Google goes public: "The feds are NOT in our servers." - Polidicks

[quote]Google has issued a strong denial that it allows the US government to access its servers. The internet giant said the government has no access, "not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box".[/quote] [quote]US spies have been accused of tapping into servers of nine US internet giants including Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Google in a giant anti-terror sweep. All deny giving government agents access to servers.[/quote] [quote]"We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don't follow the correct process."[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22827368]**SOURCE**[/url] Now it comes down to if they are just covering their asses, or if they are really telling the truth but someone is pulling a Watergate and taping the back door open for the feds. Google's been nice in the past, but sometimes you can do nothing but speculate.

Even Facebook denied the rumors [img]http://i.imgur.com/EmkL0y9.png[/img] [url]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631[/url]

I think personally someone in the company was doing it then.

Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:

considering the fact that the US gov't thinks they're above the law tells me that they're not asking for access to the servers, but perhaps intruding without anyones knowledge. they could have come and gone by now already.

Of course they have to deny it, anything else would be bad for business "Yes we've allowed the US govt to spy on you, but hey, look at these cool new features"

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40949799]Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:[/QUOTE] Or maybe.. they both lied and the government told them "take this piece of text and change it around a bit and paste it" and they made it incredibly obvious so people would notice? [img]http://facepunch.com/fp/emoot/tinfoil.gif[/img]

or maybe they are lying to cover their asses? [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] or maybe they were told to lie but they're trying to do the "wink wink" so we catch that its all a conspiracy and they want to tell us but cant

I feel like the FBI could get in if they really wanted to Mind you I'm not talking about about them running hack_google.bat or whatever on their computers, it wouldn't be easy but I'm sure they could do it without google knowing

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40949799]Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:[/QUOTE] It's probably that both their lawyers are just boring.

[QUOTE=markg06;40949884]It's probably that both their lawyers are just boring.[/QUOTE] chances are if the government was collecting data, they would probably place some "legal" law that prevents the companies from admitting that any of this happens so even if they did want to tell us, which in Google's case may be true they couldnt because they have an NDA like restriction placed on them that would force them to comply and keep hush or face legal action only way to know is if there is some anonymous worker that spills the beans and puts his life on the line [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] reminds me of that stephen fry v for vendetta scene

[QUOTE=PassTheBong;40949805]considering the fact that the US gov't thinks they're above the law tells me that they're not asking for access to the servers, but perhaps intruding without anyones knowledge. they could have come and gone by now already.[/QUOTE] That's not really how it works.

what is "overly broad"? what is "the correct process?" Ironically enough those statements are neither specific enough nor do they follow the "correct process"

I wouldn't be surprised if it was covert and the companies had no knowledge of it. They wouldn't even need to gain access to their servers. They'd just need to put something between their servers and the rest of the web that records data coming through. It would be a lot of data so it probably has a program that only records traffic contain high risk words or wording

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40949799]Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:[/QUOTE] you were right [url]https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mv06t60fV9YclwHzFmDOEk2wGGBj-jd5od7cS-I-d6E/edit[/url]

Man this is just a huge clusterfuck that reveals a much larger picture

I really really doubt the internet did anything without Google knowing. Google pulls the best fucking minds across our country. They could protect themselves against hackers (and ironically our government can't). If anything they were legally coerced, if they did give out clandestine information. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] Btw perhaps a lawyer wrote those notes, which would explain why they're similar.

I wonder if calling a Fed a Fed is offensive. It seems really negative.

I'm thinking google and facebook are telling the truth here, they charge the government a ridiculous amount for every information request on a specific person that they make... if the government had access to their databases they would be circumventing their own money making schemes, and even if they were unaware of it they would start to fight it tooth and nail once they were to maintain their current system.

Well this is going to be interesting. Someone has to be wrong here, considering the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/]leaked slides[/url] even show when each company allegedly signed up to PRISM: [img]http://imgkk.com/i/brqd.jpg[/img]

the fuck is paltalk [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] hold on, the paltalk spokesman said the [B]exact[/B] same thing as the people above [url]http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/technology/security/paltalk-nsa-surveillance/?hpt=hp_t2[/url] [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [quote]Paltalk spokesman Philip Robertson would not comment on why the company might have been part of the PRISM program. "We have not heard of PRISM," Robertson said in an emailed statement. "Paltalk exercises extreme care to protect and secure users' data, only responding to court orders as required to by law. Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers."[/quote] they all say direct access, sounds like careful wordplay

I'm speculating here, but [i]maybe[/i] it's something like the mail filters in Germany. Here email providers are required to run a filter that automatically sends mails with certain keywords to the secret service. It's not "direct access" but they are still sent everything that is marginally "relevant".

I bet Garry is in cahoots with the feds...

[url]http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/53475/white-house-admits-it-has-access-facebook-google[/url]

[QUOTE=pentium;40949690] Google's been nice in the past[/QUOTE] lol.

big brother is watching... to protect us from ourselves? Fuck off government! You killed more people denying that money to people who needed it for transplants and surgeries than you've saved.

[QUOTE=smurfy;40951315]Well this is going to be interesting. Someone has to be wrong here, considering the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/]leaked slides[/url] even show when each company allegedly signed up to PRISM: [img]http://imgkk.com/i/brqd.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Who designs these terrible slides? I can't take it that seriously.

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40949799]Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:[/QUOTE] Large corporations seem to have a standardized way for doing everything. Hopefully I can trust Google since I have everything internet life connected with them.

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40951231]PRISM Wonder what will be written in the history books about it [/QUOTE] absolutely nothing

"no direct access" meaning they actually had to pull it up on a computer for the FBI to look at rather than the FBI pulling it up themselves. clever gambit, technocrats.