Apple, Google, Microsoft: We Have No Government Email Scanning Program Like Yahoo's (vocativ.com) 139
Apple, Google and Microsoft -- three of the largest technology companies in the U.S. -- have each said they don't scan all incoming messages for the U.S. government, which is exactly what Yahoo does. According to Reuters, Yahoo secretly built a custom software program last year to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials. The company complied with a classified U.S. government directive, scanning hundreds of millions of Yahoo Mail accounts at the behest of the National Security Agency or FBI. Vocativ reports: In a statement, a Microsoft spokesperson told Vocativ that "We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo." While Apple declined to give a statement on the record, a representative for the company did, in response to Vocativ's question, refer to CEO Tim Cook's official letter on consumer privacy, which reads in part: "I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will." The fact that both the companies declined further statement means it's not yet known if the NSA or FBI approached them to request they build a program like Yahoo's. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from Alphabet's Google issued a statement to CNBC: "We've never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: 'no way.'" [The spokesperson later clarified that the company has not received a "directive" or "order" to that effect, either, according to The Intercept.] But the question is whether or not you believe them. With Yahoo's case, only a handful of employees knew about the program. The same could be true with Apple, Google, Microsoft or any other large tech company. Edward Snowden tweeted not too long after Reuters' report surfaced: "Heads up: Any major email service not clearly, categorically denying this tomorrow -- without careful phrasing -- is as guilty as Yahoo."
Of course they do! (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone knows they read all your emails.
That's why I've gone off shore.
- jamesd@qq.com
Re: (Score:2)
"We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo. I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
ie. Your system is so insecure that the government didn't need your help to get in.
Re: (Score:2)
"We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo. I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will."
ie. Your system is so insecure that the government didn't need your help to get in.
With regard to the Apple statement, please refer to Snowden's comment about careful phrasing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If they are under a gag order (Score:1)
This is exactly what they would have to say, legally speaking
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gag orders cannot, but the market can.
Let's assume for a moment that they have the same deals running. Not saying anything would result in losing customers because everyone would assume they are under a gag order and thus can't tell you that they're handing over your data. So they lie to you. What's to be lost? Either it doesn't come up. Then they retained you as a customer. Or it gets out that they lied. Then they'll lose you as a customer. Which is exactly what would happen if they didn't lie to you.
The o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly what they would have to say, legally speaking
No. Gag orders prevent you from telling the truth. They cannot, legally, require you to lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
- Anonymous "Coward"
Re: (Score:1)
Quotes should be around the other word.
Re: (Score:1)
I call bullshit on MS (Score:3, Insightful)
> Microsoft spokesperson told Vocativ that "We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo."
Bullshit.
Proof: Microsoft (R) Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook [meetup.com]
Re: (Score:3)
> Microsoft spokesperson told Vocativ that "We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo."
Bullshit.
Proof: Microsoft (R) Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook [meetup.com]
Could be true. Key element in MS quote: "like what has been reported ... about Yahoo." Meaning, they scan your emails for *other* reasons, like for marketing and demographic information -- I'm looking at you Google too.
Re:I call bullshit on MS (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
Proof: Microsoft (R) Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook [meetup.com]
That handbook is about specific information requested through proper legal channels, such as a subpoena, warrant or an NSL. All companies are required to comply with those. It is not about scanning all email for keywords like TFA is describing. Perhaps Microsoft is doing what Yahoo did, but your link is not proof of that.
Re: (Score:2)
bad guys are convince us they're the good guys - can and will abuse this.
because it exists, they'll get (have gotton) around any inconvenient barriers and now, everything is of 'national security, just let us in' level.
I advocate for ending all law-enforcement and government access to email and online encrypted comms. governments exist for the betterment of their people (that's the idea, even though its never quite followed, in practice). no LE official really can be trusted with power; we're seeing this
Re: (Score:2)
NSL is not a legal channel and is exactly what Yahoo quotes as following.
Re: (Score:2)
NSL is not a legal channel and is exactly what Yahoo quotes as following.
NSL is a legal channel, but it's restricted to providing only metadata and only about specific targets. Yahoo cited it, but they've gone well beyond what the statute authorizes.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't agree. The government has to have (a) cause, (b) due process and (c) the right for an open defense in a public court
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution doesn't agree. The government has to have (a) cause, (b) due process and (c) the right for an open defense in a public court
That's an argument for challenging the law in court. Until that's done, it's legal. That's how the system works. Granted that in this case it's particularly hard to challenge because it's difficult to prove harm when the harm is hidden behind a veil of national security secrecy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal until someone manages to challenge it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
".. like what has been reported today about Yahoo" (Score:2)
Duh! Well of course not (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to do that. They scan them in flight (where encrypted tunnels or TLS is not in use).
gag orders (Score:5, Interesting)
we can't trust any company, not large and not even small.
to 'play ball' in today's USA, you have to follow orders. and one of those orders is 'do not admit to following orders'.
so, all this is just talk. 100% unverifyable talk. maybe its true, but likely - based on what we now know (that we once just assumed but didn't know for sure) - the spooks own the internet and they are not showing any signs of giving it back.
look at the wordplay and parse it out. WE don't scan emails. ok, maybe the 'we' is not active, but does ANYONE scan them on your network? how about transit networks?
so many holes to exploit. and again, to stay in business, you can't say no to Pappa. not in the US, at least.
I don't believe apple, either, when they appeal to 'privacy' and that they don't disclose backdoors to gov orgs. totally unprovable, just 'take tims word for it'. yeah sure. right.
the only thing you can assume is that every network is bugged and every cpu has backdoors (think: intel ME).
Re:gag orders (Score:4, Insightful)
we can't trust any company, not large and not even small.
You seem to be implying that small companies are generally more trustworthy. That is nonsense. Big companies have a lot more to lose by betraying the public's trust, and they have more legal oversight. When small companies cheat and betray, it doesn't make the headlines.
Re: (Score:1)
Not the original poster, but yes and no. Part of the "trustworthy" comes from the notion that the government is designed around acting with other large organizations. So, it targets the larger organizations to capture most of the traffic, attack most the problem. etc And the media, like /., respond by also seeking out the big players because their involvement would have the widest detectable impact. Hence, smaller companies are
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing happened with that. Because it was not Apple's fault.. There was no hack of Apple or iTunes.
The Fappening was traced to basically a hacked account - either reused credentials, or someone used a really weak password.
Neither of which Apple could really protect against without making it completely unusable for everyone else.
In fact, it appears most iTunes/iCloud/Apple hack
Re: (Score:2)
There's your "careful phrasing" (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to be absolutely clear that we have never worked with any government agency from any country to create a backdoor in any of our products or services. We have also never allowed access to our servers. And we never will.
Yeah, that's reassuring. Except, what's being described here falls under neither of those categories. It's not a backdoor, and it doesn't require providing access to Apple's servers. So, Apple is blithely sidestepping the issue with careful phrasing, denying only activities about which they were not asked, while artfully ignoring those about which they were.
Re: (Score:1)
The truth is bad for business. It doesn't matter how many geeks call them out on their lies, the majority believe, so business rolls along, and we all get scanned.
There is no changing this. We will *never* have the privacy we once had. It is gone for good. Expect even more government intrusion...it will seep in just as steadily as all forms of tech seep in to our lives. THERE IS NO ESCAPE, there is only adaptation.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that depend on what scanning legally is? On what "email traffic" on some part of the network is this decade?
Some national security related requests are more legal than others?
If the gov knows to ask in a different way to the right staff it would never be self discovered?
Is that big new gov server really a per device or per service backdoor or trapdoor?
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apple is blithely sidestepping the issue with careful phrasing, denying only activities about which they were not asked, while artfully ignoring those about which they were.
Indeed. If Apple is not scanning all the emails, they really need to issue a clear categorical denial immediately. Otherwise, Apple's statement should be taken as an admission of guilt. If you use Apple's email client, you should assume the NSA and FBI are reading everything you write.
Re: (Score:2)
"If you use....email, you should assume..."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Apple's e-mail service. The e-mail client doing something nefarious like forwarding e-mails to the NSA would be quite noticeable. The solution, as always, is to decentralize and do your own e-mail service. It's not that hard.
It's a non-denial denial (Score:2)
Or at least that's what they call it here in DC.
Of Course (Score:2)
I believe them, mostly because they realize the value of the data, and they don't want competition on the spying.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. She's cute and intelligent but Yahoo hid the "wiretap" from Alex Stamos (the freaking Chief Information Security Officer) and he and his team only discovered it later which seems to have been the reason he left. Apparently Yahoo (Marissa) did this secretly to avoid any in house conflict. I'd say she isn't CEO material but it isn't like the majority of CEOs in the country set the bar all that high.
Something wrong with your right eye? (Score:2)
PRISM (Score:5, Informative)
Did everyone forget about PRISM? I feel like everyone forgot about PRISM.
The PRISM leak states that every one of this big companies, MS, Google, Facebook, have dedicated software hooks for searching any record, anytime.
Or is Edward Snowden is limited hangout, and everything he said coming straight from the CIA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PRISM (Score:5, Informative)
PRISM wasn't a Google initiative, it was an NSA initiative.
Re: (Score:1)
Could just be a lie. (Score:2)
Publicly traded companies like these are required by law to do what is best for it's shareholders. Since they are not bound by law to tell the truth, they could simply be lying because not lying could hurt them financially.
Re: (Score:1)
Publicly traded companies like these are required by law to do what is best for it's shareholders. Since they are not bound by law to tell the truth, they could simply be lying because not lying could hurt them financially.
You are quite right, lying cannot hurt you financially but being caught lying can.
The problem you have is many people adopt the attitude of "I have nothing to hide". Sad really, I guess George Orwell was only out by about 40 years.
Sure, right (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Good for Yahoo! (Score:3)
More seriously, how come (especially in Japan) so may people keep using Yahoo is a big mistery.
We Have No Government Email Scanning Program ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ours are much more advance and stealthy
No problem (Score:2)
Two words. (Score:2)
Yeah right.
That's not a complete denial (Score:2)
I just .cc Obama (Score:2)
I got a list of all the emails for the U.S. government and tack it on to .cc in all my emails. I don't want anybody in U.S. government to be left out.
SPAM Trap (Score:2)
Plausible Deniability (Score:2)
The CTOs and their senior staffs on the other hand...
No word.. (Score:2)
..from overpaid Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, net worth approximately $300m.
Psychology and business 101 (Score:2)
The faster competitors team up to answer concerns of those that feed their profit, the more of a lie their answer is.
Bah humbug (Score:1)
Re:U.S.A. (Score:5, Interesting)
its worse than that. all major pipes to and from ANYWHERE are going thru US owned routers, core and otherwise.
no one is 'safe' anymore. once the spooks decided to own the network, with their money their power and their 'thou shalt not disclose under pain of prison' bullshit, there's no way to know; but its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
this is why its a world problem. its not at all limited to the US.
Re:U.S.A. (Score:4, Informative)
its worse than that. all major pipes to and from ANYWHERE are going thru US owned routers, core and otherwise.
That is why any data in transit should be encrypted. "They" can still do traffic analysis, and see who is talking to whom, but that can be ameliorated by using proxies and sending dummy traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Traffic Analysis
That by itself is extremely useful.
During WWII there were periods when the Allies were unable to deduce the key(s) used by the Axis in encoding a days message.
But by careful study of which units were sending to other units and back again, the Allies were able to derive actionable intelligence.
With the pattern discerning skills of 'Big Data' and 'Machine Learning' the bad guys - and us - likely have no real secrets.
I just assume that whatever I send, encrypted or not, is going to
Re: (Score:2)
>but its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
I think that was already disclosed in the 1990's, with AT&T's secret room for the NSA at their facilities, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to 'MaeWest'? that was the west coast aggregate fiber tap. Their was an East coast atlantic fiber run aggregate tap as well, can't recall its name.
MAE East, Duhr! But those facilities weren't particularly set up to allow government interception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Yes, that was NOT MAE West.
Re: (Score:2)
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(Not sure if both of you posting as A/C are the same person, or if you'll even make it back here. Guess it wasn't the 1990's, but the 2000's, just seemed so long ago, I lost track of time).
Re: (Score:2)
its highly probable that every single transcontinental link is 'managed' and tappable.
Heck, the undersea cables of hostile powers were tapped from the early 70s (presumably friendly powers followed). The US built a special-purpose nuclear submarine, capable of very deep dives and of "installation and maintenance of underwater equipment" just for the purpose of stealthily locating and tapping undersea cables.