>>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project
An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<<
EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.
yes, i kind of imagine how the Chinese bistro nearby (less than a mile from Google) wouldn't let, say, a city inspector in until s/he signs NDA/etc... I guess the bistro owner is just not aware about such an idea :)
I'm not seeing much in that description of the border exception that would touch this vessel, which appears to be something akin to "at port," much less a vessel controlled by a company with as many legal resources as Google. It would be a shitshow if the USCG just stormed in there.
Ask any boater how any interaction with the Coast Guard goes. They wield an incredible amount of power in search and seizure and centuries of court precedence. Unlike the TSA they are pros at security theater, even if you think you are right you are almost always wrong.
The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
My guess would be that the Google head honcho on-site asked nicely and offered some sort of carrot (e.g. "we will tell you our other spooky floating facility plans in advance"), and that the Coast Guard employee was "required" to sign the NDA by a boss who liked the deal.
I love HN. Coast Guard denied access to Google warehouse: corporations have too much power. NSA suspected of gaining access to Google warehouse: government has too much power.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. In particular that government and corporations are working together at high level, while maintaining opposing stance in public.
When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM).
The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
If both corporations and the government act outside or above the law, then they both have too much power, right? (Note that I don't actually believe Google has violated any laws here - just commenting on the perception).
> On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff.
WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector?
To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
There is nothing precluding separate NDAs for individual instances that enforce different terms than a duty-required blanket non-disclosure policy enforces.
I can't think of a situation where it would(should) be legal for a government agent to accept any kind of NDA in order to perform his or her job. Either there are secrets that you come in contact with in line of duty that you shouldn't share -- or there aren't. In the first instance, your employer should be able to make sure you don't talk about it; in the latter talking about it would probably be in the public interest.
I see no reason for government agents to be treated differently legally than private individuals when business secrets are requested to be exposed. Coast Guardsmen have no special right to the inner workings to a private company's data center, for example.
If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those.
It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
> If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those.
No, exactly. If you're entering any private property and learn information that you wouldn't have been aware of, as a result of preforming your duty, you are not allowed to disclose it. That's my point. Any NDA should be entirely irrelevant.
If you you're cop and bust someone for possession of drugs, you're not allowed to, as a private citizen, go to that persons employer and recommend they fire the guy, either.
The only possible value I could see of an "NDA" is not as an NDA at all, but as a brief education on what things might be considered private -- that might not be obvious to someone not already familiar with data centres. In other words, an explanation and expansion on what might constitute privileged information, and so fall under the provisions for secrecy and privacy that the government employee is already subject to.
I've been googling, and I haven't found the regulation or policy for the Coast Guard that forbids the disclosure of business intelligence. If one does not explicitly exist, then it doesn't practically exist, either. If you know of one though please provide a link, it would definitely settle the debate for me.
Otherwise, there is fiduciary imperative on the part of the business to insist on non-disclosures, and I see nothing where it should be illegal to insist up until a court orders the disclosure of that information (and even then, can be argued that the court must seal the discoveries).
> Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it."
ATTENTION TINFOIL-HAT WEARING HN READERS: You may now start worrying that these barges are in fact floating versions of the NSA's Utah data center, built to accompany the USS Jimmy Carter as it roams around tapping undersea cables [1]
The sub has very limited data storage capacity, these floating 'privacy destroyers' do not.
>> Tech site CNET has speculated that it might be a floating data center, while the local CBS TV affiliate points to a floating store for Google's wearable Glass computer. <<
A giant floating store to sell Glass, that is made out of metal shipping containers? CBS has gone off the deep-end.
coming up in 2014:
Google shipping. With data mined from youtube and the google crawler our new service can generate slash / shipping storys for any couple you want! (For legal /copyright reasons all shipping is done in international waters).
>>This document describes systems and methods that may be employed to provide data center (e.g., computing, telecommunications, or other similar services) support in an area quickly and flexibly. In general, computing centers are located on a ship or ships, which are then anchored in a water body from which energy from natural motion of the water may be captured, and turned into electricity and/or pumping power for cooling pumps to carry heat away from computers in the data center.<<
So I've been thinking about this and I am getting a bit upset that a corporate entity can stop a government policing and enforcement entity and make them sign a NDA. Coast Guard has the right to board any nautical vessel for inspection, no?
Can you imagine the police hearing screams and cries for help from inside a building and the corporate owners of the building stop them and say, well you cannot come in unless you sign this NDA first.
Coast Guard has the right to board any nautical vessel for inspection, no?
Is it actually a nautical vessel, or just a floating anchored data center? If the latter, it may still be a vessel technically but there won't be much "nautical" about it.
I would imagine the "unreasonable search & seizure" protection would protect people until the ship was actually moving. Maybe even until there is good reason to search it.
50 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 52.1 ms ] thread>>At least one Coast Guard employee has been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with the company regarding the San Francisco project
An inspector with an unidentified California agency said he, too, had to sign such a document.<<
EDIT: On a second thought, it must be common practice for various inspectors to sign NDA's since they see private corporate stuff. Thus the signage of the document has no role in whether inspector would be allowed on board or not.
It's incredible how much power corporations have in the US.
But, maybe they would need a warrant, and by getting permission they avoid that? Don't know.
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-co...
The barge is not in a lake, it's in a bay and border rules take precedence.
When you're a huge corp like Google that operates around the globe, you can't help but to rub elbows with the government - collaborate and make concessions, if necessary (e.g. PRISM).
The sad part is that the lack of privacy is advantageous to both government and corporations. One get better ad targeting, another tracking and control. So they're one team on this. The dispute is who and how will get to use the data.
I don't think I'd have the power to tell the US Coast Guard to fuck off if they approached me as I sped across the harbour in my little speedboat.
WTF? AFAIK it is common practice that you're not allowed to talk about stuff you see in line of duty, as cop, or any other kind of government empowered inspector?
To me this sounds completely redundant -- either the coast guard employee in question is already under much more powerful obligation to keep quiet than some corporate civil law NDA -- or this is completely outside the law, and just a show of force by private corporate interest...
If their duty is to board a boat and insure there is no contraband or whatever, I cannot imagine they're also given a blanket right to learn trade secrets and then be at their own discretion to disclose those.
It's absolutely plausible to require an NDA before exposing such information.
No, exactly. If you're entering any private property and learn information that you wouldn't have been aware of, as a result of preforming your duty, you are not allowed to disclose it. That's my point. Any NDA should be entirely irrelevant.
If you you're cop and bust someone for possession of drugs, you're not allowed to, as a private citizen, go to that persons employer and recommend they fire the guy, either.
The only possible value I could see of an "NDA" is not as an NDA at all, but as a brief education on what things might be considered private -- that might not be obvious to someone not already familiar with data centres. In other words, an explanation and expansion on what might constitute privileged information, and so fall under the provisions for secrecy and privacy that the government employee is already subject to.
Otherwise, there is fiduciary imperative on the part of the business to insist on non-disclosures, and I see nothing where it should be illegal to insist up until a court orders the disclosure of that information (and even then, can be argued that the court must seal the discoveries).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905
I'd be surprised if there isn't something equivalent for most state legislations as well (for state employees).
> Ensign Connan Ingham said that no non-disclosure agreements had been signed but that some local agency officials "have been asked by the owner not to talk about it."
Which is it? :/
Google: put up or shut up. This is stupid.
The sub has very limited data storage capacity, these floating 'privacy destroyers' do not.
[1]http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx5/6/21038/975021/975021.html
Google could just troll everyone by floating the barges away and nothing comes of this.
A giant floating store to sell Glass, that is made out of metal shipping containers? CBS has gone off the deep-end.
Summary: We know nothing and can't say.
Can you imagine the police hearing screams and cries for help from inside a building and the corporate owners of the building stop them and say, well you cannot come in unless you sign this NDA first.
Is it actually a nautical vessel, or just a floating anchored data center? If the latter, it may still be a vessel technically but there won't be much "nautical" about it.
(And host monkey knife fighting)