News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Larry Page addresses PRISM. Parent comment

Re:Larry Page addresses PRISM by aiiane on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:22PM (#5842014)
Of course it's hedged with a limitation of scale. Obviously Google, like any other company, is going to provide information on much smaller scales (e.g. a user or a handful of users) for investigation based on specific court-issued warrants. It would be lying to state that Google never provides information about any user activity at all.

What would you prefer Google to say?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Larry Page addresses PRISM by pbreit on Friday June 07, 2013 @05:44PM (#5842157)
My reply was specifically to do with the contention that the sentences were "straightforward and unambiguous".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Larry Page addresses PRISM by greyman on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:18PM (#5842399)
In this sentence, I would prefer Google to say: "First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government— OR ANY OTHER ENTITY - direct OR INDIRECT OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF access to our servers. [capitalized words are mine]
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Larry Page addresses PRISM by aiiane on Friday June 07, 2013 @06:55PM (#5842617)
Except that that would be untrue, because there are perfectly legitimate reasons why the government would have access to data on a small scale - e.g. subpoenaing an individual's records in a specific criminal trial.
[ Parent | on HN ]