The response doesn't seem convincing. By this standards he's not supposed to work for any corporation. I am a Google fanboy, I agree, and this might skew my opinion, but I am always open to debate.
Agreed. The response seems to conflate a bunch of different things and pretend it's all Google's fault. Snowden didn't blow the whistle on Google. Google can't control what the NSA is tapping or what court orders it gets. Maybe some people inside Google knew about inter-datacenter taps and didn't do anything about it, but once all of Google became aware, they started encrypting those links. Automatic indexing of email contents leaves Google open to subpoenas for information about that indexed content, but the emails would be there to subpoena either way. I don't understand the problem.
What has Google ever done to help TLAs wiretap anyone?
Encryption can be done in a matter where the private keys are stored in the user's end, making it far harder for the likes of the NSA to break the encryption.
One example of this is Jitsi's implementation of Off The Recording chatting. When using an XMPP server through Jitsi, the NSA may be able to read the cipher text sent but not the plaintext because the keys are stored on the chat participants computers. Not even the chat server owners know the chat plaintext.
Doesn't Perfect Forward Secrecy protect against that? I am not sure if Google have implemented it but according to the Wikipedia entry:
This means that the compromise of one message cannot lead to the compromise of others, and also that there is not a single secret value which can lead to the compromise of multiple messages.
I think the big problem with Google is their obsessive compulsiveness in collecting data. Searches, chat logs, locations, everything is collected because storage is cheap. The collect it to improve their services, sure, to better target their advertising, of course. And Google may strive to protect that data and not share it with others. However, all this data makes Google a gold mine for governments, and giving out the data is not really in their control.
There are other companies that have business models don't necessitate all this data collection. When these companies have to cooperate with governments, there's a limit to the amount of useful information they can hand out about their customers.
He could work for a corp that is small enough that it still seems like it is made of decent human beings.
My interview experience with G was more than enough to ensure I never seek to work there again.
And, the trauma of having all my media accounts force-Hoovered into G+ left me little choice but to revoke the last little bit of admiration I had for this once-cool-as-beans company.
He may make enough money freelancing that he doesn't need to work for any corporation. If you're good at what you do in the Software space, you can command very strong 6 figure salaries and only have to "work" part of the year to maintain a very comfortable lifestyle.
I only freelance for companies smaller than 15 people. Like the other person said, it could be anybody from an individual to a small team to a large corporation.
People tend to forget we are Google's product. Not their customers. Advertisers are their customers.
Plenty of tech companies don't sell souls for a living, therefore by working there you may not be required to also sacrifice yours for a paycheck.
Flip side; there are those who believe ads aren't evil. Google builds a lot of interesting tech. It's probably a great place for engineers. But one look at their financial reporting and it's still evident that advertising pays the bills.
I didn't acknowledge that. Renting the data doesn't mean third parties see it - since there would be no way for it to be 'returned'. Instead a program is executed on their behalf.
