By conflating those two clearly means you don't understand what's going on Russia and its Putin-controlled satellites like Belarus.
And you've got Abby Martin and Chris Hedges who've had much of their content removed by YouTube. Chris Hedges is even a Pulitzer prize winner.
On the other side, the FSB has deported 1.3 million innocent Ukrainian civilians to concentration camps. (number is from official Russian sources)
> number is from official Russian sources)
Surly you can give a kind stranger a link to these official sources?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-accuses-russia-...
"Despite all the difficulties created by the Kiev authorities, over the past day, 29,733 people, including 3,502 children, were evacuated from dangerous areas of Ukraine and the Republics of Donbass to the territory of the Russian Federation without the participation of the Ukrainian side. And in total, since the beginning of the special military operation, there are 1,936,911 people, of which 307,423 are children," Mikhail Mizintsev, head of the National Defense Control Center of the Russian Federation, said at a briefing on Saturday. https://www.interfax.ru/world/846957
>Reuters could not independently verify the figure given by Denisova or her allegations, for which she did not provide supporting evidence.
This is the first.
Interfax article doesn't loads for me right now, but I doubt they use the term "concentration camp" (like the previous poster said they do) too.
And given how I just today read how people in Kherson are happilly take Russian passports - I have a big doubt these accusations have a valid basis.
You're just a stranger. You'd have to prove you're kind.
By conflating those two clearly means you don't understand that everyone isn't in the same situation as yourself.
If Google is doing anything that is required of them legally as a US corp, I don't have a problem with that.
edit: Does it really matter if they setup an FTP server instead of direct access, when we know a request can literally ask for "all" data (see Verizon).
> When required to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the US government — generally through secure FTP transfers and in person," Google spokesman Chris Gaither told Wired, among other news outlets. [1]
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/06/googl...
These systems don't give access to "all" data. Telephone companies are different- AT&T had a long standing, off the books agreement with US intelligence agencies (see Idea Factory for a fact-based discussion of what AT&T did) to share large amounts of information illegally.
> Google and Facebook feed their data to NSA.
We know that at least some companies were ordered to handover all data, continuously [1].
edit: I think we have enough evidence that I would assume that it's valid for the other companies on the slides, and if it's not true you'll have to provide some proof of that.
edit 2: [2]
> It searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you've entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future."
> Greenwald explained that while there are "legal constraints" on surveillance that require approval by the FISA court, these programs still allow analysts to search through data with little court approval or supervision.
> "There are legal constraints for how you can spy on Americans," Greenwald said. "You can't target them without going to the FISA court. But these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents."
> "And it's all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst," he added.
edit 3:
> Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” [3]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-reco...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/glenn-greenwal...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligenc...
...has become such a huge tinfoil-hat kook that it taints anything he's ever said and done. I have no way of knowing when his brain-rot started to affect his writings, so I can't really trust the shit that seemed so convincing back in 2003 any more.
- phone calls surveillance in Venezuella: no Google no FB mentioned
- plain words of some reporter without any evidence provided, no Google no FB mentioned
Also where do you see Venezuela?
> It's a lot more than I've seen than evidence for the claims of Yandex proactively sharing data with the Russian government.
The difference is that checks and balances are much stronger in US, and such activities can be successfully investigated and government sued.
As an example, your verizon case was successfully challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klayman_v._Obama
In Russia, court system works in manual mode from Kremlin.
> Also where do you see Venezuela?
I misread, you are right.
Do you really expect the US government to literally publish their illegal surveillance operations on Wikipedia as proof?
Snowden's leaks and his statements should be enough to understand the big-tech surveillance apparatus aids the government under the table.
You say that after we were talking about the NSA literally spying on US citizens, and without any proof? C'mon, are you really going to badger me about not having having the exact "hard evidence", and not even read my sources or provide ANY evidence yourself.
edit: Yes, it got challenged AFTER needing to be leaked by a whistleblower that still can't return to his home.
Good chance is that whistleblowing would be protected in this specific case.
> Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.