4 ms·

they are awfully specific about what they don't do. "direct access"...

• epistasis 13y ago
  "Direct access" is the specific accusation that has been leveled at them. For example, the Guardian is using the headline "NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret files reveal" on their front page, and the phrase "direct access" is used three times in their story. [1] I think that everybody assumes that they already comply with court orders for information from individual accounts. The direct access is what is new and shocking. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
  • jeremyjh 13y ago
    Yes but there are plausible ways to deny "direct access" that do not inconvenience the USG. They just need something they can point to to defend this statement, they don't actually have to have any meaningful obstruction.
• sixothree 13y ago
  It is interesting is that Facebook, Apple, and Yahoo used the term "direct access". But what is more interesting is that Microsoft claims "If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it". Does it mean that participation is not required as in a more sophisticated 641?
  • jeremyjh 13y ago
    It seems obvious that it means there are compulsory programs that they are not permitted to speak about.
    • kvb 13y ago
      That's not my reading - the previous two sentences discuss their compulsory responses to legally binding orders and subpoenas, and claim that such responses only ever relate to specific accounts.
• angersock 13y ago
  Seeing the same phrase pop up over and over is a bit unnerving.