3 ms·

The "directly" bit is being questioned: The Washington Post backtracks on claim tech companies ‘participate knowingly’ in PRISM data collection http://thenextw

The "directly" bit is being questioned: The Washington Post backtracks on claim tech companies ‘participate knowingly’ in PRISM data collection http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/wapost-backtracks-on-claim-tech-companies-participate-knowingly-in-prism-data-collection&#x2F http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/wapost-backtracks-on-cla...;

brown9-2 13y ago
This is semantics. The original slides, and the WaPo writeup, made it sound as if the NSA has "direct access", which to those of us who work in this area understand to mean "they can login to the servers and do whatever they want". But it is clear that what is really meant is that the government can access all of the personal data that these companies have, provided the "proper" clearance and assertions by the NSA analyst. TheNextWeb's speculation that the change in wording means that the data is gathered "indirectly" doesn't make a lot of sense: For one thing, it adds to the growing claim that the agency instead accessed the information indirectly. In such a case, the most likely method would be via ISPs or mobile operators, but that remains unconfirmed. Given that the WaPo wording specifically mentions "company-controlled locations": In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. What this more than likely means is that the NSA uses special-access "portals" provided by these companies to do their searching in. Meaning that the NSA accesses a special, locked down website provided and built by Google/Apple/Facebook etc to do their searching in, a site that runs within Google/Apple/Facebook's datacenters/infrastructe, a system that has access to all of the backend data. "Direct access" means something different to those of us that work with software systems like this all day long than it does to a journalist. We understand that to mean a login and shell access on a server, while the journalists seem to be misunderstanding "direct" versus "indirect" to refer to where the data is obtained from. edit: think about it this way: would the government want access to the raw bytes stored on Google's servers, which would require them to understand how to decode Google File System data and be kept 100% up to date on how all of Google's backend systems work? Or would they prefer if Google provided them with a private search engine to access data, which Google has to keep up to date to work with all of the other Google systems?
- rasterizer 13y ago
  The NYT also disputes earlier claims: While the newspapers portrayed the classified documents as indicating that the N.S.A. obtained direct access to the companies’ servers, several of the companies — including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple — denied that the government could do so. Instead, the companies have negotiated with the government technical means to provide specific data in response to court orders, according to people briefed on the arrangements. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?...
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    The only thing that is being disputed is the meaning of the term "direct access". To a technical person, and to a technology company like Google, that would mean shell access and ability to run arbitrary commands on Google's server. That is the only thing that these companies have denied in their statements. It was a somewhat misleading description in the original slides and original reporting, but it does not really change the scope of what we are talking about.
    - rasterizer 13y ago
      Isn't access to actual servers (shell or otherwise) the real issue here? complying with subpoenas and warrants isn't much of an issue at all.
      - brown9-2 13y ago
        I think it depends on who you ask. I think the fact that the NSA could routinely search Facebook/Google/Apple for whatever data they have about a particular person (after being reasonably confident that that person is "foreign"), without needing to get a new and specific subpoena each time, is news to most people.

brown9-2 13y ago

This is semantics. The original slides, and the WaPo writeup, made it sound as if the NSA has "direct access", which to those of us who work in this area understand to mean "they can login to the servers and do whatever they want". But it is clear that what is really meant is that the government can access all of the personal data that these companies have, provided the "proper" clearance and assertions by the NSA analyst. TheNextWeb's speculation that the change in wording means that the data is gathered "indirectly" doesn't make a lot of sense: For one thing, it adds to the growing claim that the agency instead accessed the information indirectly. In such a case, the most likely method would be via ISPs or mobile operators, but that remains unconfirmed. Given that the WaPo wording specifically mentions "company-controlled locations": In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. What this more than likely means is that the NSA uses special-access "portals" provided by these companies to do their searching in. Meaning that the NSA accesses a special, locked down website provided and built by Google/Apple/Facebook etc to do their searching in, a site that runs within Google/Apple/Facebook's datacenters/infrastructe, a system that has access to all of the backend data. "Direct access" means something different to those of us that work with software systems like this all day long than it does to a journalist. We understand that to mean a login and shell access on a server, while the journalists seem to be misunderstanding "direct" versus "indirect" to refer to where the data is obtained from. edit: think about it this way: would the government want access to the raw bytes stored on Google's servers, which would require them to understand how to decode Google File System data and be kept 100% up to date on how all of Google's backend systems work? Or would they prefer if Google provided them with a private search engine to access data, which Google has to keep up to date to work with all of the other Google systems?

rasterizer 13y ago
The NYT also disputes earlier claims: While the newspapers portrayed the classified documents as indicating that the N.S.A. obtained direct access to the companies’ servers, several of the companies — including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple — denied that the government could do so. Instead, the companies have negotiated with the government technical means to provide specific data in response to court orders, according to people briefed on the arrangements. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?...
- brown9-2 13y ago
  The only thing that is being disputed is the meaning of the term "direct access". To a technical person, and to a technology company like Google, that would mean shell access and ability to run arbitrary commands on Google's server. That is the only thing that these companies have denied in their statements. It was a somewhat misleading description in the original slides and original reporting, but it does not really change the scope of what we are talking about.
  - rasterizer 13y ago
    Isn't access to actual servers (shell or otherwise) the real issue here? complying with subpoenas and warrants isn't much of an issue at all.
    - brown9-2 13y ago
      I think it depends on who you ask. I think the fact that the NSA could routinely search Facebook/Google/Apple for whatever data they have about a particular person (after being reasonably confident that that person is "foreign"), without needing to get a new and specific subpoena each time, is news to most people.