Ььлдооос🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉ч😂😂😂😂дсдюж. Жвдбмвд жвдбммбддбвдбж🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉Вітаємо в буфері обміну Gboard. Скопійований текст зберігатиметься тут.Вітаємо в буфері обміну Gboard. Скопійований текст зберігатиметься туееее🎉а🎉 кп е🎉🎉(っ˘̩╭╮˘̩)っт.ттььб. 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 природного 🎉🎉🎉🎉каеееа🎉. 🎉🎉🎉епе🎉 на🎉кп🎉е🎉🎉😮
Its nice to see that you are being a little more transparent about your processes in a human friendly way, and that you've provided a link out for more detailed information. Can't say this for every major corp out there. Thanks ;)
This all SOUNDS great... but if you notice, there was quite a frequent use of the word, "if". Like, if it looks like the data is being requested by the other guys, or if the warrant looks too vague, etc. That means Google may refuse or refine a warrant 60% of the time based on how it looks, or not give a damn and refuse or refine it 0.0000001% of the time. This all would still, technically, be true.
The "if" could just mean that most of the time warrants are issued correctly and appropriately. I would hope that is 99% of the time. I think you are reading too much into the "if".
I'm sure there are powerful enough authority and systems out there that could skip this process without anyone ever knowing if they want to. But thanks for the cute animations to create that sense of security, even if it's fake.
I don't get people who are STILL complaining about how Google "cooperates with the law" what do you want them to do, run an illegal company just so you don't have to worry about a potential search warrant? (You shouldn't worry if you haven't done anything)
Because it's "the law" doesn't mean that you have to cooperate (cf: world history : nazism, slavery were both allowed by the law). "You shouldn't worry if you haven't done anything" : I agree with you but it seems that the NSA doesn't make that distinction. Same for the US customs. Sorry but U.S is using the same tools as Dictatorship... Sad.
pilotex2011 still does not mean that Google should be breaking the law. They are doing their best to stop this from happening. May be you should sign their petition to help.
Look all i'm trying to say is, stop complaining about how Google follows the law. They protect their users as best as possible but they can't break the law for us.
Val Kukatov I understand your point, but on the other side, they break citizens rights. But whether your point of view or mine, people who are threat to the US wins by forcing the US to act this way don't you think ? US should show those people that they are not afraid.
Nice job clearly articulating what you do. Your lawful help in issues like child safety, protection of victims, capturing of violent criminals, prevention of crime and in making it harder for hostile powers and terrorists to take advantage of us all are very important and good.
Okay, that's how you serve a warrant in the USA, but what about if law enforcement in another country wants data generated from a user account based in the USA?
Then they will probably have to go through the US government. So basically the same process, but will probably only happen if we have a extradition law with that country requesting it.
Shout out to google for actually telling people how it is that they complete a process instead of keeping it to themselves. At least they tell you if your data is being used against you.
; ) Shh.. they were counting on the bulk of the public assuming it's the same thing that's been in the news for months so the bulk can go back to assuming anything else is just a tinfoil-laced conspiracy theory. Shocked to see how many people are satisfied with this and went right back to that kind of thinking as easily as this spoonfeeding attempt to obscure the actual problem. I thought we already knew they generally bowed down to search warrants.
*Google* has put up a video detailing how it works on User Data requests from Government agencies. Its fun and informative, not necessarily in that order. This is the meaning of being "transparent".
Hmm... Google, how come this video was originally uploaded in 2014, but your logo changed in the video since the last time I saw. Both the "G" and the "Google" logo were not used in 2014. I also noticed some other things that were changed. You changing the video on w/o letting us know? Shouldn't that be re-uploaded w/ a new date?
LMAO at the part where the judge carefully reviews the request. Also, if the NSA or FBI requests the info, as far as I know they pay google and have open access, no search warrant needed. If you want your private info private, don't use google services.
If I'm ever hunted by the FBI I'll at least be happy knowing their is a well animated video explaining how they're going to undercover my search history.
How about the question, "How does google deal with a National Security Letter"? How about the question, "What was accessed by the NSA's tap into the unencrypted internal private network between Google services"? Lastly, how many users were tracked on the internet using Googles' prefs cookie, because Google didn't serve it as a secure cookie?
Did anyone else catch the massive qualifier at the beginning---- "excessive" requests----? So most of the time, they just give the information out freely?
I am glad that you guys produced this leasson, there's trust on your intentions, and this can estimele us to think in smarter ways so solve some bugs that exists in this algorithm.
What happens when the law enforcement agency that wants all the information on a user doesn't respond with a conveniently accommodating "that'll do" when asked to settle for part of it?
Levi Dettwyler With some patronising overtones, ideally. And explain it very quickly in case I get bored. Also, don't forget the jokes: Important stuff can be fun too!
I love Google for fun yet informative adverts, searches and great platforms for content like RU-vid. This is one of the reasons that they are so popular, while every thing is white and seemingly dull, they are very fun and cool =D
Alexander Rolli Its not as if KurdtStoo needs to say anything since many ISPs and search engine sites were outed for their involvement with the NSA recently. This is a poor attempt to save face when the evidence clearly supports the alternative hypothesis.
CravenTHC The NSA doesn't need Google's willingness/compliance to get data. They tap the data before it gets to Google and store what they can't decrypt. People need to wake up and realize that Google is on our side.
When they are. You're right about the NSA intercepting certain types of data, but they also performed warrant-less searches, some of which were not challenged. AT&T, Yahoo, and Google were a few of the names mentioned for having complied with warrant-less searches. Specifics were not mentioned, but you really shouldn't sit there and act like these companies are completely innocent.
Since Google's obligation is ultimately to the corporation and the stockholder and not necessarily the user, but also since Google has the motto of not being evil, has it ever considered appointing a party to act as a sort of guardian ad litem (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian) to protect the privacy interests of the user? Just thinking aloud here... nice video.
The police are after murderers, tax evaders, extortioners, assaulters, rapers. Google is just trying to make $$$. It's good that the police have a way to solve crime. When you are victimised by someone, you'll be happy to know there is a party (i.e. the Police) there to help you, because Google won't care.
How can anyone like this? If someone wants your email they should come to you, not your provider. That's some messed up back-door dealings. Accepting this is setting a precedent to allow avoiding you altogether. Kiss your rights goodbye, internet users. Your speech will be paid for instead of free yet, you won't see a dime.
Yeah, why worry about a simple search. It's no big deal! Just go back to living your normal life with out worry for the small details. Everything will be all right.
Great question! One concern for me is constant government surveillance. Consider all of the laws you or friends have broken... smoking pot, drinking underage, speeding, threatening to harm someone (rhetorically or in a fit of rage), etc. In most cases, these crimes go unpunished, and nobody is harmed. There was little reason for the government to get involved. But, the easier you make it for the government to monitor you, the easier you make it for them to punish you.
The article has useful information, but I'm not talking about public surveillance video, I'm talking about our private info gathered around the web, being given to outside sources (the police department for example.) You're right about considering all the laws my friends have broken or I myself...but I can stand proud and say I have done no such thing as break the law. As for my friends, I can't say for I do not know. The thing is, all the people complaining about search warrants, makes me believe that they have or will break the law. If one is innocent, why worry about a search?
As I also may add, such a search is not used for everything. Perhaps there are people who are breaking the law right now, but they are minor acts...which will probably not show up on anyone's radar. I would like to believe that our information across the web from sites like Facebook or Google...would be given in cases of much seriousness.
I applaud Google if these types of precautions are always taken. Kudos! I talk about philosophical and societal issues and topics that help us grow as human beings. All I want is for us to embrace our humanity and our reality for all of its truths--the good and the bad. This life is a gift.. death is a promise: so let us constantly overcome ourselves to be something more. If you find me genuine, bring me your knowledge and life experiences so that we may both grow. That is all, no more no less. Good day to everyone:)
1) care to prove that you actually go through these steps? 2) doesnt the NSA's single search warrant for everyone's data mean that despite all this, we still have no privacy online?
The NSA didn't tell Google what they were doing. They certainly didn't have a warrant. Google couldn't have gone through these steps in that case. Big government was the criminal that day, not big business.
so a video like this is the perfect chance to tell us that this happened without their permission, ILLEGALLY. not pretend everything is fine, do you not see that this video is trying to pretend everything is alright and that our info is safe?
Too bad 6 years working for Academi/Constellis Holdings taught me that this is BS. How it worked for us: Step 1 - Google we need all sensitive information on this individual. Step 2 - Google wont refuse because they have contracts with Academi/Constellis Holdings that they don't want to lose Step 3 - They give it to us Step 4 - ???? (I cant talk about that)
@@0xC When we get a security contract to protect individuals or to put together a target package for pickup, we have to know everything we can about the people around them in their life. This couod be well over 100 people. No way do we go through that entire process. It would take years. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, even credit sites like Equinox are tied up in contracts with Constellis Holdings. They hand that information over without question.
