PRISM: Watch Googlers Defend Google

Jun 10, 2013 • 8:34 am | comments (34) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google News & Finances

Google ShieldI assume by now you've all heard about the U.S. government program named PRISM, where the National Security Agency (NSA) claimed to have direct access to Google, Yahoo, Verizon, etc servers of data.

Google, Yahoo, Facebook and most of the technology companies have come out to deny any involvement in such activities.

You can read Larry Page's post on the Google blog:

First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

He goes on and on ending, "the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish."

So interesting.

Anyway, you have Googlers all over the place defending Google on this acquisitions. Heck, it was so funny to see Google+ on Friday afternoon. Hundreds of Googlers sharing the Google blog post or Larry Page's post on Google+. I even made an animated GIF to share Larry's reaction and posted it on Google+.

Michael, what the...

Want to read more? See Matt Cutts defend Google at Hacker News. In one post Matt wrote:

Really? You don't see any difference between the denial posted by Google's CEO vs. the way that (say) Verizon responded?

He posted six times there over the weekend.

Honestly, I have not been following this too closely. Nor do I care that much. I share everything about myself online, so I don't obviously care much about my own personal privacy. But I totally get why others do.

Forum discussion at Google+, Google+, Hacker News and WebmasterWorld.

Previous story: Maurice Sendak 85th Google Birthday Logo



06/10/2013 12:56 pm

Plausible deniability! They're hardly going to confirm it and open themselves up to lawsuits and further public backlash about privacy.


06/10/2013 01:56 pm

You might want to change the wording on this as I don't think "the National Security Agency (NSA) claimed to have direct access to Google, Yahoo, Verizon, etc servers of data" actually I think it was the opposite! Either that or mention that the newspapers claimed that.


06/10/2013 02:34 pm

The problem with google is that whatever they say is not believed whether it is true or false. I think they have come a long way in the wrong direction over the last 12 months. The love affair with google seems to be coming to an end . Not before time if you ask me. No company should have the amount of power that google wields. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Michael Martinez

06/10/2013 03:25 pm

The US government published a document explaining how the program works (and protects citizen privacy) here:


06/10/2013 04:04 pm

And you all said I was crazy for still doing all of my searches using! Well NOW who's the crazy one?!


06/10/2013 05:31 pm

No, no man, you're not crazy ... Just relax, be cool ... You're very, VERY smart !


06/10/2013 06:49 pm

Yeah right. Liars at Google can't find a way to trick us on this one.

Matt Gets Paid to Lie

06/10/2013 09:30 pm

This is a lie, Matt Cutts assured us that this is a lie. Matt Cutts is honest and not a paid liar.


06/11/2013 12:02 am

Personally I think Matt believes that google is doing the right thing as much as they possibly can. However this way higher than Matt's influence or corporate knowledge could reach. This stuff is talked about behind locked doors in darkened rooms. not out in the open. The gag orders ensure this.


06/11/2013 01:04 am

Yes but the oversight of FISA operations is just a rubber stamp as was reported by in the WSj. Every operation propsed by FISa has been approved so the oversight isn't there.


06/11/2013 02:52 am

Who do you think supplied the technology to the NSA to search all that data? WebCrawler? :) This may explain why the FTC keeps giving Google a free pass to consume as much of the ecommerce industry as they want and also no resistance to new acquisitions that reduce competition. It's a modern day public/private partnership.


06/11/2013 03:10 am

Hey Barry I think you meant accusation and not "acquisitions" unless you mean inquisition which kind of make sense but not LOL


06/11/2013 04:34 am



06/11/2013 04:35 am


Google SPY

06/11/2013 08:26 am

Everything Google knows about you, the Government or divorce lawyers can too. Google cannot be trusted, nor can their slick talking spokespersons. Anyone wants a pair of Google Glasses? Direct feed to NSA

Peach State

06/11/2013 09:10 am

I am withholding judgment and wait for a Matt Cutts video on this topic. He is the Walter Cronkite of this generation. Honest, mature and always holds his composure even when he has to deliver the toughest news.

Michael Martinez

06/11/2013 03:14 pm

The approval of a proposed project does not constitute a lack of oversight. The operations are lawful and closely monitored. If people don't like the lawful operations of their government then they just need to have the laws changed.


06/11/2013 08:11 pm

I do not believe the government. I think that there is no oversight except on paper. How many PRISM people have been taken to task in the past year for inappropriate snooping into the data of people they are interested in. It doesn't happen?? Mr Snowden maintained that he could just open any email he wished to. I think he is telling the truth. The Government needs to earn our trust, and frankly, they have lied to us on this matter. They lied to us about it in 2007-8 and have not been transparent at all. In our day and age, there is enough knowledge around that matters of privacy vs terror concerns can be decided by the people. I do not trust the proccess. At all. I'm sorry.


06/11/2013 10:15 pm

They have no legal basis for their wide fish net, take it all, over reaching spying actions on US citizens... see that is the mis info you have been fed and believe ... they have Presidential policy ( which they substitute for law ). They are law breakers in the worse sense of the word as they are the keepers of the law, the enforcers of the laws and they trample on the most basic constitutional ones they are sworn to uphold ... and that just because the tech is there to do it and it benefits them and their agendas... I imagine in the room of persons deciding this direction to go someone stated " well if we do not do it the Russians and Chinese will!" ... kind of like the logic our dads warned us about as kids ... well if we didn't rob that bank ( substitute what ever you want here) then bugs would have ... they think and act like criminals not patriots or members of a constitutional democracy ... if they stone faced keep this up most likely anarchy will be coming some day as who will believe there really is any rule of law other than what the elite secret rulers enforce on their subjects ( and customers ). It has to be fully public, open, judicially reviewed, subject to our representatives understanding and voting for it, and us as citizens understanding and agreeing with that vote as a majority ... and of course it has to be subject to the restraints of our constitution or it can not really become law ... it will be shot down in court in time, but first we will need the real facts and truth about what is really going on - it is clear we do not know and that we have been consistently lied to when our representatives have held inquiries to find out.

Michael Martinez

06/12/2013 01:17 am

The US government is comprised of several million people working in all capacities. They do not have some secret conspiracy to lord it over the rest of the country. Nor would the vast majority of these people agree to support a small elite cadre of power-mad mongers trying to control everyone else. We are constantly voting people into and out of office. These concerns about whether the government can be trusted to report honestly to its own citizens are not rational. Everyone is instructed in what the law requires and permits and the vast, vast majority of government employees do a fine job of implementing and following the law. Frankly, there is no way any small group of analysts could make sense of all the data that is being collected by telcos and ISPs. The NSA is doing court-authorized deep dives into the data to address specific needs. The lack of privacy is not due to government investigations but solely due to the amount of data that "private" companies collect about their customers and users (for their own financial gain). There has never been any privacy on the Internet.


06/12/2013 03:32 am

You are an apologist for those who would erode our rights. Your attempt to guarantee that the government is all made of nice people is disingenuous. Your call for us to simply trust the government is disturbing. Your assurance that no one could ever make sense of "all that data" is ridiculous. Finally your attempt to deflect the blame by saying it's all the private companies' fault and blame it on the profit motive is not just wrong but downright machiavellian. We should not allow this country to turn into a country of men instead of laws. It does not take an irrational man to become concerned at the degradation of individual rights we are seeing every day now. It does not take a conspiracy theorist to witness the problem with the act you are trying to defend.

Nick Ker

06/13/2013 03:04 pm

"These concerns about whether the government can be trusted to report honestly to its own citizens are not rational." Are you kidding?!

Michael Martinez

06/14/2013 09:07 am

You know, if you want to be dismissed as a conspiracy nut, why not just say so?

Michael Martinez

06/14/2013 09:10 am

"You are an apologist for those who would erode our rights." In order for that to be true, someone would have to be eroding our rights and I would have to be defending them; neither of which is true, so your logic fails at the first sentence. The United States government is huge and cumbersome; it proceeds on the basis of an almost unmanageable momentum into any project. There is no secret totalitarian regime at work here. If there were you would not be posting your radical comments on CNN.Com and SE Roundtable.

Michael Martinez

06/14/2013 09:11 am

"They have no legal basis for their wide fish net..." Yes they do. It's called the Patriot Act. Anyone who doesn't like that law has the FREEDOM to lobby for its amendment or repeal.

Nick Ker

06/14/2013 04:43 pm

If you want to be dismissed as a naive fool, just say so. Or have you forgotten things as recent as "we know for a fact that Iraq has WMDs" or "The attack on the embassy in Benghazi was because of a YouTube video"? Being concerned about whether or not your government can be trusted is not being a conspiracy nut. It is a matter being in touch with reality. Power corrupts. Governments do lie. Or do you think that the US is always 100% pure, honest, and somehow exempt from those two truths?

Michael Martinez

06/15/2013 01:11 pm

Only a fool would say we didn't find the WMDs that were found there. Clearly, you're just not interested in truth or facts.


06/16/2013 10:26 pm

People who cannot accept facts look like fools. People who refuse to admit facts when confronted with them look like fools and liars. A little research before opening one's mouth would be prudent.

Michael Martinez

06/18/2013 02:39 pm

You're obviously clueless in these matters:


06/26/2013 06:34 pm

A memo that is an overview of speculations that have been debunked since then is your "proof" that you can always trust your government to tell the truth? Pretty weak. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that governments always tell the truth, 100% of the time? If not, why do you believe the US government is different?

Nick Ker

06/26/2013 06:47 pm

Sheesh! This thread is still going?! People who refuse to acknowledge reality and routinely insult the messenger are a big part of why I stopped wasting time on political boards years ago. I should have stuck with that policy. Some people believe the gov is always out to get them, some believe it is always acting in the best interest of its citizens. The truth is somewhere in between.

Michael Martinez

06/27/2013 02:15 am

There were no speculations and nothing was debunked. The warheads were found. That they were deemed inert doesn't make them any less WMD. This isn't about whether governments tell the truth 100% of the time -- this is about how stupid you choose to be in the face of irrefutable facts.


06/27/2013 11:30 am

It absolutely IS about whether governments tell the truth. You called those who did not trust the government to report honestly "not rational". Someone called you out on that and you were reduced to name calling. When presented with two examples of the government lying you did a little more name calling, ignored one big lie and tap danced around the other. Or did the Bush admin say "We need to go to war in Iraq because they may have some leftover inert WMDs?" How many examples of lies do you need before you understand that mistrust of the government is not irrational? Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Benghazi, or back to the current NSA Prism: How about James Clapper saying that the NSA did not collect any data at all about millions of citizens, later admitting that was a lie?

Michael Martinez

06/27/2013 01:35 pm

"It absolutely IS about whether governments tell the truth. " If that were the case, these kinds of discussions would not be dominated by conspiracy theory enthusiasts. Everyone would be involved.

blog comments powered by Disqus