3 ms·
Yes, 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
by downandout 13y ago
Yes, 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.