4 ms·
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 compa
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIsn'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 agoI 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.