3 ms·

Agreed, I think you've stated your point better than I have further down in the thread based on my down votes. The American press is not perfect, but over the

Agreed, I think you've stated your point better than I have further down in the thread based on my down votes. The American press is not perfect, but over the years I've been really impressed with the journalistic skill of our major publishers. Just this week the New York Times had an extensive story regarding the president's tax returns, they claim to have access to hundreds of thousands of documents and spoke to dozens of sources. I'm more inclined to believe Bloomberg's journalistic integrity than the denials of Apple, Amazon and China.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Didn't Apple and/or Amazon (EDIT: not Amazon) categorically deny being involved in PRISM until Snowden's slides showed that to be false?
- shshhdhs 8y ago
  Apple was listed on the PRISM slides but not Amazon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/media/File%3APrism_slide_5.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)...
- skybrian 8y ago
  As I understand it, there was (and still is) some room for confusion here: (1) PRISM was an internal code name so of course they hadn't heard of it. (2) there was apparently some kind of API or data transfer for sending national security requests to the companies involved and returning the results. A vague PowerPoint slide was misinterpreted by reporters as "direct server access". This is sort of like claiming that you have root access to Google's servers just because you have a Gmail account. So the companies could deny that, but there is still a question of exactly what was (is) possible using whatever API they exposed, and what sort of legal review the companies do of the requests they get, and whether this review restricts what the government can do in a meaningful way.
samsonradu 8y ago
I'd also underline how convenient this news is for the current administration - move production back home. The article is much more damaging to the Chinese hardware suppliers than Apple/Amazon which will likely get over it soon.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Didn't Apple and/or Amazon (EDIT: not Amazon) categorically deny being involved in PRISM until Snowden's slides showed that to be false?

shshhdhs 8y ago
Apple was listed on the PRISM slides but not Amazon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/media/File%3APrism_slide_5.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)...
skybrian 8y ago
As I understand it, there was (and still is) some room for confusion here: (1) PRISM was an internal code name so of course they hadn't heard of it. (2) there was apparently some kind of API or data transfer for sending national security requests to the companies involved and returning the results. A vague PowerPoint slide was misinterpreted by reporters as "direct server access". This is sort of like claiming that you have root access to Google's servers just because you have a Gmail account. So the companies could deny that, but there is still a question of exactly what was (is) possible using whatever API they exposed, and what sort of legal review the companies do of the requests they get, and whether this review restricts what the government can do in a meaningful way.

samsonradu 8y ago

I'd also underline how convenient this news is for the current administration - move production back home. The article is much more damaging to the Chinese hardware suppliers than Apple/Amazon which will likely get over it soon.