L’article relaie pour l’essentiel le discours des Google, Facebook, Linkedin and co. L’argument : on ne donnait de notre plein gré qu’un faible nombre de données ; le reste nous a été pris par la ruse.
“At first we were in an arms race with sophisticated criminals,” says Eric Grosse, Google’s head of security. “Then we found ourselves in an arms race with certain nation-state actors [with a reputation for cyberattacks]. And now we’re in an arms race with the best nation-state actors.” Primarily, the US government.
For years, companies from espionage-happy countries like China have been spurned by overseas buyers who didn’t trust their products. Now it’s America’s turn. And that is already having an impact on young companies looking to grow internationally.
il finit par des interviews à la #NSA, où la langue de bois est purement orwellienne (mes préférées : “We have a shared interest in transparency” et “We applaud the use of encryption … We support better security.” ), et notamment avec le général Keith Alexander, le patron de la #NSA, qui semble avoir fumé des drogues :
“My concern is that, without knowing the facts, people will say, ‘Let’s put that hornet’s nest away.’ We sure would like to get rid of that hornet’s nest. We would like to give it to somebody else, anybody else. But we recognize that if we do that, our nation now is at greater risk for a terrorist attack. So we’re going to do the right thing; we’re going to hold on to it, let people look at the options. If there is a better option, put it on the table.”
the tech companies are more like the NSA than they would like to think. Both have seized on the progress in computing, communications, and storage to advance their respective missions. (When you think of it, Google’s original mission statement—“to collect and organize the world’s information”—might also apply to the activity at Fort Meade.) Both have sought to fulfill those missions by amassing huge troves of personal information—and both offer trade-offs that seemingly justify the practice.