I wonder how many are willing to trust Google’s cloud with their documents and use their online tools given all this.

In the ruling issued Friday, the [DC Circuit] court decided that the National Security Agency doesn’t need to either confirm or deny its relationship with Google in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, ruling that a FOIA exemption covers any documents whose exposure might hinder the NSA’s national security mission.
After all, the NSA has two roles, both as the government’s top cybersecurity defenders and, more troublingly for its relationship with a Silicon Valley firm that has enormous troves of users’ personal information, as its most powerful surveillance arm.
The ruling comes as controversy has been growing around the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a bill that passed the House last month in a form that would allow private firms like Google to share a wide range of information with government agencies like the NSA for cybersecurity reasons, as well as other vague purposes like computer “crime” and even “the protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm.”

Google, unlike practically every other major tech firm, has yet to take a stance on that bill or the similar cybersecurity legislation now being considered in the Senate.

  1. sargasso_c says:

    It’s too late for many colleges and universities which swallowed the “who can you trust?” sales pitch from Google to take over their mail and document distribution networks.

  2. deowll says:

    Of course you can trust the cloud with your documents!

    That is as long as the documents you put/create in the cloud are things that would be useless in a court of law in any case that might be brought against you. Why I didn’t have the least hesitation in posting a giant data base of AR books for public viewing on line using Google Docs but then I don’t care who reads them. It is there for students and their parents to use to make informed choices about which books we have AR tests on and means Jack otherwise.

    Some of the information I now have in Google docs does relate to things like retirement but this is hardly privileged information as far as the government is concerned anyway.

    If the government knows it then it looks like it might get used against you by the Obama Admin/supporters but they aren’t wasting time reading my Google Docs. They have better sources of information about who contributes to political campaigns.

  3. Skeptic says:

    Hmmm, is the sky falling again?

    Do you want national security or not?

    • deowll says:

      Do you want to be utterly at the mercy of your government?

      We are nearly there now but as other wiser people noted anyone powerful enough to guarantee your security is powerful enough to do whatever they want to do with you and your family.

      Of course we all know that once you give people unlimited power they will always act in the best interest of those they serve, right?

      Not if they’re humans they won’t.

      • Skeptic says:

        You simply can’t have it both ways. Show me valid, shocking examples of the NSA working to the general population’s detriment because they have access to their info, and I’ll sit up and take notice. Otherwise I’ll have chicken little, or rather a little chicken, on the BBQ.

    • dusanmal says:

      I want national security, with all Constitutional limits strictly held. Intent of the Founders is clear, they could not have imagined Internet but it is obvious that “possessions and papers” would have covered things like documents held at Google vault. I am sure that the Founders would not find the fact that you keep your documents in a safe made by Carpenter Co. as excuse to read what is in it “because you gave your documents to Carpenter Co.” by the act of using their safe.
      NSA CAN obtain warrant to look at whatever deserves looking at by the Law and protect us. NSA should never be allowed access to private information without warrant just by business relation ability. Also, one of starting sparks of Revolution was ability of British law enforcement to issue themselves a warrant… which came back under Obama rule. So, real warrants by real judges accessible by FOIA or we are in tyranny.

  4. Mextli: ABO says:

    If national security is not justification enough I am sure the commerce clause covers it. “Don’t be evil”

  5. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    What are the odds that the NSA and most ISPs also have a “relationship”. The NSA and the Telcos have been in a relationship probably since the NSA was first formed.

  6. AdmFubar says:

    if you dont have your documents then whoever does, cant be trusted.. period.
    if you dont believe that.. then go ask RMS.. :))

  7. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I just hope the NSA is to National Security not at all like the TSA is to Homeland Security.

    Hmmm….is NSA part of TSA or independent? If part of TSA, which I assume, then its really TSA that has access to everything? Thats a comforting thought.

    Well…….maybe we should all dance like no one is looking, but for everything else……..

    Security begins at home. Don’t be a goofy head.

  8. Chris Mac says:

    the north american security system doesn’t see black or white or religion

    and the TSA is just a feel good job provider

  9. Julia says:

    I like, that google is going to share al the documents for normal people.

  10. Glenn E. says:

    Well, time to start looking for another search engine. Unless they’re all tied into the government by now. Bing probably is too. Part of Microsoft’s deal with DOJ, back when it was being investigated for monopoly practices, was likely to cooperate with other government agencies. When they ask for encryption backdoors and search engine tie-ins. It makes you wonder what other things the government’s spies are tied into?

    Th real question is, what and who does the NSA really protect, and from whom? It seems they’re more worried about what the 99% of us are up to, rather than the 1% who run everything. So are they looking out for the economic elite? Defending their economic strangle hold on the rest of the world? They go after people counterfeiting currency. But not the major banks who’s debt instrument speculation put the whole country’s economy in a tailspin. And then got bailed out of debt. Seems like the government’s priorities, of who it checks up on, is backwards.

    • Mextli: ABO says:

      It’s a lot more than search engines.

      “To help combat the growing number of ways that criminals use computers and the Internet to commit crimes, Microsoft is working with INTERPOL and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) to provide COFEE at no cost to law enforcement agencies in 187 countries worldwide. INTERPOL and NW3C are also working with Florida State University and University College Dublin to continue the research and development that will help ensure that COFEE serves the needs of law enforcement, even as technology evolves.”

  11. Lou Minatti says:

    Barack Obama’s Justice Dept. is just delivering some Hope ‘n Change.

    • msbpodcast says:

      This started back long before Barack Obama. (It was around before the second world war.)

      OSS, CIA, NSA, MI-6, Direction Générale de Sécurité Extérieure, KGB etc. are all names for the same lack of trust because they are all untrustworthy bastards.

  12. orchidcup says:

    So if a terrorist or criminal enterprise desires to avoid surveillance, they should avoid using the internet or connected devices.

    Snail mail still works. Fax machines still work.

    Dumb down your communications and fly under the radar.


  13. Dallas says:

    Nothing new here, move along and get used to it.

    If you wanted something to bitch about this was more important and not a peep.

    … The conservative majority of the Supreme Court voted last year along conservative/liberal lines to allow for UNLIMITED money poured into super PACs to brainwash the sheeple.

    THAT was something you had control over and you chose to ignore it so STFU.

  14. orchidcup says:

    Super PAC:

    A means for the 1% to influence the thinking of the 99% in order to benefit the 1%.

  15. JimD, Boston, MA says:

    Surprise ! ? There is NO SECRUITY ON THE WEB !!!

    • orchidcup says:

      There is perceived security, and that is all that counts.

      Door locks and surveillance cameras do not provide security, they simply harden the target.

      People who intend to do harm will find a way to circumvent security.

      My debit card was compromised for the third time this year. Nobody will tell me how it was compromised.

      Most likely the bank or the card provider had their data stolen.

  16. Public says:

    This govt used to have a relationship with the people who created it

    Apparently this govt has found a more attractive richer mate with whom to have illicit affairs…corporations

    Good Luck

    • orchidcup says:

      A corporation is a person, my friend, so it follows that if you are not a corporation then you are not a person.

      You do not exist in the eyes of the government except as a slave to corporations.

      You may vote if you wish, and you may complain if you wish, but you are invisible.

      May Karma be with you.

      • msbpodcast says:

        That’s why the government has enlisted Google. It is the source for everybody’s searches. (The other search engines as well.)

        National terrorism is easy to handle. A nation easily destroyed and therefore it can be negotiated with. (No government, regardless of how it got power, wants to throw everything away in a rash of mushroom clouds.)

        Lone wolf killers are fundamentally limited (Even Anders Behring Breivik was limited in his effectiveness. It was tragic, but hardly an act of war, apart from whatever was going on in his mind. It was merely an extreme reaction to shifting demographics. He should have been reacting by fucking his way to supremacy. That’s the approach that the French took in Québec and, by and large, it worked.)

        That leaves us with smaller scale terrorists, para-military organizations (which are not a credible anti-government threat,) large criminal gangs, other sub-national groups which have the power to disrupt the smooth running of society, and religions.*

        Searches are all tracked and they can be rolled up into a nice neat package by the search engine and handed over to a prosecuting body.

        The mistake that the 1%ers always make is that they don’t think that rules apply to them (they’re all psychopaths to some degree,) and that they aren’t caught in the same web as everybody else.

        The internal abuses, the sorry state our economy is in and the equally sorry state our educational system is in, the wage disparity between the highest and lowest remunerations, all stem from this disconnect.

        That’s what leads me to a philosophy of eliminating sub-national groups like political parties.

        *) Of these, hostile religious groups are the true threat.

        They are an amalgam of the poorest, the most down-trodden and they make up super-national groups which owe allegiance only to their own ideologies.

  17. Public says:

    A custodian that fails its fiduciary obligation?

    That’s a ball that won’t bounce

    Every web mail provider as well as every ISP is likely to be just as guilty as google if not more so. Pinning this on just one corporation ignores the intent of the creeps that corrupted Google.

  18. The0ne says:

    Can’t blame the for making it easier on them to do what they have to do right 🙂 And can’t blame the people and orgs that go along with it as well 😀 People were wusses anyways.

    “Google, unlike practically every other major tech firm, has yet to take a stance on that bill or the similar cybersecurity legislation now being considered in the Senate.”

    Maybe because they’ve been providing whatever the gov needs for some time now; y’know, they’re use to it so it’s no big deal now 🙂

    Seriously though, I don’t know how people can so readily trust the likes of Google and Facebook. Free is good only until you’re screwed and fcked up by them. It will happen, it always happen.

    • spsffan says:

      One look at Zuckerberg and you should know to avoid Facebook like the plague.

      Google WAS pretty good before it got huge. Like every other business that big, it had to sell its soul to the government in order to expand that much. It is a useful search engine, but I wouldn’t use it for mail or storage.

      Bing doesn’t even seem to be a worthwhile search engine. Hotmail, which I do use, works pretty well, though the amount of flashing nonsense you have to put up with is always increasing. And, while I don’t think it’s particularly secure, at least Microsoft has seemed to clean up major parts of their act in recent years.

      If you want secure, you have to keep it yourself.

  19. Fatigued says:

    Is it really so difficult to write a search engine?
    I use often StartPage instead of Google. It’s really quite good and is often better than Google, which has been gamed by SEO companies to the hilt.

  20. NewfornatSux says:

    The FAA has approved drones for cities and states to use. The Obama Admin has intervened in Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, Arizona’s law on police checking for illegal immigrants, voter ID laws in several states, and a city in New Jersey for using written tests for firefighters and cops. If they wanted to stop the drones, they would be gone.

    • Dallas says:

      The FAA has approved drones for cities and states to use.
      The Obama Admin has intervened in Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, Arizona’s law on police checking for illegal immigrants

      Leave it to the states if they want to use them. A good FAA decision.

      Yes, intervene in Arizona Sheriff Arshole because immigration laws are enforced by the Federal Gov. If you want our nations laws to be broken, you need to be arrested as a terrorist.

      • NewfornatSux says:

        No worries, Dream Act and amnesty are on the agenda for the second term.

  21. GregAllen says:

    NSA aside.

    What business would allow another business to have posssion of their documents and internal memos?

    Yet this is exactly what many businesses do, when it comes to Google.

  22. JimD, Boston, MA says:

    Who remembers T.I.A ??? “Total Informational Awareness” – as described by Adm. Poindexter at the begining of the Bush Adminstration ? It quickly slipped under the radar, gone but not forgotten !!! NSA “data mining” the entire Internet 24/7/365 with the BIGGEST SUPER COMPUTER FARM ANYWHERE !!! Talk about NO PLACE TO HIDE !!! (Except perhaps a cave in Afghanistan !!!)

  23. JohnS says:

    Just can’t trust Google or probably Facebook either. I just uninstalled Google Chrome on all my PC’s. Tired of Google’s name coming up all the time in questions of privacy. Something must be true about it. People are asking for it when they use cloud storage of any kind. You have no ideal whay is happening to your data.

    • orchidcup says:

      I fail to understand why cloud storage would be preferable, in any case, to local storage.

      Why would any business, or person, for that matter, decide that storing data out there in a cloud is somehow better than storing data on a secure flash drive or external drive?

      Data is no more secure or less subject to loss in the cloud.

      When it is sensitive proprietary data, I would never think of trusting cloud storage.

  24. Buzz Mega says:

    It gets better. A secret law now allows anybody to say anything they want, leagally. Good for the gander.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5024 access attempts in the last 7 days.