[Cryptography] How the CIA Made Google

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Sat Jan 31 17:36:52 PST 2015

>>> They aren't handing data to NSA?  Show us, how?  The executive
>>> doesn't take their agenda from 'Highlands Forum' ?  Show us, that
>>> you don't. The pipes between data centers are encrypted by keys
>>> that aren't being leaked -- where's the evidence?  Your CSO doesn't
>>> have a phone in his shoe?  Let’s see!

>> Hmmm… proving negatives. Does that have something to do with
>> quantum entanglement?

No, it has to do with good old fashioned integrity, openness and
honesty with the public. People can spot that, or lack thereof,
from miles away.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Tom Mitchell <mitch at niftyegg.com> wrote:
> I might also note that there has not been (yet?) a Snowden event disclosing
> bad behaviour initiated by Google.

Consensus is that the very first Snodwn release, the PRISM slides
and language therein, indicated some form of bilateral partnership
with a large number of internet companies. Plus the AT&T tap room
thing, and other known early parts of the storyline.
It is unreasonable to assume that there is a strictly arms length,
Judge signed, per transaction basis going on there. Where you
have any relationship at all, loose buddy relationships develop to
various degrees.

> The international nature of Google puts them in a much harder
> place than a TLA as serious blunders could roll up the business
> and give them no place to hide.

Google is an American company. Companies and govts don't
generally wish or extend their secret jewels to offshore risk.
Though occaisionally embassies and corps do get caught
off guard or are bound by certain rules.

> The reality I suspect is: Google protects its data with more
> care than most federal agencies.

Data protection regimen is separate from what you elect to
do with that data. Good regimen makes it easier to control
and manage your plans, ie: classification.

This is not to say these things are true, but that there is
less and/or unconvincing evidence that they are not, and
at least resonable cause to consider that they are.

On innocence...
Why are the Boards, CEO's, Officers and staff of these
companies not speaking up and saying they had and have no
non judicially forced role in the spying of Snowdens revelations?

On resistance...
QWEST (Nacchio) tried to stand up, for a few minutes at least
till resigning and later jailed. Replaced by, AT&T's (Notebaert).
Lavabit (Levison) stood up, and closed. We're now seeing some
companies doing "good things" in this space. But that doesn't
address the original question of innocence or guilt.

On guilt...
Or maybe they're not speaking up because... like the US
refuses to disclose any of the credible terror plots and
bad guys they claim to be rolling up as mass spying result...
maybe its because they have a bit of a problem with their story

Who knows. But if you're clean and can back it, and are in the
middle of a hot mess, keeping silent is a pretty dumb thing to do
for your reputation.

Needs more openness.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list