8 ms·
Google, Apple and Facebook Deny Participating In Alleged NSA “PRISM” Program
- betterunix 13y agoWe do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy!
- rasterizer 13y agoWhy aren't the rest of the companies on that list issuing false denials if that's the case?
- tyre 13y agoThey will in time. HN has been hit with links to new stories as each denies the 'direct access to their servers.' First came Google, then Apple, now Facebook. Regardless, they are purposefully missing the point. The average citizen isn't upset by the means of the private information sharing, but that it is going on in the first place. It is that 'providing only information required by law' sounds limiting, but if the law makes clever use of language to access a huge amount of data then that phrase doesn't mean anything.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chris_mahan 13y agoThat's what warrants are for.
- hga 13y agoMore specifically, narrow warrants. From a no longer operative document: "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- aylons 13y agoWarrants AND due process. It is very easy to get a warrant through a due process, with independent judges and registered probable cause and evidences for it. Eventual access to these documents are necessary so law enforcement agents must be liable for any possible mischief. Without the proper checks and balances, it becomes very easy to game the system and put us in a kafkian situation, or worse.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- throwaway420 13y agoExactly. Everybody can obviously read these companies' very carefully worded denials for themselves and see that there's enough wiggle room to drive a bus through.
- Sven7 13y agoEven if they are getting all this data(and they most likely have access), I find it highly improbable that the govt has access to the human resources (R&D/Engineering) required, to produce something useful. Just think about the teams they have to put together to build even reasonably useful tools.
- carbocation 13y agoThe same government that invented the nuclear bomb and provided feedback that protected DES's S boxes from differential cryptanalysis before it was publicly known to exist? I think you give it too little credit. The government does a bad job with citizen-facing software engineering. It's not clear that the same is true for defense and intelligence applications.
- Sven7 13y agoSure but the big difference today is the internet. Good luck trying to hire an Oppenheimer today and setting up Los Alamos in secret. Take a look at successful teams that already work with "big data" like at Wolfram Alpha or IBM's Watson. It is not at all easy to build such teams today. There aren't enough PhD's around, unless you are outsourcing to China. And then to step it up a level to Google's requirements we enter personal chefs and segway territory. I cant find the quote but Eric Schmidt has said multiple time what is hampering progress is not the lack of cash or infrastructure but talent. More than the privacy issues I have to wonder about the waste. Cause getting the data and the infrastructure to handle it is the "easy" part. Extracting actionable intelligence I doubt highly they will succeed. Will turn into a big cash sink, that no one will talk about as the costs need to be justified...until they cant be.
- rdouble 13y ago
- rasterizer 13y agoGoogle flatout says "no backdoors".
- betterunix 13y agoSending a copy of data to someone is not the same as creating a back door.
- aspensmonster 13y agoAnd what he described wasn't a back door.
- droopyEyelids 13y agoAll these denials cover one specific thing that they're not doing, not the spirit of all things that could be done. Mirroring all traffic to an additional destination isn't providing a back door, but it accomplishes much of the same function.
- monkmartinez 13y agoGoogle specifically says "no back doors". Why use a back door when the front door works... try before you pry.
- rasterizer 13y ago"Front door" is court orders and warrants: these are far less problematic.
- 13y ago
- btilly 13y agoWe do not provide direct access to our servers. We just have a system that sends copies of our data to their servers. We really do care about your privacy! Lest people think this is a joke, this is EXACTLY what the telecoms did under Bush that lead to Congress passing retroactive telecom immunity. Predictable outrage this time looks to me like outrage then, and I have no reason to believe that we won't see a similar legislative response. That said, in Google's case I believe them. This is the company that is going to court to stop the government from trying to get information about Google users with warrantless national security letters. FB on the other hand, I would expect to see providing technical support to the FBI about how to use their in house tools to more quickly analyze the dumps...
- pyre 13y ago| FB on the other hand, I would expect to see | providing technical support to the FBI about | how to use their in house tools to more quickly | analyze the dumps... According to Mark Zuckerberg: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity" I'm surprised that he didn't beg the government to peruse his data to weed out all these 'phonies' that are polluting his perfect system. [Only half-joking]
- flyinRyan 13y agoOh now that is a hilarious quote. Mark fucking Zuckerberg talking about other people lacking integrity!
- rdtsc 13y ago> Congress passing retroactive telecom immunity. A very telling fact was that Obama was one of those voting for it as well. That told me at least who Obama was. I was never fooled by his hope and change rhetoric, that one action said all I wanted to know before he even started running for pres. Here is Sen Obama's 2008 reason for flip flopping on the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-giving-i_n_108370.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/obama-backs-bill-gi... --- "Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. ---
- Locke1689 13y agoThis is not true of Microsoft's statement.
- downandout 13y agoYes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology. It's not like this contingency wouldn't have been planned for - they all knew the gravity of their decision to enter into this. Those statements were likely provided to them by the Justice Department when they first came on board with PRISM in the event that the program ever came to light. A creative US Attorney likely concluded that this would be a legally defensible statement, even if it is wholly misleading.
- rdtsc 13y ago> Yes, it's rather telling that each denial used the exact same "direct access" terminology. Yap, it seems as if they got a set of "talking points". They can use certain words and phrases and still given some technicality get away with telling "truth" while effectively also telling lies. Some say how NSL (national security letters) are pretty draconian and imply personal liability for disclosure. And that is true perhaps but at the same time these agencies do want to get some cooperation and are perhaps willing to "help out" their co-conspirators so PR departments I imagine get a cheat-sheet -- "use these phrases as responses".
- dustingetz 13y agoFurthermore it seems apple fb google etc leapt at the chance to loudly deny using white listed talking points, knowing full well that the story was unfolding. They want the public to know they are gagged.
- janardanyri 13y agoThese are obviously not actual denials given how carefully they're worded.
- dshibarshin 13y agoDoes the NSA really need to have an agreed upon backdoor to have the ability to access the information they seek?
- mtgx 13y agoMost of these use encrypted communications. NSA may be able to crack specific communications, but they can't crack all of them from Google, Skype, Facebook, iMessage in real time. Getting access to it "voluntarily" makes thing so much easier. It says in the slides the PRISM program only costs them $20 million a year.
- nwh 13y agoI wager they have control of many root CAs. They could literally MITM any connection they want to.
- jonknee 13y agoThis is the best guess if you take both the leaked documents and the companies' denials as accurate. They can use a real prism to duplicate the fiber traffic before/after Google/Apple/Facebook's servers and their root certs to take a peek within.
- tlack 13y agoDo you have any more information about how viable this would be? It's a threat I hadn't considered before.
- jonknee 13y agoThey're definitely doing the fiber portion, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- joonix 13y agoBut those companies have data centers all over the world. It's not like all data goes through one pipe ...
- chris_mahan 13y agoWhat if the terms of PRISM means that if asked, the company must deny any knowledge of it or of sharing data... And that the existence of such denial order must also be denied.
- smokeyj 13y agoThe first rule of PRISM and NSLs is you DO NOT TALK about PRISM and NSLs.
- brown9-2 13y agoOf course they wouldn't know about the project name that the NSA uses internally.
- ekianjo 13y agoWhat is the denial worth if, anyway, these companies are obliged by the secret agreement not to reveal the fact that they participate in it?
- monkmartinez 13y agoDeny, deny, deny... it will all blow over in a few days... makes me sick.
- stdgy 13y ago1) Considering these programs may be authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, and thus may be legal, none of these responses are actually denials. Far from it. 2) Moreover, if the alleged companies were knowingly providing user data to the US government as members of the PRISM program, they would be unable to confirm or deny this fact because it would be illegal for them to do so. The orders for compliance are accompanied with gag orders.
- elathan 13y agoI don't now if the graph is real (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/6/6/1370553948414/Prism-001.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video...), but Microsoft bought Skype in 2011. :)
- Buzaga 13y agonice catch
- lurchpop 13y agoremoved. mirror?
- thomasjoulin 13y agoI guess this : http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/6/6/1370553948414/Prism-001.jpg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video...
- elathan 13y agoYup, this is it.
- jlgreco 13y agoYour link appears to be broken.
- koyote 13y agoAnd the acquisition also generated a lot of bewilderment from nearly everyone in the industry. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders how much PRISM had to do with the acquisition of Skype...
- eksith 13y agoEmail : GPG/PGP (The End!) Web : Tor (Browser bundle) Voice/Txt : RedPhone, Silent Circle, Cellcrypt, TrustCall, TextSecure Data : TrueCrypt, Scramdisk, PGPDisk We can all pretend this is still a Democracy (it's not and never has been; it's a Representative Republic and our representatives are mostly evil and/or stupid) and think those who have power will relinquish it voluntarily or you can actually do something about your own privacy. Edit: Dear God, I feel like I'm turning into Stallman! (Which, on closer inspection, may be a good thing)
- pyre 13y agoEmail: PGP-encryped. Browsing Traffic: Routed through Tor Voice/Text: Encrypyed. Other Sensitive Data: TrueCrypt Hidden Partition Seeing your interrogator pull out a rubber hose, and realize that none of that matters: Priceless ---- | think those who have power will relinquish | it voluntarily Yea. It was pretty crazy when the Secret Service sided with GW Bush and the Marines sided with Obama, and Bush made his last stand to retain the Presidency at the Oval Office. I don't look forward to when/if Obama is voted out of office...
- drivebyacct2 13y ago>Yea. It was pretty crazy when the Secret Service sided with GW Bush and the Marines sided with Obama, and Bush made his last stand to retain the Presidency at the Oval Office. I don't look forward to when/if Obama is voted out of office... I feel stupid. What are you talking about? Or is this a joke scenario or something? Sorry if I'm being daft.
- pyre 13y agoI'm being sarcastic about the idea that 'the people in power' aren't going to relinquish it. If the people in office get voted out, they leave. If they didn't, we might have a problem.
- fakeer 13y ago>>If the people in office get voted out, they leave This is dangerous that after they and someone replaces them the story repeats like a record player in a lop, only with louder volume. (I wish I could think of a better analogy)
- leoh 13y agoIf there weren't a hard-document supporting the spying, it seems to be Verizon would deny any NSA ties, too. And it gets worse: there's a good chance that upper management at Verizon didn't even know about the NSA program, anyways, let alone spokespeople.
- sneak 13y agoThese sorts of orders are all gag-ordered by default. They have to lie to everyone about their existence, including co-workers and spouses, or they go immediately to jail. It's individual criminal liability for disclosing. They are literally required to dodge under federal law to stay out of jail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v._Ashcroft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v....
- rdtsc 13y agoWonder if they are ever subpoenaed in court to testify about it, if they lie they commit perjury if they tell they truth they break the rules of the NSL. At the same time the govt probably does want them to cooperate, and doesn't want it to be a completely adversarial situation. I can see them buttering these companies up and offering "talking points" on how to specifically dodge these kind of questions. For example Dept. of State have media training, they set up adversarial training situations with fake role playing journalists asking "tough" questions then train employees to dodge them successfully. Very useful. Same here I can see maybe PR spokespeople are urged maybe to say "we are not spying" because maybe the word "spying" has a specific meaning and given some technicality what they are doing is not "spying", stuff like that. Kind of like NSA has been saying they are not looking at everyone's emails. Well they are not people doing that, it all gets archived and stored probably based on some pattern. So they can clearly and proudly say they are not "reading" our information.
- hga 13y ago"Wonder if they are ever subpoenaed in court to testify about it, if they lie they commit perjury if they tell they truth they break the rules of the NSL." That would only come into play if they're partly immunized and compelled to testify, in the Congress or a grand jury; otherwise they could plead the 5th.
- drivebyacct2 13y agoOh NSLs, I'll be on my death bed with a six page rant about how much I hate you someday. (Old debate topic) I'm not sure that PRISM==NSLs but I'm sure you're absolutely right that PRISM involves a gag. Besides, these are largely non-statements by these companies. "No direct access" != "No access", etc.
- julianozen 13y agoWow. Look at the beautiful apple bullshit. Cause they've never "heard of prism specifically" cause the government never called it that. And of course apple never gave the government access to the servers. They just handed the data over
- downandout 13y agoWell, these denials were just proven to be false by a statement issued by James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence. The statement confirms the existence and active use of the program, though he insists that the data is only used for targeting non-US persons. Here is his statement: "The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies. Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States. Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons. Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate. Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans." In any event, each of these denials were just refuted by the man in charge of the program. So much for trusting anything any of these companies say ever again.
- nostrademons 13y agoMost likely: the name "PRISM" is made up (or was never revealed to tech companies), and so when you ask any of the tech companies involved, they're like "Huh? What?"
- btilly 13y agoI do not see where in James Clapper's statement there is a claim that Google, Apple or FB participated in PRISM. That said, the only way I can square his statement with the facts is that when you collect information on EVERYONE, then you haven't targeted ANYONE in particular. Which is exactly what this warrant enables the FBI to do. Also it should be noted that all denials have included the admission that companies are forced to comply with lawful requests. A request that comes complete with a warrant from a judge will be usually seen as lawful, even though there might be issues with the warrant. Thus a company could "only comply with lawful requests" and also turn over all of their data under a warrant like this. That said, Google has been vocal enough in protesting government attempts to troll through its data that I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I think that we'll soon have more details.