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.