5 ms·

Project Shield

159 points by ashishbharthi 13y ago

devx 13y ago
Serious question: what happens if say Wikileaks or Snowden or the next important whistleblower uses this service, and then the head of DHS, FBI, DOJ, etc (not a Court) "gives a call" to Google? Will Google "protect their free expression", or comply with the order within hours, like Amazon did [1]? Google may have great lawyers and a lot of money, but what if they tell them "hey, you know that tax-free money you're sending to the Bermuda [2]? Yeah, FTC will be knocking on your door tomorrow to ask you about that". So I guess what I want to know is if Google will actually stand their ground and protect their users till the end by doing the right thing, or they'll "compromise" if the potential cost to their business is too great. Maybe in the past it was easy to believe Google would actually do the right thing, but it's becoming increasingly harder to believe that. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websi... [2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/101104483 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101104483
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Probably handle the TOS violation/comply with the law just like Amazon did with Wikileaks previously.
- packetslave 13y ago
  Google has been pretty explicit about the circumstances in which it will hand user data over to governments or law enforcement. Even if it is required to be done in secret (e.g. a NSL or FISA request), it still requires a valid court order or other legal process. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests If you think any U.S.-based company is able to do better, I'd love to hear how.
  - chadwickthebold 13y ago
    They could get attempt to fight the court orders in a court more open than the FISC? I'm not sure how this could practically be accomplished, but it would be a good first step towards protecting the rights of users, instead of blindly complying with court orders that Google would hopefully have some moral problems with. I always find it so fascinating that tech giants will lobby for increased access to their services worldwide, but not more secure services here at home.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      No they can't. They can fight the court order in FISC, but once the FISC process resolves, they will be required by law to honor the terms of the court order; they could then fight in other courts --- as I understand them to be doing to some extent --- but that would be a post-facto effort.
  - workhere-io 13y ago
    Snowden mentioned Google as one of the companies that provides direct access to its backend to NSA - meaning that NSA can access information on Google users without needing a court order. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrPquNK1Mc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrPquNK1Mc
    - moultano 13y ago
      Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied. >I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box. We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely telling the truth about all of this. Our business depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html
      - workhere-io 13y ago
        Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied. Probably because they're forced to do so by the authorities, like Lavebit was. So it becomes a question of who you are going to trust: Snowden (who has nothing to gain by lying) or Google (who is required by law to lie about it and risks losing a lot of money if their customers lose faith in them). I know who I trust in this case.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        Can you please state what law you believe would force them to lie about it? As i've pointed out in a few discussions, the law does not (and generally cannot constitutionally) require you to actively lie about something (IE compelled inaccurate speech). It can require you to not speak about something, compel you to speak truthful things (as a disclosure or otherwise), and require you to not tell someone something, but cannot require you to tell them something that is a lie. AFAIK, Lavabit was forced to not disclose something to their customers, which fits in with what I said. There are actually fairly important distinctions, legally, between different types of speech, and important legal distinctions between compelled speech and lack of disclosure. So you can't really paint all of these things with the same brush. (note: The above is about the US, someone asked me privately, and I have no idea, about other countries)
United857 13y ago
NVidia already has something named Project Shield -- although it has nothing to do with this. Wonder if this is confusing enough for a trademark case.
- malkia 13y ago
  There is Blue Shield (medical insurance company) in US
- swang 13y ago
  Project Shield was the code name, NVidia Shield is the real name.
- opinali 13y ago
  Not to mention the S.H.I.E.L.D. Nick Fury will be pissed.
  - atestu 13y ago
    not to be mistaken with… The Shield! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286486/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286486/
chadwickthebold 13y ago
Hopefully this project will come with increased openness about Googles complicity in the PRISM scandal. It would be rather ironic if this ends up protecting free speech everywhere except in America.
- Systemic33 13y ago
  It is quite ironic how the country that class itself the land of the free, and home of democracy, etc. exudes no fight for freedom within its own borders. Kinda ruins the whole freedom facade, when freedom is only given when it is inline with the government strategic plan.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 13y ago
    There have been protests, haranguing in the news, even an attempt to defund the NSA's metadata collection program which almost passed. What do you expect, molotov cocktails to be thrown at Congress? It's a big country and most people simply don't care.
Systemic33 13y ago
Seems like its just a straight up competitor to Cloudflare. There doesn't' appear to be any direct revenue gain from this, maybe this is more of a mafia protection kinda thing (as in protecting its interests, the websites hosting its ads). Does anyone know what it takes to mitigate DDoS, at this kind of scale?
- jamroom 13y ago
  I see big time indirect revenue - with all of a sites actions/users moving through Google, they can gather way more (potentially private) information about a user - all the better to sell targeted ads on. Call me cynical, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.
  - workhere-io 13y ago
    Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      Yeah I mean all those people who were broadcasting unencrypted information loud and clear to literally any device that receives wi-fi packets in the immediate vicinity, they have no culpability in this whatsoever!
      - workhere-io 13y ago
        Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it. The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.
        andylei 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
srhngpr 13y ago
On an unrelated note, I had never seen the withgoogle.com domain before and I did some searching and found all these other projects, initiatives, landing pages, and even online courses: - Chromebook mobile site: http://us.chromebook.withgoogle.com http://us.chromebook.withgoogle.com - Developer Bus: http://developerbus.withgoogle.com http://developerbus.withgoogle.com - Full Value of Mobile: http://www.fvm.withgoogle.com http://www.fvm.withgoogle.com - Google Analytics Academy: https://analyticsacademy.withgoogle.com https://analyticsacademy.withgoogle.com - Google Expert: http://expertbrasil.withgoogle.com http://expertbrasil.withgoogle.com - Google Wallet Instant Request Form: http://getinstantbuy.withgoogle.com http://getinstantbuy.withgoogle.com - Mapping: https://mapping.withgoogle.com https://mapping.withgoogle.com - Online Marketing 101: https://onlinemkt101.withgoogle.com/preview https://onlinemkt101.withgoogle.com/preview - Royal Baby Congrats Card: https://royalbabycard.withgoogle.com https://royalbabycard.withgoogle.com - Tour Builder: https://tourbuilder.withgoogle.com https://tourbuilder.withgoogle.com - Web Accessibility: https://webaccessibility.withgoogle.com https://webaccessibility.withgoogle.com - YouTube Creator Academy: https://creatoracademy.withgoogle.com https://creatoracademy.withgoogle.com - Your Tour (Tour de France): http://yourtour.withgoogle.com http://yourtour.withgoogle.com Non-English: - http://vpered.withgoogle.com http://vpered.withgoogle.com - http://docchinogame.withgoogle.com/pc/ http://docchinogame.withgoogle.com/pc/ - http://minchizu.withgoogle.com http://minchizu.withgoogle.com - http://ennovate.withgoogle.com http://ennovate.withgoogle.com - http://brasilfreewifi.withgoogle.com http://brasilfreewifi.withgoogle.com
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  My guess is that everything on a .google.com domain requires loads of security testing. This let's them put up a marketing site with out tons of auditing.
  - sprizzle 13y ago
    Yeah that's absolutely correct. Google has more initiatives than they can produce internally and so a lot of work is contracted to external vendors/agencies, which can have security concerns. The withgoogle.com domain allows Google to host externally-created sites that do not have any access whatsoever to internal user data.
mariusz79 13y ago
I can already see the headlines: "Beginning January 1st 2016 Google will discontinue Project Shield"
- outside1234 13y ago
  2016? You are an optimist.
  - tarellel 13y ago
    Late 2014 - Urgent headline: Project Shield will be discontinued, it's services will be merged into Google Apps.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  You beat me to it. My first thought was, "now what sub-industry is Google trying to kill off and subsequently force the resurrection of in a couple of years when their product gets pulled?"
  - saraid216 13y ago
    You make them sound like a forest fire.
- dexen 13y ago
  Guess this is how it's done in the SaaS world? Watch out for repeat of RSS's story -- market got dominated, then the dominating service got plug pulled. Microsoft really should have patented the `Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' business method back in the day ;-)
Geee 13y ago
Isn't it a clear that they set this up to track users to those kinds of sites and feed NSA with that information? Also, they get to control what information they want to let out. Call me paranoid, but I don't trust Google a bit here.
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  You don't have to be paranoid to realize that information given to a third party can be abused or leaked to other parties. I'd like to believe that most of us are already past the whole "trusting an organization" thing and have already moved on to deciding whether the benefits of using a service outweigh the downsides of said service sharing your information with other people.
- saraid216 13y ago
  If you were really paranoid, you wouldn't post on the Internet where your data traces could be analyzed.
tharshan09 13y ago
github needs this.
clebio 13y ago
Whoa, interesting Captcha (sorry to go on a tangent). Looks a bit like crowd-sourcing their street-view work (though could of course be sourced from all sorts of other things).
- fsckin 13y ago
  This started last year. Pretty smart usage, in my opinion. http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-to-decode-street-view-addresses/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-...
ck2 13y ago
Every time I see a new google product launch, in the back of my mind I start to wonder when it will be shut down.
chanux 13y ago
I think protect free expression online is too precious of an idea to be used there. But that's just my opinion.
snird 13y ago
"protect free expression online"? and who will protect us from google itself?...
jjoe 13y ago
Based on the wording, technology used is going to be a mixture of IP Anycast (traffic sharding) and cache proxying (serve content through), which is what CF does. Except google has all the cash and resources to throw at the problem without putting a dent on their bottom line. But the interesting tidbit coming out of this project's going to be the internal packet/traffic scrubbing system they've developed. Will it be commercialized or will it spawn a new startup. So many positive outcomes however it ends up.
pearjuice 13y ago
Good goy, come host your government neglecting data with us, we promise we won't hurt you!
daljeetv 13y ago
One more step toward Google creating a complete and comprehensive end to end solution
- daljeetv 13y ago
  Which provides GOOGLE with even more connected data points about a user when he/she is surfing the net.
car 13y ago
How will Google determine which opinions to protect? As wonderful as Project Shield sounds, there is a fundamental risk of it being undemocratic.
- thethimble 13y ago
  Why won't it protect all sites regardless of content? Isn't that the point of free speech?
  - jkscm 13y ago
    No, Google will decide what will be protected or the people that have the power to control Google in these regards. Content that will certainly not be protected: - Content that violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Illegal pornography, snuff videos ... - sedition,incitement - confidential NSA stuff (you know, because it helps terrorist )
al1x 13y ago
I started a thread where I was hoping to get a discussion of DDOS mitigation techniques, tools, and providers. Something that should be useful and highly relevant to web-based small business owners. It's here if anyone's interested -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6587640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6587640
lnanek2 13y ago
Kind of a bad name choice with NVIDIA Shield being a popular topic in tech and gaming circles right now.
neves 13y ago
Great! Now the NSA can monitor every dissident of the world without the need to search for them.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  Well, that's what Google is all about - providing good search solutions ;).
znowi 13y ago
> Project Shield is an initiative to use Google's infrastructure to protect free expression online How peculiar. The tech is DDoS mitigation, but the PR focus is on "free expression online", Syrian gas attacks, and evil Iran. Wonderfully executed. The internet crowd is cheering the "free speech", the government approves of the Middle East angle. Meanwhile, PRISM keeps working and very few care about it.
Fando 13y ago
Wow, what a load.
Theodores 13y ago
I am not being funny, however, shouldn't this form be https? Or did I miss something?
lazylizard 13y ago
so this is like cloudflare but for people whom google like?

159 points by ashishbharthi 13y ago

devx 13y ago

Serious question: what happens if say Wikileaks or Snowden or the next important whistleblower uses this service, and then the head of DHS, FBI, DOJ, etc (not a Court) "gives a call" to Google? Will Google "protect their free expression", or comply with the order within hours, like Amazon did [1]? Google may have great lawyers and a lot of money, but what if they tell them "hey, you know that tax-free money you're sending to the Bermuda [2]? Yeah, FTC will be knocking on your door tomorrow to ask you about that". So I guess what I want to know is if Google will actually stand their ground and protect their users till the end by doing the right thing, or they'll "compromise" if the potential cost to their business is too great. Maybe in the past it was easy to believe Google would actually do the right thing, but it's becoming increasingly harder to believe that. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-websi... [2] http://www.cnbc.com/id/101104483 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101104483

res0nat0r 13y ago
Probably handle the TOS violation/comply with the law just like Amazon did with Wikileaks previously.
packetslave 13y ago
Google has been pretty explicit about the circumstances in which it will hand user data over to governments or law enforcement. Even if it is required to be done in secret (e.g. a NSL or FISA request), it still requires a valid court order or other legal process. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests If you think any U.S.-based company is able to do better, I'd love to hear how.
- chadwickthebold 13y ago
  They could get attempt to fight the court orders in a court more open than the FISC? I'm not sure how this could practically be accomplished, but it would be a good first step towards protecting the rights of users, instead of blindly complying with court orders that Google would hopefully have some moral problems with. I always find it so fascinating that tech giants will lobby for increased access to their services worldwide, but not more secure services here at home.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No they can't. They can fight the court order in FISC, but once the FISC process resolves, they will be required by law to honor the terms of the court order; they could then fight in other courts --- as I understand them to be doing to some extent --- but that would be a post-facto effort.
- workhere-io 13y ago
  Snowden mentioned Google as one of the companies that provides direct access to its backend to NSA - meaning that NSA can access information on Google users without needing a court order. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrPquNK1Mc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLrPquNK1Mc
  - moultano 13y ago
    Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied. >I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box. We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely telling the truth about all of this. Our business depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html
    - workhere-io 13y ago
      Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied. Probably because they're forced to do so by the authorities, like Lavebit was. So it becomes a question of who you are going to trust: Snowden (who has nothing to gain by lying) or Google (who is required by law to lie about it and risks losing a lot of money if their customers lose faith in them). I know who I trust in this case.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        Can you please state what law you believe would force them to lie about it? As i've pointed out in a few discussions, the law does not (and generally cannot constitutionally) require you to actively lie about something (IE compelled inaccurate speech). It can require you to not speak about something, compel you to speak truthful things (as a disclosure or otherwise), and require you to not tell someone something, but cannot require you to tell them something that is a lie. AFAIK, Lavabit was forced to not disclose something to their customers, which fits in with what I said. There are actually fairly important distinctions, legally, between different types of speech, and important legal distinctions between compelled speech and lack of disclosure. So you can't really paint all of these things with the same brush. (note: The above is about the US, someone asked me privately, and I have no idea, about other countries)

United857 13y ago

NVidia already has something named Project Shield -- although it has nothing to do with this. Wonder if this is confusing enough for a trademark case.

malkia 13y ago
There is Blue Shield (medical insurance company) in US
swang 13y ago
Project Shield was the code name, NVidia Shield is the real name.
opinali 13y ago
Not to mention the S.H.I.E.L.D. Nick Fury will be pissed.
- atestu 13y ago
  not to be mistaken with… The Shield! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286486/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286486/

chadwickthebold 13y ago

Hopefully this project will come with increased openness about Googles complicity in the PRISM scandal. It would be rather ironic if this ends up protecting free speech everywhere except in America.

Systemic33 13y ago
It is quite ironic how the country that class itself the land of the free, and home of democracy, etc. exudes no fight for freedom within its own borders. Kinda ruins the whole freedom facade, when freedom is only given when it is inline with the government strategic plan.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 13y ago
  There have been protests, haranguing in the news, even an attempt to defund the NSA's metadata collection program which almost passed. What do you expect, molotov cocktails to be thrown at Congress? It's a big country and most people simply don't care.

Systemic33 13y ago

Seems like its just a straight up competitor to Cloudflare. There doesn't' appear to be any direct revenue gain from this, maybe this is more of a mafia protection kinda thing (as in protecting its interests, the websites hosting its ads). Does anyone know what it takes to mitigate DDoS, at this kind of scale?

jamroom 13y ago
I see big time indirect revenue - with all of a sites actions/users moving through Google, they can gather way more (potentially private) information about a user - all the better to sell targeted ads on. Call me cynical, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.
- workhere-io 13y ago
  Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Yeah I mean all those people who were broadcasting unencrypted information loud and clear to literally any device that receives wi-fi packets in the immediate vicinity, they have no culpability in this whatsoever!
    - workhere-io 13y ago
      Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it. The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.
      - andylei 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

srhngpr 13y ago

On an unrelated note, I had never seen the withgoogle.com domain before and I did some searching and found all these other projects, initiatives, landing pages, and even online courses: - Chromebook mobile site: http://us.chromebook.withgoogle.com http://us.chromebook.withgoogle.com - Developer Bus: http://developerbus.withgoogle.com http://developerbus.withgoogle.com - Full Value of Mobile: http://www.fvm.withgoogle.com http://www.fvm.withgoogle.com - Google Analytics Academy: https://analyticsacademy.withgoogle.com https://analyticsacademy.withgoogle.com - Google Expert: http://expertbrasil.withgoogle.com http://expertbrasil.withgoogle.com - Google Wallet Instant Request Form: http://getinstantbuy.withgoogle.com http://getinstantbuy.withgoogle.com - Mapping: https://mapping.withgoogle.com https://mapping.withgoogle.com - Online Marketing 101: https://onlinemkt101.withgoogle.com/preview https://onlinemkt101.withgoogle.com/preview - Royal Baby Congrats Card: https://royalbabycard.withgoogle.com https://royalbabycard.withgoogle.com - Tour Builder: https://tourbuilder.withgoogle.com https://tourbuilder.withgoogle.com - Web Accessibility: https://webaccessibility.withgoogle.com https://webaccessibility.withgoogle.com - YouTube Creator Academy: https://creatoracademy.withgoogle.com https://creatoracademy.withgoogle.com - Your Tour (Tour de France): http://yourtour.withgoogle.com http://yourtour.withgoogle.com Non-English: - http://vpered.withgoogle.com http://vpered.withgoogle.com - http://docchinogame.withgoogle.com/pc/ http://docchinogame.withgoogle.com/pc/ - http://minchizu.withgoogle.com http://minchizu.withgoogle.com - http://ennovate.withgoogle.com http://ennovate.withgoogle.com - http://brasilfreewifi.withgoogle.com http://brasilfreewifi.withgoogle.com

jcampbell1 13y ago
My guess is that everything on a .google.com domain requires loads of security testing. This let's them put up a marketing site with out tons of auditing.
- sprizzle 13y ago
  Yeah that's absolutely correct. Google has more initiatives than they can produce internally and so a lot of work is contracted to external vendors/agencies, which can have security concerns. The withgoogle.com domain allows Google to host externally-created sites that do not have any access whatsoever to internal user data.

mariusz79 13y ago

I can already see the headlines: "Beginning January 1st 2016 Google will discontinue Project Shield"

outside1234 13y ago
2016? You are an optimist.
- tarellel 13y ago
  Late 2014 - Urgent headline: Project Shield will be discontinued, it's services will be merged into Google Apps.
MrZongle2 13y ago
You beat me to it. My first thought was, "now what sub-industry is Google trying to kill off and subsequently force the resurrection of in a couple of years when their product gets pulled?"
- saraid216 13y ago
  You make them sound like a forest fire.
dexen 13y ago
Guess this is how it's done in the SaaS world? Watch out for repeat of RSS's story -- market got dominated, then the dominating service got plug pulled. Microsoft really should have patented the `Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' business method back in the day ;-)

Geee 13y ago

Isn't it a clear that they set this up to track users to those kinds of sites and feed NSA with that information? Also, they get to control what information they want to let out. Call me paranoid, but I don't trust Google a bit here.

MisterWebz 13y ago
You don't have to be paranoid to realize that information given to a third party can be abused or leaked to other parties. I'd like to believe that most of us are already past the whole "trusting an organization" thing and have already moved on to deciding whether the benefits of using a service outweigh the downsides of said service sharing your information with other people.
saraid216 13y ago
If you were really paranoid, you wouldn't post on the Internet where your data traces could be analyzed.

tharshan09 13y ago

github needs this.

clebio 13y ago

Whoa, interesting Captcha (sorry to go on a tangent). Looks a bit like crowd-sourcing their street-view work (though could of course be sourced from all sorts of other things).

fsckin 13y ago
This started last year. Pretty smart usage, in my opinion. http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-to-decode-street-view-addresses/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/29/google-now-using-recaptcha-...

ck2 13y ago

Every time I see a new google product launch, in the back of my mind I start to wonder when it will be shut down.

chanux 13y ago

I think protect free expression online is too precious of an idea to be used there. But that's just my opinion.

snird 13y ago

"protect free expression online"? and who will protect us from google itself?...

jjoe 13y ago

Based on the wording, technology used is going to be a mixture of IP Anycast (traffic sharding) and cache proxying (serve content through), which is what CF does. Except google has all the cash and resources to throw at the problem without putting a dent on their bottom line. But the interesting tidbit coming out of this project's going to be the internal packet/traffic scrubbing system they've developed. Will it be commercialized or will it spawn a new startup. So many positive outcomes however it ends up.

pearjuice 13y ago

Good goy, come host your government neglecting data with us, we promise we won't hurt you!

daljeetv 13y ago

One more step toward Google creating a complete and comprehensive end to end solution

daljeetv 13y ago
Which provides GOOGLE with even more connected data points about a user when he/she is surfing the net.

car 13y ago

How will Google determine which opinions to protect? As wonderful as Project Shield sounds, there is a fundamental risk of it being undemocratic.

thethimble 13y ago
Why won't it protect all sites regardless of content? Isn't that the point of free speech?
- jkscm 13y ago
  No, Google will decide what will be protected or the people that have the power to control Google in these regards. Content that will certainly not be protected: - Content that violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - Illegal pornography, snuff videos ... - sedition,incitement - confidential NSA stuff (you know, because it helps terrorist )

al1x 13y ago

I started a thread where I was hoping to get a discussion of DDOS mitigation techniques, tools, and providers. Something that should be useful and highly relevant to web-based small business owners. It's here if anyone's interested -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6587640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6587640

lnanek2 13y ago

Kind of a bad name choice with NVIDIA Shield being a popular topic in tech and gaming circles right now.

neves 13y ago

Great! Now the NSA can monitor every dissident of the world without the need to search for them.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
Well, that's what Google is all about - providing good search solutions ;).

znowi 13y ago

> Project Shield is an initiative to use Google's infrastructure to protect free expression online How peculiar. The tech is DDoS mitigation, but the PR focus is on "free expression online", Syrian gas attacks, and evil Iran. Wonderfully executed. The internet crowd is cheering the "free speech", the government approves of the Middle East angle. Meanwhile, PRISM keeps working and very few care about it.

Fando 13y ago

Wow, what a load.

Theodores 13y ago

I am not being funny, however, shouldn't this form be https? Or did I miss something?

lazylizard 13y ago

so this is like cloudflare but for people whom google like?