwide membership - is that the inherent conflict between the aims of a business concern (making money) and the aims of a government (whatever it is that day) will come to a head in this particular situation unless both parties go to great pains to avoid that moment where they cannot avoid being at cross purposes.

                    It is probably safe to say that one of the reasons that the spying apparatus is so angry with Snowden is that he has upset that delicate balance between the government symbiotically sucking off of the teat of these businesses' treasure trove of data mining versus ending up being parasites that kill these that lay these golden eggs.

    •  No, it's just Google wanting to publicize how few (0+ / 0-)

      Not it has to be Google wanting to publicize how few requests have been made of them. Why else would they want their users to know? They might go for other browsers if they thought the requests were dragnets ... no?

      •  It's not about the browser (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybersaur

        This isn't about the Google web browser, it's about the Google web services. Gmail, search, photos, etc., all require users to trust that Google will behave responsibly and keep users' private data private.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site