Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yahoo Secretly Scanned Millions of Customer Emails for U.S. Authorities [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When they say "The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems" they're not lying, because the systems in question were provided by the government.
Isn't it great how doublespeak can allow anyone to say anything without technically lying?
If they wanted to be clearer, they could have said "nothing like that is in or connected to Yahoo's environment."
What's surprising is that companies don't like to lie. In other countries they'd be like "of course not."
You are right. Your nationality has nothing to do with the fact you added words to my post. Where did I say 1st amendment rights? You just assumed that was what I meant, in fact it was not. I did not say MR was going to stop his first amendment rights. I said:
"acted to prevent freedom of speech". Can't you see that I said nothing about rights or constitutions. I said MR wants to prevent freedom of speech in general. Not MR is going to prevent his first amendment rights.
This is what happens when you rush/nerdout to call someone out without reading the post and understanding what it says. My reference to you being from Canada is reference to your lack of rights of freedom of speech (since you wanted to call my post a 1st amendment issue). As seen here:
"Freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression"
Now do we all get it?
And social media setups will invite you to upload your contacts ... and inform you outright that if you use your account to log into other sites, then they may share your info with those other sites... la la la..
networking is everything...
... so your zany BFFs who forward all manner of crapmail to you and then deliver the final hidden insult by uploading "their' contact list to their social media setup... should only know throwaway addresses for you if you have half a brain. At that it's practically a hopeless endeavor to keep email address circulation limited to distributions you intend.
Almost ready to dry some kindling and send smoke signals to my Congresscritter. But he's retiring and not just retiring but leaving politics. Probably leaving all computing devices behind and who could blame him!
Meanwhile Twiitter updates its policies in advance of selling itself, it hopes, and you paw through the stuff just to see how bad things have gotten on the "privacy" front. I do get tired of hearing these behemoths carry on about how they value our privacy. No no. I am who values my privacy. They only claim to respect it, with assorted exceptions, because it may keep customer churn down to a dull roar. Or, not. When they can prove that no matter if they "respect" our privacy in the least, they still experience account churn, we're done. But at least then they might drop that offensive lie about valuing cutomers' privacy.
It was likely a separate appliance. You don't need "access to the servers" when you're already intercepting data before it reaches the server, or when it leaves the server. AKA a Black Room or Room 641A. I doubt Yahoo had much say in the matter. The NSA doesn't care about the average Jane or Joe who fall inside the "general curve" of their usage.
[doublepost=1475695019][/doublepost]
Or add the words "anymore" or "no longer" -that would have worked, too. IF they received an NSA letter, then nobody would have known about this or the leaker could end up in federal prison, etc.
There is no "freedom of speech" other than that given in your constitution. Using the phrase necessarily invokes that right, since it isn't given, nor is it "a given", through any other means. The "freedom" part can be granted only by government.You are right. Your nationality has nothing to do with the fact you added words to my post. Where did I say 1st amendment rights? You just assumed that was what I meant, in fact it was not. I did not say MR was going to stop his first amendment rights. I said:
"acted to prevent freedom of speech". Can't you see that I said nothing about rights or constitutions. I said MR wants to prevent freedom of speech in general. Not MR is going to prevent his first amendment rights.
This is what happens when you rush/nerdout to call someone out without reading the post and understanding what it says. My reference to you being from Canada is reference to your lack of rights of freedom of speech (since you wanted to call my post a 1st amendment issue). As seen here:
"Freedom of speech in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression"
Now do we all get it?
As to your swipe at Canada, you do realize that the U.S. governments (all levels) are allowed to do the same thing, right? Gag orders, libel, slander, inciting, yelling "fire" when there isn't any, limitations on language used in print, radio, and television....
I'm going to nip this in the bud right now and won't be replying any more.
Assorted internet service providers have outsourced their mail ops and went to Yahoo-hosted mail systems, although the accounts themelves are not in the yahoo domain. After the announcement of that huge (and old) breach, my ISP said on Monday that it has no determination from Yahoo as to whether such mail accounts were or were not compromised. Then comes the scanning news , and we have no idea how that may have affected our accounts either. Unbelievable.
yeah that's my email for things i don't want lol. they got so much great data from me
Huh?!
I'm liking my self-hosted email (using my own domain on a server I control) more and more.
Trust no-one, my friend.
Well the government now knows I play fantasy football.
This is why I'm in 3rd. place.
This is why I'm in 3rd. place.
I thought the NSA was supposed to be collecting all of our phone calls and email. (a claim I've always doubted because of the volume of data involved)
If that claim were true, why would the government need to get this information from yahoo?
If that claim were true, why would the government need to get this information from yahoo?
Probably not many, because only reality wouldn't hawk the exception to make it appear as the rule. We've all seen those billboards near the freeway at one point or another spewing 5 second snippets without any of the underlying details, just a bogus sales pitch.
Aren't they only supposed to look at metadata unless with cause and a FISA warrant or a letter, not look at content and certainly not search all incoming mails of everybody for specific terms? and regardless of citizenship?!-- whoa.
If the government is collect all data, as I've often heard, then who is to stop them from looking at any part of it?
But again, I have my doubts that they are doing that. The fact that they've had to go to yahoo for this information bolsters my doubts.
We 'trust' companies, or anyone not to over-step..... Doesn't give them a reason not to... They can do anything they like once they have your data
Policies are not meant to be just 'because we have noting else to do with our time'' They are there for a reason.... (a stupid one), but still valid somewhat..
All they need to do is just 'say' what they do, to makes users feel better....
Policies are not meant to be just 'because we have noting else to do with our time'' They are there for a reason.... (a stupid one), but still valid somewhat..
All they need to do is just 'say' what they do, to makes users feel better....
Last edited:
Google is likely a shared intelligence op between US and Israel. it was started with seed-money from the CIA.
If we look at the commercial side, I haven't seen any academic research on how much a persons private information is worth on the market. I don't know about now but previously the value of an online service provider was proportional to the amount of customers using it.
It would be interesting to find out what the actual market value of private information is. Those that are comfortable with sharing their private information, including metadata, should have the possibility of SELLING it to providers. That would end a lot of the social media and Google and MS-types of companies whose business model is to steal their users private information and sell it to third-parties.
Comments like that shouldn't be here. There are other places on the internet where you can say stuff like that - go to 4chan or something.
[doublepost=1475883345][/doublepost]
You should get banned for sexist comments like that. If you wouldn't say that to a woman to her face you shouldn't say it here.