[aniket_ray]

And it turned out that Google was correct. Guardian backtracked on their original story and changed the story to NSA surreptitiously stealing user information rather than claiming tech companies were complicit. In response, Google enhanced encryption to further protect users.

[sc68cal]

Here is the full update:

"• This article was amended on 20 March 2014 to remove statements in the original that the testimony by Rajesh De contradicted denials by technology companies about their knowledge of NSA data collection. It was also updated to clarify that the companies challenged the secrecy surrounding Section 702 orders. Other minor clarifications were also made."

They may have updated their article to excise the denials about PRISM - however the water is still muddy regarding the truthfulness of their statements under numerous other programs that the NSA has conducted under other legal authorities like Section 702, Section 215, etc..

[dannyr]

So why did Google just removed http & is now only https?

For show?

[skj]

No, for improved security.

The http/https question is completely irrelevant to the PRISM-complicity question. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[nl]

Why does your bank use https?

Amongst other things, it makes NSA tapping of fiber in front of their datacenters less useful. It also makes switches that replicate traffic to NSA less useful.

[alwaysdoit]

http is like the postcard of the internet. By switching to https only, they are requiring you to send them messages in security envelopes rather than postcards.