What Is Google’s Relationship With the NSA?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and Google Ideas Director Jared Cohen discuss the company’s relationship with the NSA and privacy concerns Oasis: The Montgomery Summit in Santa Monica, California on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Relationship with the nsa?

What relationship?

[laughter] they didn't knock.

They didn't call.

They didn't send a letter.

They just visited.

[laughter] the latest revelations from snowdon that the nsa colluded to intercept and save images in yahoo!

Video chat.

What are the chances that happened to google video chat?

We look forward to more disclosures from the nsa on this matter.

Google, facebook -- you guys have gotten together with different technology companies to petition changes in washington.

How often confident are you that they will do that?

There is section 215 -- through a series of legal arguments, it allows the recording of metadata of american phone calls, roughly 350 million american phone calls.

Every call you make recorded in these databases to target 56 people of watch one was a suspected terrorist.

Unless you determine if that is an appropriate use of government power and so forth, that is what they were doing.

The group that google was a part off took the position that this made that -- metadata collection was not appropriate.

This issue is problematic.

Because of the possibility of things of future leaking.

The president announced in january a committee which i am actually on to try to figure out what to do.

He said to the nsa that he does not want them to keep the data but he wants others to keep the data.

We are working on what the choices are.

I'll take the president's word again.

He is sincerely trying to address this in the balance of interests.

In the book, we say quite a bit about this.

In particular, we say that democracy will have this debate.

Now that we know it is going on and you will find the right balance of this interest.

If i wander around and i asked the question, what rights or privacy would an american give up if there were a terrific terrorist attack once a year?

The average american says to me, i'm fine with that.

You ask the same question in germany and the answer is, we are not fine with it.

You ask the same question in britain and they say, what's the problem?

You ask the question to israel and they say, what when it or you want lane and are you on?

In the book, we say that governments have to have this debate and find that balance.

There was no cilantro.

In the book, we recount a 5.5 interview -- a 5.5 hour interview.

He was under house arrest in the u.k. come wearing the ankle bracelet and everything.

The conclusion we came away with was that bulk leaking will continue.

One of the arguments we made it is, who appointed these individuals to the role of determining what should be public and what should not be echoed this is particularly complicated because who can possibly read through 1.2 million documents and make that determination?

They pointed themselves.

Is not a good idea to have random people to decide to leak large months of data without some kind of oversight.

Is he a traitor or hero?

Let's say this was a large collection of health care data.

A large collection of tax data.

It's also in databases that could be impacted in late.

You are better off in a democracy having a system which allows whistleblower behavior that does not ultimately cause the data permanently to be revoked.

Once it has been made available to everyone, you can.

People could actually be harmed.

More common next.

?

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change