3 ms·
That has nothing to do with the questions that I posed. Apple being part of PRISM is what I referred to. Not the nature of the program. The intentional lying ab
by whathaschanged 9y ago
That has nothing to do with the questions that I posed. Apple being part of PRISM is what I referred to. Not the nature of the program. The intentional lying about it. Why should anybody trust them?
“We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order,” stated Apple spokesperson Steve Dowling.
http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/is-apple-lying-about-its-involvement-in-government-surveillance.html/?a=viewall http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/is-apple-lying-about-it...
- tptacek 9y agoThis article doesn't say anything at all, other than that all the major tech companies denied the original Greenwald claim that the NSA had direct access to servers (claims that every major outlet who published them have subsequently walked back), and that they had anything to do with "PRISM". Other investigative reporters have worked out what PRISM was. Now we're all pretty sure we know. But that doesn't mean the tech companies at the time had any clue. It is somewhat unlikely that the thing that sent them 702 directives was, to them, referred to as "PRISM". Generally, I find, when PRISM gets introduced into a discussion about Internet privacy, the discussion gets rapidly dumber. I'm not saying that's happening here, but it's a risk. If you're going to talk about it, you should have better sourcing than whatever the hell "The Cheat Sheet" is.