Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Google to NSA: Fark You   (arstechnica.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, NSA, Google, private networks, AdWords, Picasa, Google Talk, GCHQ, user agents  
•       •       •

6176 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Nov 2013 at 5:22 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-06 05:25:43 PM  
Later, Google to NSA: "Sorry about that...we had to say that for PR purposes.  Here's all the stuff you wanted."
 
2013-11-06 05:33:16 PM  
Google to NSA: Fark You and come again tomorrow
 
2013-11-06 05:38:33 PM  
I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.
 
2013-11-06 05:40:10 PM  
MUSCULAR.  Jesus, how insecure about your manhood do you have to be to name your surveillance program MUSCULAR?
 
2013-11-06 05:41:57 PM  
I'm surprised it took them this long.

I have friends who manage communications between data centers and that's the first thing they do when the get a new long-haul circuit stood up.
 
2013-11-06 05:42:08 PM  
OMG WOW
 
2013-11-06 05:44:54 PM  

FrancoFile: I'm surprised it took them this long.

I have friends who manage communications between data centers and that's the first thing they do when the get a new long-haul circuit stood up.



and I am sure those DCs transfer as much data as Google does.
 
2013-11-06 05:44:59 PM  
You'd think, if they were sending unencrypted data, that the NSA would be the least of their worries.
 
2013-11-06 05:47:56 PM  
Right. I believe you, Google.
 
2013-11-06 05:50:12 PM  
6 months ago, the FBI announced they had no way to break into TOR traffic.  2 months ago they announce the busting of a child porn ring...because they broke into TOR traffic.

this too will not last, it it's true at all.
 
2013-11-06 05:50:24 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: MUSCULAR.  Jesus, how insecure about your manhood do you have to be to name your surveillance program MUSCULAR?


They could have used penisface and had the same result
 
2013-11-06 05:52:00 PM  
NEXT TIME USE LUBE!
 
2013-11-06 05:54:16 PM  

oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.


And as long as they hand over the keys, the NSA will be happy.  Which they will.
 
2013-11-06 05:56:59 PM  

oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.


Well, if nothing else, Google has the resources to hire a phalanx of lawyers to fight National Security Letters, or whatever other warrants or subpoenas or court orders might be coming down the pike.
 
2013-11-06 05:59:10 PM  
NSA will have to pay like everyone else.
 
2013-11-06 06:06:14 PM  

Cybernetic: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

Well, if nothing else, Google has the resources to hire a phalanx of lawyers to fight National Security Letters, or whatever other warrants or subpoenas or court orders might be coming down the pike.



I read that as "Google has more money than our government so they can drag them through court"
 
2013-11-06 06:06:25 PM  
Everytime I see one of these leaked slides I just have to wonder how an organization like the NSA can't bring in a single unpaid intern to do a better job at making them.
 
2013-11-06 06:07:06 PM  
What happens when Google buys Burundi or whatever and simply sets themselves up as an independent entity.   I don't like snooping, but I get nervous when I see a corporation with un-monitored control of so much freaking data.

/Snow Crash anyone?
//As long as I get to drive one of those Deliverators
 
2013-11-06 06:07:44 PM  

cyberspacedout: You'd think, if they were sending unencrypted data, that the NSA would be the least of their worries.


They were sending the data over their internal network, not the Internet.  Most companies don't encrypt all of their data, just sensitive stuff (customer info, payment info, healthcare-related stuff, and so on).
 
2013-11-06 06:10:30 PM  
Ah, the last bastion of privacy...Google.

*snicker*
 
2013-11-06 06:11:55 PM  

comslave: 6 months ago, the FBI announced they had no way to break into TOR traffic.  2 months ago they announce the busting of a child porn ring...because they broke into TOR traffic.

this too will not last, it it's true at all.


They were able to break TOR because they seized a hosting facility that had a ton of TOR entry and exit nodes. They didn't break TOR encryption at all, they used a zero day in a browser and injected that in to the parts of the TOR network they controlled. This in turn allowed them to see more data than they should have been able to see, and circumvented a lot of the TOR anonymity.
 
2013-11-06 06:18:59 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: MUSCULAR.  Jesus, how insecure about your manhood do you have to be to name your surveillance program MUSCULAR?


It's rather serendipitous.
 
2013-11-06 06:34:31 PM  
The NSA and Google are different entities?
 
2013-11-06 06:35:40 PM  

sethen320: Ah, the last bastion of privacy...Google.

*snicker*


Hah. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. NOW Google is all pro-privacy?
 
2013-11-06 06:41:40 PM  
Google, you farking noobs.

You're not running a neighborhood network anymore. You're playing with the big boys now. World governments.

You think they're not going to tap your networks out of respect for how much money you make? They farking print money.

They're upset because they are "the greatest hackers in the world", and they have been owned for years now without any idea.

/Rude awakening.
 
2013-11-06 06:43:48 PM  

Veritas: sethen320: Ah, the last bastion of privacy...Google.

*snicker*

Hah. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. NOW Google is all pro-privacy?


They're banking on the same thing the government is -- that people are too stupid to have a memory of their complicity in NSAs activity.

If recent history is any indication, this is a smart strategy.
 
2013-11-06 06:52:06 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: FrancoFile: I'm surprised it took them this long.

I have friends who manage communications between data centers and that's the first thing they do when the get a new long-haul circuit stood up.


and I am sure those DCs transfer as much data as Google does.



Same order of magnitude, yes.  There are all sorts of private data centers for industry-specific systems that the general public is not aware of.
 
2013-11-06 06:57:10 PM  

comslave: 6 months ago, the FBI announced they had no way to break into TOR traffic.  2 months ago they announce the busting of a child porn ring...because they broke into TOR traffic.

this too will not last, it it's true at all.


To be fair, the Tor thing was because they found a vulnerability in a hidden site, which let them plant malware that would break visitors' identities by reporting back in the clear, rather than over Tor.
 
2013-11-06 06:57:39 PM  

aendeuryu: Veritas: sethen320: Ah, the last bastion of privacy...Google.

*snicker*

Hah. Yeah I was thinking the same thing. NOW Google is all pro-privacy?

They're banking on the same thing the government is -- that people are too stupid to have a memory of their complicity in NSAs activity.

If recent history is any indication, this is a smart strategy.


Yep. What sucks is, it'll work.
 
2013-11-06 07:10:16 PM  
This is great.  Now only Google can spy on me.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-11-06 07:18:45 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Later, Google to NSA: "Sorry about that...we had to say that for PR purposes.  Here's all the stuff you wanted."


THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
 
2013-11-06 07:46:05 PM  

oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.


This isn't LavaMail with a shiatty GoDaddy hosting service.  Google has as much influence and power as the government.  I doubt they would roll over when the NSA asks for anything.  All they have to do is broadcast a statement about what the NSA is trying to do and the media has another shiatstorm to descend on.

After all, this is the company that gets 10 to 20 different articles published about changing their Gmail icon.

Encryption key?  They would handle it over and create a new one in the same breath.  "Oh, you wanted to actually USE that key?  Frak you!"
 
2013-11-06 07:46:05 PM  

Pichu0102: comslave: 6 months ago, the FBI announced they had no way to break into TOR traffic.  2 months ago they announce the busting of a child porn ring...because they broke into TOR traffic.

this too will not last, it it's true at all.

To be fair, the Tor thing was because they found a vulnerability in a hidden site, which let them plant malware that would break visitors' identities by reporting back in the clear, rather than over Tor.


I don't get how that's legal. They broke into and sabotaged someone's system to break the function that it was providing.

/child porn people can rot
 
2013-11-06 07:49:42 PM  

blue_2501: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

This isn't LavaMail with a shiatty GoDaddy hosting service.  Google has as much influence and power as the government.  I doubt they would roll over when the NSA asks for anything.  All they have to do is broadcast a statement about what the NSA is trying to do and the media has another shiatstorm to descend on.

After all, this is the company that gets 10 to 20 different articles published about changing their Gmail icon.

Encryption key?  They would handle it over and create a new one in the same breath.  "Oh, you wanted to actually USE that key?  Frak you!"


They'll get served with two papers. First a court order saying "hand over the keys," and the court order behind that will be a gag order, so you'll never know.
 
2013-11-06 08:01:20 PM  
Google would never hand over keys to tap their main network because that's a huge portion of their business.  They make money serving targeted ads, they determine who to serve those ads based on that data.  They aren't going to just hand it all over.

NSLs might require specific individuals, but not the entire farking data store.

Also for those who DNRTFA

- Google was already upgrading all its connections between data centers 6 months before Snowden
- This is not Google PR, it's two network engineers posting their opinions on G+
- The reason they weren't already encrypted is due to performance overhead.  Only in the past few years has hardware become fast enough to make on-the-fly encryption not cost a ton of performance.

There are reasons not to trust Google, this however is one time they are doing the right thing.  It's funny to see the paranoia crowd freak the fark out though.
 
2013-11-06 08:20:39 PM  
Consumer Watchdog's latest complaints about the relationship of Google and the Obama administration are outlined in a 32-page report.

The paper questions a decision by NASA allowing Google executives to use its Moffett Federal Airfield near Google headquarters. Although H211, a company controlled by Google top executives, pays NASA rent, they enjoy access to the airfield that other companies or groups don't have, Simpson said.

The paper also questions Google contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies, suggesting that, in some cases, Google contracts were fast-tracked. The paper also questions Google's relationship with the U.S. National Security Agency and calls for the company to be more open about what consumer information it shares with the spy agency.

When asked if other companies, including broadband providers, should disclose what customer information they share with the NSA, Simpson said they should, too.

"I understand the NSA is a super-secret spook organization," he said. "But given Google's very special situation where it possesses so much personal data about people, I think that there ought to be a little more openness about what precisely goes on between the two."


Wake the fark up you naive fools. Or you'll be the last to know.

/but you're probably already quite used to that
 
2013-11-06 08:25:35 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

And as long as they hand over the keys, the NSA will be happy.  Which they will.


They don't even need to. The NSA probably already has them.
 
2013-11-06 08:30:17 PM  
I suppose they can always change their encryption key every day or every 8 hours.
 
2013-11-06 08:31:44 PM  

cheer: cyberspacedout: You'd think, if they were sending unencrypted data, that the NSA would be the least of their worries.

They were sending the data over their internal network, not the Internet.  Most companies don't encrypt all of their data, just sensitive stuff (customer info, payment info, healthcare-related stuff, and so on).


When the article said "between its data centers," I assumed it meant different buildings that aren't on the same property. Wouldn't they transmit data from their internal network over the series of tubes that is the internet?
 
2013-11-06 08:33:00 PM  

untaken_name: Marcus Aurelius: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

And as long as they hand over the keys, the NSA will be happy.  Which they will.

They don't even need to. The NSA probably already has them.


It's going to be real fun when the NSA back doors get found and broadcast into the wild. Not a network on earth will be secure and hackers and cyber thieves will be plundering everything. Thanks, NSA. Thanks a heap.
 
2013-11-06 09:01:36 PM  
More propaganda.
 
2013-11-06 09:20:03 PM  

cyberspacedout: cheer: cyberspacedout: You'd think, if they were sending unencrypted data, that the NSA would be the least of their worries.

They were sending the data over their internal network, not the Internet.  Most companies don't encrypt all of their data, just sensitive stuff (customer info, payment info, healthcare-related stuff, and so on).

When the article said "between its data centers," I assumed it meant different buildings that aren't on the same property. Wouldn't they transmit data from their internal network over the series of tubes that is the internet?


No, they do it over isolated fiber cables, either leased or owned.

But the spooks physically tap into the cables or the intermediate equipment.

They aren't the totally isolated pressurized-gas conduits that the DoD deployed back in the 70s and 80s.
 
2013-11-06 09:21:15 PM  

Ed Grubermann: It's going to be real fun when the NSA back doors get found and broadcast into the wild. Not a network on earth will be secure and hackers and cyber thieves will be plundering everything. Thanks, NSA. Thanks a heap.



The NSA is secretly run by an anarchist hacker who, under the guise of perfect control and security, will use the Orwellian apparatus to create a world where no information can be owned or kept secret.

He's been working under contract for the parent organization that controls both Anonymous and Scientology.

duh, this is all covered in the timecube book

/You guys really shouldn't have written that guy off as crazy.
 
2013-11-06 09:24:11 PM  

pedobearapproved: They'll get served with two papers. First a court order saying "hand over the keys," and the court order behind that will be a gag order, so you'll never know.


So what?  An "anonymous source" leaks the information to the media.  Gag order, smag order.
 
2013-11-06 09:24:25 PM  
They just want the NSA to use Google+
 
2013-11-06 09:34:11 PM  
So this whole time, they WEREN'T encrypting the data they send between nodes? Christ, forget the NSA, that's just bad for everybody.
 
2013-11-06 09:44:59 PM  
Amazing how Google was totally fine with handing data to spies -- until they were caught.
 
2013-11-06 09:54:43 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: Later, Google to NSA: "Sorry about that...we had to say that for PR purposes.  Here's all the stuff you wanted."


I wouldn't be surprised if NSA told google to issue that press release to catch more supects/wank material.
 
2013-11-06 09:56:10 PM  
Goggle to China: I ruv you rong time.
 
2013-11-06 10:11:50 PM  

alostpacket: Google would never hand over keys to tap their main network because that's a huge portion of their business.  They make money serving targeted ads, they determine who to serve those ads based on that data.  They aren't going to just hand it all over.

NSLs might require specific individuals, but not the entire farking data store.

Also for those who DNRTFA

- Google was already upgrading all its connections between data centers 6 months before Snowden
- This is not Google PR, it's two network engineers posting their opinions on G+
- The reason they weren't already encrypted is due to performance overhead.  Only in the past few years has hardware become fast enough to make on-the-fly encryption not cost a ton of performance.

There are reasons not to trust Google, this however is one time they are doing the right thing.  It's funny to see the paranoia crowd freak the fark out though.




Google does not own a data center in England. They rent space. GCHQ has the data center install taps for access to a Googles servers.

Encryption between data centers is pointless.
 
2013-11-06 10:14:05 PM  
MrEricSir: Amazing how Google was totally fine with handing data to spies -- until they were caught.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2013-11-06 10:25:14 PM  
Google: We can spy on everything you do, but damned if we're going to give away the info.
 
2013-11-06 10:32:09 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: Everytime I see one of these leaked slides I just have to wonder how an organization like the NSA can't bring in a single unpaid intern to do a better job at making them.


Finding an unpaid intern with the necessary security clearances might be a problem.
 
2013-11-06 11:41:54 PM  
"Fark" you, NSA. ;)
 
2013-11-07 12:14:59 AM  

flondrix: Shrugging Atlas: Everytime I see one of these leaked slides I just have to wonder how an organization like the NSA can't bring in a single unpaid intern to do a better job at making them.

Finding an unpaid intern with the necessary security clearances might be a problem.


Considering Bradley Chelsea Manning was a first rank private, it's not nearly as hard as it should be. Snowden's background check was cheap/sloppy as hell, too.
 
2013-11-07 12:27:55 AM  
So um let me get this straight...google is mad cuz someone is viewing their data...googles whole damn business model is about selling your data...they are just made cuz they couldn't sell it to the NSA and had to give it away for free
 
2013-11-07 01:09:03 AM  
It really doesn't matter. We need to apply the 4th Amendment to digital communication.

I've been biatching about this since Carnivore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Add digital communication to the 4th Amendment, problem solved.
 
2013-11-07 01:24:56 AM  
I'm tired of fighting. I welcome our new overlords.

I'm just a prole now. Give me some Government Cheese and an Obama Phone.

Best Regards,

Bernard Marx
 
2013-11-07 01:43:53 AM  
As someone who works with data provided by google and yahoo/m$, yea. This won't last, they want money. They could care less about privacy and do care about what you do online. Hell, look at where the favorite websites you visit have analytics coming in from.

/Here you go folks.
//Should help some.
 
2013-11-07 01:52:55 AM  

SearchN: As someone who works with data provided by google and yahoo/m$, yea. This won't last, they want money. They could care less about privacy and do care about what you do online. Hell, look at where the favorite websites you visit have analytics coming in from.

/Here you go folks.
//Should help some.


You're joking, right? Tor has been exposed. NSA backdoored it when it was being created. In other words,

static.comicvine.com
 
2013-11-07 01:55:41 AM  
Data may be encrypted between data centers, but when google opens the door and lets them install boxes in the d.c. that really doesn't matter now does it.


//// idiots really believe this PR bullshiat?
 
2013-11-07 01:57:56 AM  
ToastTheRabbit

I read that as "Google has more money than our government so they can drag them through court"
Rrrriiiight. The company with the motto "If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of" is going to dump cash to protect your privacy? Are you seriously that delusional, or did I miss the joke?
 
2013-11-07 02:52:01 AM  

untaken_name: SearchN: As someone who works with data provided by google and yahoo/m$, yea. This won't last, they want money. They could care less about privacy and do care about what you do online. Hell, look at where the favorite websites you visit have analytics coming in from.

/Here you go folks.
//Should help some.

You're joking, right? Tor has been exposed. NSA backdoored it when it was being created. In other words,

[static.comicvine.com image 850x478]


Please stop spreading misinformation.  You do not know what you are talking about.  Everyone always reads these "so and so busted while using TOR" articles and think they have some pronounced understanding of TOR.  Of course those articled almost always tend to do a very poor job of explaining anything at all, or themselves provide misinformation.

TOR remains secure.  Those who have been taken down have been done so by means that have nothing to do with a weakness of TOR.  Use it properly and you will be fine.  Of course that does require educating yourself on how to properly use TOR.
 
2013-11-07 03:11:43 AM  

bk3k: untaken_name: SearchN: As someone who works with data provided by google and yahoo/m$, yea. This won't last, they want money. They could care less about privacy and do care about what you do online. Hell, look at where the favorite websites you visit have analytics coming in from.

/Here you go folks.
//Should help some.

You're joking, right? Tor has been exposed. NSA backdoored it when it was being created. In other words,

[static.comicvine.com image 850x478]

Please stop spreading misinformation.  You do not know what you are talking about.  Everyone always reads these "so and so busted while using TOR" articles and think they have some pronounced understanding of TOR.  Of course those articled almost always tend to do a very poor job of explaining anything at all, or themselves provide misinformation.

TOR remains secure.  Those who have been taken down have been done so by means that have nothing to do with a weakness of TOR.  Use it properly and you will be fine.  Of course that does require educating yourself on how to properly use TOR.


Sorry, Officer. I think I'll stick to sneakernet.
 
2013-11-07 03:37:18 AM  
NSA to Google:  "how cute, you think you can keep us out"
 
2013-11-07 05:09:26 AM  

untaken_name: bk3k: untaken_name: SearchN: As someone who works with data provided by google and yahoo/m$, yea. This won't last, they want money. They could care less about privacy and do care about what you do online. Hell, look at where the favorite websites you visit have analytics coming in from.

/Here you go folks.
//Should help some.

You're joking, right? Tor has been exposed. NSA backdoored it when it was being created. In other words,

[static.comicvine.com image 850x478]

Please stop spreading misinformation.  You do not know what you are talking about.  Everyone always reads these "so and so busted while using TOR" articles and think they have some pronounced understanding of TOR.  Of course those articled almost always tend to do a very poor job of explaining anything at all, or themselves provide misinformation.

TOR remains secure.  Those who have been taken down have been done so by means that have nothing to do with a weakness of TOR.  Use it properly and you will be fine.  Of course that does require educating yourself on how to properly use TOR.

Sorry, Officer. I think I'll stick to sneakernet.


Too bad your shoes have been embedded with GPS tracking.  Sneakernet is compromised!  LOL.

If I was an officer, I would very much deserve to get fired.  But enough about that.

I have no doubt that the NSA and several other branches of US Government would very much like the common man to believe TOR and encryption is completely useless.  It makes their jobs much easier if everyone gives up and accepts their surveillance state as inevitable and unstoppable..  Rest assured our spies still use it because when used properly it does work.

TOR works.  TrueCrypt and PGP work.

As for TOR having a backdoor - it doesn't.  If you doubt this, source code is readily available and I assure you many paranoid people check it.  The people who get caught are the ones who do not understand how it works and/or how to be secure.  As for the big mentioned bust of certain TOR users - sites was loaded with malicious code to execute a browser exploit to run Javascript which will call home outside of TOR to identify who was connecting to it.  Any regular (non TOR hidden services) site could be loaded just the same with such exploits.  The best part is - those who had javascript disabled (as any well versed TOR user would do) where not compromised even if they went to a Freedomhosting website (the hosting provider that got compromised by the NSA) after they had been compromised.  Also those who had up to date Tor Browser bundles (released a month before the exploit happened) where not vulnerable even if they foolishly had Javascript enabled.

This was in no way a flaw in TOR.  But even TOR cannot protect people from their own incompetence.
 
2013-11-07 07:01:38 AM  

blue_2501: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

This isn't LavaMail with a shiatty GoDaddy hosting service.  Google has as much influence and power as the government.  I doubt they would roll over when the NSA asks for anything.  All they have to do is broadcast a statement about what the NSA is trying to do and the media has another shiatstorm to descend on.

After all, this is the company that gets 10 to 20 different articles published about changing their Gmail icon.

Encryption key?  They would handle it over and create a new one in the same breath.  "Oh, you wanted to actually USE that key?  Frak you!"


Depending on how their encryption is set up they can hand over the key anyway, doesn't matter how much encrypted traffic the NSA have saved.  Considering that Google use Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) for their HTTPS sites to the public, it's highly likely they're using PFS for their internal enryptions.  The private keys mean bugger all for historical recorded encrypted data as the data is actually encrypted using ephemeral session keys.

HempHead: Google does not own a data center in England. They rent space. GCHQ has the data center install taps for access to a Googles servers.

Encryption between data centers is pointless.


Yes, they rent space.  They do not however run their data over the DC's networking.  When you rent DC space on a large scale, you are literally renting space, and power, hell even if you only rent 1 rack you generally have to provide your own LAN infrastructure.  They'll fill it with their own racks/servers/switches etc, especially as Google doesn't use off the shelf networking kit, they build their own switches etc.  Even if the DC is providing the external connectivity to the rented DC, all Google has to do is have their encryptors as the demarcation point of their network.

Anyway, most of Google's presence in the British Isles is in Ireland, in their own DC.
 
2013-11-07 10:28:17 AM  

Pinko_Commie: blue_2501: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

This isn't LavaMail with a shiatty GoDaddy hosting service.  Google has as much influence and power as the government.  I doubt they would roll over when the NSA asks for anything.  All they have to do is broadcast a statement about what the NSA is trying to do and the media has another shiatstorm to descend on.

After all, this is the company that gets 10 to 20 different articles published about changing their Gmail icon.

Encryption key?  They would handle it over and create a new one in the same breath.  "Oh, you wanted to actually USE that key?  Frak you!"

Depending on how their encryption is set up they can hand over the key anyway, doesn't matter how much encrypted traffic the NSA have saved.  Considering that Google use Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) for their HTTPS sites to the public, it's highly likely they're using PFS for their internal enryptions.  The private keys mean bugger all for historical recorded encrypted data as the data is actually encrypted using ephemeral session keys.

HempHead: Google does not own a data center in England. They rent space. GCHQ has the data center install taps for access to a Googles servers.

Encryption between data centers is pointless.

Yes, they rent space.  They do not however run their data over the DC's networking.  When you rent DC space on a large scale, you are literally renting space, and power, hell even if you only rent 1 rack you generally have to provide your own LAN infrastructure.  They'll fill it with their own racks/servers/switches etc, especially as Google doesn't use off the shelf networking kit, they build their own switches etc.  Even if the DC is providing the external connectivity to the rented DC, all Google has to do is have their encryptors as the demarcation point of their network.

Anyway, most of Google's presence in the British Isles is in Ireland, in their own DC.


GCHQ is the UK's version of NSA. Snowden documents show the GCHQ has installed equipment *inside* data centers.

Google DB is replicated, so the London contains a *full* copy of all user data.

Encrypting data lines is pointless, so pointless the NSA hasn't bothered to complain or compel Google to stop.
 
2013-11-07 10:56:06 AM  

mcreadyblue: GCHQ is the UK's version of NSA. Snowden documents show the GCHQ has installed equipment *inside* data centers.

Google DB is replicated, so the London contains a *full* copy of all user data.

Encrypting data lines is pointless, so pointless the NSA hasn't bothered to complain or compel Google to stop.


I don't think you're getting it.  A DC is just a big building with air-con and data lines coming into it.  When you're a big organisation you are basically hiring a big secured room (or multiple rooms) with power feeds, aircon feeds, and *maybe* external data lines.  Everything that goes inside your area is your own kit.  Yes GCHQ could have taps on the DC external data lines, which belong to the DC, but all they will see is the encrypted data coming out of the Google kit.

The likelihood is that Google commission their own links into the DC (unless they have space in LINX or GlobalSwitch)

Also, I highly doubt that their London DC has a replica of everything.   These are their main worldwide DC's, there is no way on earth that Google have a major DC in central London, it would cost a fortune, that's why major DC's are built on greenfield sites in the middle of nowhere.

If they're sensible they'll encrypt anything that goes across any media that they do not own, or cannot physically inspect along the entire length.  Unless the security services are actually installing taps directly into each of Googles racks then encryption WILL work.

/unless there's actually a back-door in the encryption itself, then all bets are off.
 
2013-11-07 12:13:56 PM  

cyberspacedout: cheer: cyberspacedout: You'd think, if they were sending unencrypted data, that the NSA would be the least of their worries.

They were sending the data over their internal network, not the Internet.  Most companies don't encrypt all of their data, just sensitive stuff (customer info, payment info, healthcare-related stuff, and so on).

When the article said "between its data centers," I assumed it meant different buildings that aren't on the same property. Wouldn't they transmit data from their internal network over the series of tubes that is the internet?


No.  Either they buy/lease point-to-point circuits from telecom companies, or they buy MPLS network services.  Either way, these are not Internet-based connections we're talking about.
 
2013-11-07 01:15:26 PM  

fluffy2097: Google, you farking noobs.

You're not running a neighborhood network anymore. You're playing with the big boys now. World governments.

You think they're not going to tap your networks out of respect for how much money you make? They farking print money.

They're upset because they are "the greatest hackers in the world", and they have been owned for years now without any idea.

/Rude awakening.


Yeah, man. Google.com can't hold a candle to IT marvel that healthcare.gov.

/Poe's law
 
2013-11-07 02:14:08 PM  

Oysterman: Yeah, man. Google.com can't hold a candle to IT marvel that healthcare.gov.


Healthcare.gov was setup by the lowest bidder, during a government shutdown, and was not actually appropriated any funding. Funds had to be pulled from other parts of department budgets to make that disaster.

A nuclear submarine however, is funded by the US navy, and has all the time in the world to float down to the bottom of the ocean and tap a fiber optic line without anyone knowing.

You forget that the military, and military intelligence is something that we spend a LOT more time and money on, then something like healing the sick or feeding the poor.
 
2013-11-07 03:32:21 PM  

oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.


There are types of encryption systems where the two ends negotiate the key on the fly without any external entity knowing what it is. Design it to destroy keys automatically when the transactions are done and to keep no record, and Google could legitimately say, "Sorry, we don't have them."
 
2013-11-07 03:37:26 PM  

Pinko_Commie: mcreadyblue: GCHQ is the UK's version of NSA. Snowden documents show the GCHQ has installed equipment *inside* data centers.

Google DB is replicated, so the London contains a *full* copy of all user data.

Encrypting data lines is pointless, so pointless the NSA hasn't bothered to complain or compel Google to stop.

I don't think you're getting it.  A DC is just a big building with air-con and data lines coming into it.  When you're a big organisation you are basically hiring a big secured room (or multiple rooms) with power feeds, aircon feeds, and *maybe* external data lines.  Everything that goes inside your area is your own kit.  Yes GCHQ could have taps on the DC external data lines, which belong to the DC, but all they will see is the encrypted data coming out of the Google kit.

The likelihood is that Google commission their own links into the DC (unless they have space in LINX or GlobalSwitch)

Also, I highly doubt that their London DC has a replica of everything.   These are their main worldwide DC's, there is no way on earth that Google have a major DC in central London, it would cost a fortune, that's why major DC's are built on greenfield sites in the middle of nowhere.

If they're sensible they'll encrypt anything that goes across any media that they do not own, or cannot physically inspect along the entire length.  Unless the security services are actually installing taps directly into each of Googles racks then encryption WILL work.

/unless there's actually a back-door in the encryption itself, then all bets are off.


According to this article from 4 years ago (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/may/31/google-data-ce nter-building-locations) Google has a data center in London.

According to the Google data center FAQ, there isn't one in London, the nearest is Dublin.

Hmmmm.....
 
2013-11-07 03:52:17 PM  
US: "Give us the keys or we'll let Ireland close the tax loophole and you'll never get an H1B visa again."
Google: "Here you go. Sorry about that. Also, we fired Downey and Hearn for you. Anything else you need, Sirs?"
 
2013-11-07 03:59:11 PM  

mcreadyblue: Pinko_Commie: mcreadyblue: GCHQ is the UK's version of NSA. Snowden documents show the GCHQ has installed equipment *inside* data centers.

Google DB is replicated, so the London contains a *full* copy of all user data.

Encrypting data lines is pointless, so pointless the NSA hasn't bothered to complain or compel Google to stop.

I don't think you're getting it.  A DC is just a big building with air-con and data lines coming into it.  When you're a big organisation you are basically hiring a big secured room (or multiple rooms) with power feeds, aircon feeds, and *maybe* external data lines.  Everything that goes inside your area is your own kit.  Yes GCHQ could have taps on the DC external data lines, which belong to the DC, but all they will see is the encrypted data coming out of the Google kit.

The likelihood is that Google commission their own links into the DC (unless they have space in LINX or GlobalSwitch)

Also, I highly doubt that their London DC has a replica of everything.   These are their main worldwide DC's, there is no way on earth that Google have a major DC in central London, it would cost a fortune, that's why major DC's are built on greenfield sites in the middle of nowhere.

If they're sensible they'll encrypt anything that goes across any media that they do not own, or cannot physically inspect along the entire length.  Unless the security services are actually installing taps directly into each of Googles racks then encryption WILL work.

/unless there's actually a back-door in the encryption itself, then all bets are off.

According to this article from 4 years ago (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/may/31/google-data-ce nter-building-locations) Google has a data center in London.

According to the Google data center FAQ, there isn't one in London, the nearest is Dublin.

Hmmmm.....


They could move one in 4 years...
 
2013-11-07 04:58:34 PM  

waterrockets: mcreadyblue: Pinko_Commie: mcreadyblue: GCHQ is the UK's version of NSA. Snowden documents show the GCHQ has installed equipment *inside* data centers.

Google DB is replicated, so the London contains a *full* copy of all user data.

Encrypting data lines is pointless, so pointless the NSA hasn't bothered to complain or compel Google to stop.

I don't think you're getting it.  A DC is just a big building with air-con and data lines coming into it.  When you're a big organisation you are basically hiring a big secured room (or multiple rooms) with power feeds, aircon feeds, and *maybe* external data lines.  Everything that goes inside your area is your own kit.  Yes GCHQ could have taps on the DC external data lines, which belong to the DC, but all they will see is the encrypted data coming out of the Google kit.

The likelihood is that Google commission their own links into the DC (unless they have space in LINX or GlobalSwitch)

Also, I highly doubt that their London DC has a replica of everything.   These are their main worldwide DC's, there is no way on earth that Google have a major DC in central London, it would cost a fortune, that's why major DC's are built on greenfield sites in the middle of nowhere.

If they're sensible they'll encrypt anything that goes across any media that they do not own, or cannot physically inspect along the entire length.  Unless the security services are actually installing taps directly into each of Googles racks then encryption WILL work.

/unless there's actually a back-door in the encryption itself, then all bets are off.

According to this article from 4 years ago (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/may/31/google-data-ce nter-building-locations) Google has a data center in London.

According to the Google data center FAQ, there isn't one in London, the nearest is Dublin.

Hmmmm.....

They could move one in 4 years...


I have no doubt that they have some sort of DC facility in London, but it's not going to be anywhere on the scale of the major 13 DC's.  Even Google couldn't afford the real estate to do that in Central London.  I suspect they probably have space at GlobalSwitch in Docklands where they connect into the major peering backbones, but it's all guesswork on my part.
 
2013-11-07 05:04:37 PM  

jjorsett: oryx: I'll be surprised if they say it again to the NSA when it demands Google hand over the encryption key.

There are types of encryption systems where the two ends negotiate the key on the fly without any external entity knowing what it is. Design it to destroy keys automatically when the transactions are done and to keep no record, and Google could legitimately say, "Sorry, we don't have them."


(Perfect) Forward Secrecy.

Google already use it for their HTTPS traffic to their public websites.  If the session key is compromised, you cannot use it to decrypt anything else.
 
Displayed 78 of 78 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report