The video is fascinating.
(found in, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/10/12/0018213/snowdens-tough-advice-for-guarding-privacy )
Warning: 68 min long!
P.S. Also worth comparing to our findings in "What has Snowden taught us?"
Thanks for sharing!
Glen Greenwald also gave this talk about why privacy matters. Since he's a journalist I think he's pretty good at getting to the root of why it matters: http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters
and Laura Poitras has a new film out called Citizenfour about Edward Snowden and the NSA: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/16/edward-snowden-documentary-laura-poitras-premiere-citizenfour-new-york
If anyone's still under the impression that corporations like Google are benign and just want to sell you to advertisers, check out a division of Google called Google Ideas which is led by Jared Cohen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Cohen Does this mean that Google are in the "peace" business in the same way as the US State Department, NSA, CIA, DEA, and DoD?
Thanks for the pointers to Glen Greenwald and Laura Poitras. In this occation I found the TED talk "Edward Snowden: Here's how we take back the Internet" from March 2014: http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_snowden_here_s_how_we_take_back_the_internet. (I don't know how I missed it - 2.5 million views so far!)
This talk is much better than the techcrunch interview which I posted earlier. The poor moderator there was overstrained and was not listning. She had to throw the list of questions she prepared at regular intervals. The TED guy is a professional.
Forget the character - concentrate on the PLOT ... against YOUR freedom
El Reg rugged as usual, but pointed.
The full transcript mentioned there is deleted from CentOS site, but still available in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20060326091856/http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=127.
Imagine, this is the city manager of a town of 103 souls according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuttle,_California. How about the demigods on the Capitol Hill!
Google Peace? Followed closely by Google Trust, Google Brother and Google+good. Obviously support for Google Peace will be dropped out of the blue and not open sourced despite the huge demand. "I feel lucky" will also be replaced with +good and Google glass will be rebranded "Transparency."
"The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty." -- Nineteen Eighty-four
Google Truth, Google Pax, Google Luv, Google Plenty.
Have a nice day!
Exactly the kind of "bugs" those journalists were talking about!
It sounds very far-fetched to me; what was that, a scene from some movie where 10-12 year old kids, in front of monitors showing weird animation graphics and pounding the keyboard like crazy and without even looking at it, hack the NSA, much a là Swordfish?
I didn't follow that bug at a technical level. Just the thought of a "silent" five year old bug sounds too much like a backdoor.
Mh, yes, it must be as you say... though it still seems quite unplausible to me (for not having been detected during all that time)... but the world is really full of surprises!
This is a real can of worm which in many internet forums would dissolve into a flame war faster than you can hit the send button. I trust that a Moodle forum is more adult! (Added after I wrote the post - I'm not suggesting for a moment that you have ever behaved in such a way! I really appreciate your insight and posting of academic sources.)
I'm really not sure if my stance is pragmatic or naive, but as far as I can tell Google has done me no harm. When I use my Google account to register for an internet service, I am usually (invariably?) allowed to edit what I allow To be shared from my Google information/circles. I can't remember being offered this option with Facebook registration.
I get a benefit (via Google Now) from allowing Google to access data from my phone. Although I live in a small town in north Germany, I am always impressed by the usefulness of Google's suggestions in a number of fields when I am travelling. Equally, I'm not disturbed by Amazon's advertisements that are embedded into the webpages I open. (Actually I am impressed by their accuracy - especially when they contain interesting items that I have never searched for and are not obviously related to previous purchases.)
I'm also concerned about Google's investment in the "defence" industry, but I think the issues need to be kept apart. There is a degree of hysteria in Germany regarding Google whereby privacy is set up as some kind of Holy Grail (though gossip plumbs nastier depths than almost any other land or culture I have experienced). to make an arbitrary decision about which is worse is far from easy.
I wonder really how many people who had a passing interest in the security agencies was truly surprised by Snowden's revelations? I was more surprised that he accessed data so easily, than that the data existed.
The Internet age is hardly a generation old, and we are all still feeling our way in the dark (or maybe in the unaccustomed light). What Google does with our data is one thing, and up to now I enjoy the benefits. What the NSA (and a pile of other secret services) does with out data is another, and there I honestly don't know what to think.
One thing I am prepared to bet a pint on (in a pub of your choosing) is that the next generation will not be so concerned about it as we are.
*Andy lays a tenner to one side and takes another sip of Laphroaig*
I'm not sure if you're joking...
Today's the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. The starting document that defined the idea of the rule of law and democratic government.
Personal privacy is fundamental to democracy. That's why they wrote it into the US constitution. If Google have effectively become a branch of government (look up Jared Cohen) then they are acting, at least in spirit, on the behalf of the US govt. By legal sleight of hand, they are undermining the democratic rule of law. They also provide similar services to governments overseas... for the right price.
EU member countries are right to be concerned about Google's activities.
No I wasn't joking. I have an open mind on the issues here, but up to this point I in time I don't feel negatively affected by the actions of Google.
Incidentally, the word privacy doesn't appear in the US Constitution or it's Amendments. It is not written in to the Constitution. However the Supreme Court has interpreted some Amendments as having an influence on privacy issues (which is not the same thing). Naturally, court rulings can be rendered defunct or indeed strengthened by future decisions.
I'm not really sure what the objectors want, as most objections to Google's behaviour seem to be based on a theoretical future problem rather than an actual problem, (which sounds rather like building a case against Google drawn on the plot of Minority Report). The boards of major corporations are littered with the Jared Cohens of this world and for that matter, people with much more serious political influence.
What I fail to find in this debate (not from you - I mean in general) is a clear statement of how Google is harming me with their actions - not how they could potentially harm me. Then maybe I could take the issue more seriously.
All the best
Re: The US Constitution, the 4th Amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Google are facilitating illegal search and seizure of your personal information by passing it on, without probable cause, to the US government.
Also, to address the argument of ignorance, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." That you don't know that Google are doing you harm doesn't mean that they aren't. It's also necessary to look at this in the wider context of political systems (representative democracies in the west) and the effect that Google's political activities, from using your data and millions of others' are having on your civil liberties and human rights.
The worst aspect of what Google are helping the US govt. to do is that, since they're collecting everyone's data, i.e. hundreds of millions of people's, they have to use automated systems to sift through all the data. This effectively means that we can be accused of a crime by an algorithm in secret. Once that accusation has been made, in secret, it's very, very difficult to get that accusation into legal due process... because it's secret. Then add to that the fact that these algorithms don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, i.e. the accusation is evidence enough, and that they do believe in guilt by association, i.e. you're guilty because one or more of your friends/family/associates are.
People have been put on no fly lists, prevented from getting jobs, aggressively interrogated and in some cases tortured (sometimes to death), "extra-ordinarily renditioned" (i.e. kidnapped), and held without charge or due process (habeas corpus). This isn't some vision of a science fiction, dystopian future. This is the here and now. And Google, among many others, are making profit from it.
Did you know that somewhere around 80% of the NSA's spying activities are performed by private, for profit sub-contractors? They're not subjected to the same oversight and controls as govt. institutions. Remember that Snowden didn't actually work for the NSA or CIA? He worked for a private subcontractor because he was rejected by the CIA.
I wonder how historians will look back on this era?
I'm not using an augment of ignorance here - in this specific case I am ignorant. But my position is neutral. I'm neither accepting nor denying anything.
However, attacking Google seems rather misplaced, given your words:
People have been put on no fly lists, prevented from getting jobs, aggressively interrogated and in some cases tortured (sometimes to death), "extra-ordinarily renditioned" (i.e. kidnapped), and held without charge or due process (habeas corpus). This isn't some vision of a science fiction, dystopian future. This is the here and now.
I would certainly be focussing on the agencies and individuals doing this. Whether Google is being used to facilitate this, or maybe coerced, or maybe exploited, one thing is clear - they are not the ones doing the torturing, kidnapping etc. Bring them to justice and then just maybe we will all be better informed as to what is really going on.
I guess there will be historians who will describe this era as one infected with suspicion, and there will be historians who will describe it as a period of massive development, and others who will describe it as a time of oppression. If you google any period, you will find historians with totally opposing views. Isn't that the nature of history?
All the best
Google are facilitating human rights abuses not only in the USA, but also in countries with undemocratic regimes and oppressive practices. I very much doubt that Google are being coerced in those cases, unless the coercion is coming from the US State Department, which leads us straight back to Jared Cohen.
Also, you don't have to actually commit the abuses yourself in order to be convicted of human rights abuses. Facilitation is enough, especially if it is unlawful.
For example, the UK and US govt. send captured individuals to other countries to be tortured, e.g. Morocco, Egypt, and Uzbekistan. The UK and US regimes are just as guilty of torture as the torturers in those countries.
Also, the responsibility of govt. is to protect and prevent human rights abuses. Turning a blind eye is not an option.
More info on human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Also check out Michael Ratner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ratner
It seems like I am just going to have to continue enjoying the benefits of Google Now and a ton of their services, and you are going to continue accusing Google of human rights abuses. (I presume you don't use any of their products, but I wonder which Silicon Valley behemoth passes your moral test...)
I consider the link to the UDHR rather patronising - the fact that we have different views doesn't mean that I'm any less informed than you but I really don't feel the need to get involved in a tennis match exchanging links or soundbites. It's just a matter of priorities - there are, IMHO, so many abuses that are infinitely more worthy of attention than anything Google may, or may not, do.
All the best
Sorry, didn't mean to come across as patronising.
Yes, it's often an uncomfortable topic of discussion for most people. Even if you don't use Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., Facebook, etc.'s services and you use privacy conscious email and storage services, the simple fact is that most people you communicate and share with do use Google et al and so they have your communications and data anyway. There's simply no avoiding it.
The most feasible and realistic option is to regain democratic controls over our telecommunications and data storage. We need to pressure our governments, politicians, etc. to enact and implement, without exception, our democratic rights to privacy. That's why Snowden leaked those documents and blew the whistle in the full knowledge that his life as he knew it would end.
I guess we'll find out more about what they're up to with the next whistleblower. In the meantime, Glen Greenwald et al are covering the lies, abuses, and corruption as best they can: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/
Great timing from Randal Munroe:
Still not sure about Google et al's role in undermining democracy? Let's get it straight from the horses mouth...
US Secretary of Defence Ash Carter just delivered a speech at Stanford (the Drell lecture) which outlines the relationships between the big Silicon Valley IT corporations and the Pentagon.
Drell Lecture: "Rewiring the Pentagon: Charting a New Path on Innovation and Cybersecurity" (Stanford University)
Full speech (in text): http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1935
WARNING: Extremely foul language! There are more decent reports about this interview in the net.
I'm not sure whether that language is a means of forgeting the former NSA contractor's "quandry, the Kafka-esque nightmare". In the mean time the brethren of those officers were in more real life action in the Apple Valley. Look for the video "horse pursuit police beating" if you need a real wake up.
DOUBLE WARNING: Highly disturbing.
For those who love art and the Snowden mystic:
Edward Snowden on passwords. Food for thought.
In the mean time, more trouble for MI6:
I wouldn't be surprised if, yet again, the claims by our spy agencies turn out to be unfounded. They haven't been able to point to any verifiable instances of real harm coming to anyone as a result of leaked information.
But I think that's besides the point. What they're doing is PR. They want to put the words "Snowden has blood on his hands" and variations on the accusations out into the media to influence people's perceptions of him and other whistle blowers negatively. It's not about rational, reasonable evidence and defence. PR works by affect and contagion, not by deliberate conscious thought. Our media want Snowden's and whistle blowers' names to be synonymous with negativity and harm.
How about going after the people who regularly leak classified information to the press from the Whitehouse? Don't they have blood on their hands?
The CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, Whitehouse, etc. have been officially denying a lot of things which have later been revealed to be true from their own documents. They've also been claiming that the sky will fall in if anyone sees the NSA's internal PPT presentations and files that Snowden has revealed to us. As far as we know, the sky is still there.
Snowden leaked the documents to the press in March 2013. It's now June 2015. If there are names of spies and operations in hostile countries in those documents (It's unlikely that they'd be in PPT presentations), then what are they still doing out in the field if they're at risk? Are they THAT incompetent? Should we be worried about these people who profess to protect us from evil-doers?
Not true at all
All docs and released materials have been censored to cover agents name, ops etc, etc
However I agree that even if they were much more good has become of this than bad
PS 007 told me this himself