News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by nl on Saturday July 23, 2016 @12:56AM (#12148416)
"Work with government" means lots of things.

The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government".

There are other things where Google does work with the US and other governments. I believe they pass Flu Trends data to the CDC for example....

And which government branch do you think that Google is working with here?

The #DNCLeaks thing is a anti-Hillary story, promoted mostly by bitter Bernie Sanders promoters. There are some Trump supporters jumping on too, but they seem a minority. It's inside-baseball for DNC wonks.

I could see an argument that someone at Google is a Hillary Clinton supporter and therefore took it on themselves to take it down. That would be a dumb thing to do, but at least would make sense.

But which government branch would try to get Google to do it? The White House wouldn't be so stupid - it would leak in an instant. Some secret three-letter agency? Why would they care? Some other department?

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by gkoberger on Saturday July 23, 2016 @01:47AM (#12148519)
You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp.

Hillary and her supporters won't talk about it because it favors them, the DNC won't because they violated bylaws requiring impartiality, and the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC.

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by nl on Saturday July 23, 2016 @06:26AM (#12149039)
You can't call something an "anti-Hillary story" if it's an uneditorialized dump of emails. Of course it's mostly Bernie supporters pushing it: the leaks show the DNC worked against Bernie while colluding with Hillary's camp.

I think we mostly agree here? By the "#DNCLeak story" I mean the analysis of the emails as well as the leak itself - that's what is happening under that hashtag.

the media won't report because the leak shows they've been taking orders from the DNC.

The only thing I've seen on this is the "Chuck, this must stop" email. It's pretty clear that was a wish, not an order (otherwise why the follow up call). Anyone who's watched any political drama on TV has seen how often politicians offices call journalists to complain - I don't see much different here?

Also, the media is reporting the leaks, pretty heavily. The NY Times[1] and CNN[2] amongst plenty of others both have major stories.

I think I agree with everything else you say.

(If it matters, I don't think Hillary is a great candidate, and wouldn't class myself as a supporter. I would have liked to see a much broader set of candidates in the Democratic race.)

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-san...

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-ema...

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by paganel on Saturday July 23, 2016 @05:24AM (#12148933)
> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure. That isn't exactly "working with the government".

A Guardian article from September 2013, two-or-so-months after the Snowden leaks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...

> The National Security Agency paid millions of dollars to cover the costs of major internet companies involved in the Prism surveillance program after a court ruled that some of the agency's activities were unconstitutional, according to top-secret material passed to the Guardian.

> While the ruling did not concern the Prism program directly, documents passed to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden describe the problems the decision created for the agency and the efforts required to bring operations into compliance. The material provides the first evidence of a financial relationship between the tech companies and the NSA.

> An NSA newsletter entry, marked top secret and dated December 2012, discloses the huge costs this entailed. "Last year's problems resulted in multiple extensions to the certifications' expiration dates which cost millions of dollars for Prism providers to implement each successive extension – costs covered by Special Source Operations," it says.

> An earlier newsletter, which is undated, states that the Prism providers were all given new certifications within days of the Fisa court ruling. "All Prism providers, except Yahoo and Google, were successfully transitioned to the new certifications. We expect Yahoo and Google to complete transitioning by Friday 6 October."

Google only gave a bla-bla answer when asked about it:

> Google did not answer any of the specific questions put to it, and provided only a general statement denying it had joined Prism or any other surveillance program. It added: "We await the US government's response to our petition to publish more national security request data, which will show that our compliance with American national security laws falls far short of the wild claims still being made in the press today."

I'd say that you should revisit your believes when it comes to the relationship between the NSA and big SV companies.

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @03:35AM (#12148719)
> The NSA leaks proved that the NSA hacked Google's network infrastructure.

.

Total misinformation. They WORKED with the NSA. Do you not remember the PRISM program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

You really should stop spreading ignorance and misinformation. You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by nl on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:38AM (#12148835)
So I think that the story around PRISM specifically is a bit confused. PRISM was initially reported as mass collection of data by the NSA, and Google has repeatedly denied that they took part in that. They do co-operate with targeted national security letter investigations, and with police with warrants, but they are known to challenge both. Quoting the page you linked to:

Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Here is some details about the hack the NSA did on Google's infrastructure: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-i...

You should also disclose that you work in the National Security industry, at a Palantir equivalent in Australia.

Wow! This made me laugh. We fund (and sometimes work on ourselves!) research on things like contagious disease prediction, and things like trying to understand mass social actions like elections. Yes, it is national security related, but not exactly that kind of national security! Sometimes the same agencies are involved though - for example, the same agency provides disease alert advice to government as provides political instability advice. So I guess maybe that makes me untrustworthy or something?

I can talk to you at great depth about Dengue Fever modelling and possible ways to try to derive parameters for mosquito breeding models if you like - it's pretty interesting, and maybe that would help some?

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by MichaelGG on Saturday July 23, 2016 @03:46AM (#12148748)
Citation? Nothing there says Google worked with the government. In fact, the article has Google saying the opposite. The slides just say "direct access" with no clarification.

Can you point me to exactly what you're reading that indicates Google worked with the NSA ?

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:17AM (#12148798)
You're joking right? This was national news when this was revealed.

You obviously didn't read the link: "The PRISM program collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google Inc. under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms."

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by emmelaich on Saturday July 23, 2016 @07:54AM (#12149215)
Obeying the law is not "working with"
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @11:51AM (#12149813)
The previous accusation was that Google was hacked and unaware that PRISM was collecting data, which is what I was referring to. Please read the thread before commenting.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by MichaelGG on Saturday July 23, 2016 @02:02PM (#12150349)
OK well in that case every person/company in the country "works with" the USG since they comply with some laws/demands.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @02:17PM (#12150416)
Google initially denied that they complied with the usage of PRISM, until documentation showed they were lying. Apple held out longer than Google, so at some point they all had to decide that they were going to "work" with the USG.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by MichaelGG on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:25PM (#12150880)
Please give me an exact citation. Perhaps update Wikipedia while you're at it?
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @05:09PM (#12151013)
I've never edited wikipedia, but my understanding is that it is labor intensive. I'll just provide a citation here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/19/us-tech-giants...

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by emmelaich on Sunday July 24, 2016 @08:17AM (#12153119)
The words "mandatory" and "compulsory" figure prominently in that article.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by colordrops on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:34AM (#12148828)
Anyone care to elaborate why I'm being downvoted?
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by tombrossman on Saturday July 23, 2016 @05:21AM (#12148924)
I didn't downvote you but if you read the comments guidelines[0] they are helpful and cover some of the comments you made above.

As an aside, your profile says you signed up 1337 days ago and your karma is at 1358. Another 21 down-votes and your Hacker News profile page will looking pretty leet - I say go for it. Remember, it's just fake internet points, you can't spend them or do anything interesting with them.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by jrockway on Saturday July 23, 2016 @07:51AM (#12149210)
On Reddit you can actually sell your Internet Points. Apparently spammers like to get high-karma accounts for spamming purposes.
Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by nym on Saturday July 23, 2016 @04:24AM (#12148808)
From what I understand they had front door access, but the NSA wiretapped between datacenters.

Google engineers issue 'fuck you' to NSA over surveillance scandal http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/6/5072924/google-engineers-i...

Re:Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site by woah on Saturday July 23, 2016 @03:27AM (#12148708)
Presidential candidates used to be nominated by party insiders. The primary system was supposed to allow the voters to choose democratic and republican candidates.

It's been pretty clear this election that the Democratic Party has gone back to the old way. I don't personally object that much because I don't vote democrat, but it's not just "inside baseball". My guess is that you don't want to hear about it because you are rooting for the democrats.