[rgbrenner]

has never weakened its encryption systems to make snooping easier

Up until today, Google didn't even encrypt the data. So it's kind of hard to weaken something you weren't even using.

And then to go on to equate it as a "personal honor".. you've got to be kidding me.

[raldi]

> Up until today, Google didn't even encrypt the data.

That's not what the article says. The new encryption is specifically for backend datacenter-to-datacenter traffic over leased lines. But even before that project, there was lots of strong encryption being used all over Google: to encrypt user data on servers' hard drives, to encrypt data going between browsers and servers, encrypting tape backups before sending them to offsite storage facilities...

[rgbrenner]

Your critic is valid and I completely agree... but I standby what I wrote with regard to their traffic over leased lines.

'We just sent data in the clear over leased lines so the NSA could read whatever they wanted. But the encryption we never used was never weakened.'

This is nonsense.

Not only that, but when the data is transmitted, that is exactly when Google has the least amount of control over it... ie: that's when encryption is the most important. Yet, they chose not to encrypt the data, and then give everyone a story about their 'personal honor' of keeping things secure. This is a joke.

[packetslave]

Depends on your definition of "leased lines". A privately-operated layer 1 backbone over dedicated dark fiber has traditionally been considered to be pretty secure (up until recently, anyway)