19 ms·

I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause. - We do not provide direct acc

I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause. - We do not provide direct access to our servers. - We do not provide direct access nor is there a backdoor. - O, but we do still pipe all of your data to external NSA servers. </sarc> Every company named (I'm not just picking on Google here) has come out with the same overarching statement. "We do not provide direct access". It just smells of being rehearsed, and carefully coordinated to select such language.

packetslave 13y ago
Read the blog post. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period"
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  Which is still pretty flexible language. "Oh, it's not open-ended access, it's limited to the conditions in the authorization..." The Verizon order was limited to 3 months, for example, which is hardly open-ended... except that it presumably got re-upped every three months.
  - packetslave 13y ago
    Read the NEXT SENTENCE! "Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records." AND THE TWO AFTER THAT: "We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
    - hga 13y ago
      "NEXT SENTENCE": I don't think they're a telco with millions of users, Goggle Voice is pretty small, right? The two after that look like a pretty good denial, though.
    - washedup 13y ago
      It is very possible that Google is lying.
      - Kylekramer 13y ago
        Of course it is, but in this conversation that is moving the goalposts. And if we had to address every possibility, very little progress would ever be made in any discussion.
      - snowwrestler 13y ago
        Then why bother parsing their language or even reading their blog posts?
  - Thrymr 13y ago
    He also says: "Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received... We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
  - unreal37 13y ago
    No, its pretty clearly written to me. Larry Page is genuinely surprised that this program thinks it has access to Google data on demand.
DannyBee 13y ago
They can't say "we don't provide access", because depending on the law, they are forced to. They say "we do not provide direct access", because as explained, any access goes through proper legal channels. I'm not sure what you'd call it? Remember language matters, and these are actionable public communications.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- defen 13y ago
  Sure, but the statement as worded does not rule out the possibility that a third party contractor (Palantir) has access, and feeds it to the government. So Google has the motive (some theoretical secret law they need to abide) and they haven't denied a potential means (third party mediation). That's enough for people to convict in this situation.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Sure. The statement does not rule out the possibility that aliens are using advanced technology to watch the bits on optical lines without affecting the photos either.
    - defen 13y ago
      True. However, the prior probability of that statement being true is exceedingly remote, so a non-denial of that still leaves me relatively certain that I don't have to worry about aliens conspiring with the federal government to spy on me.
      - gohrt 13y ago
        "prior probability" is a fancy way of saying "without evidence, I believe what I want". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not something Larry Page can help you with.
tomkarlo 13y ago
I believe everyone's using the term "direct access" in contrast to the access the government is already known to have, which is via warrant or other "indirect" requests.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 13y ago
Same thing with the "we've never heard of PRISM" language a number of companies are using. Well, yeah - that code name probably stayed within the NSA.
unreal37 13y ago
I believe Google on this. The language is clear and non-weasel-y. Google does not hand over user data to the government unless specifically requested. There is no open-ended access. But I also believe the government works with ISP's (all major ISPs) so that they can intercept traffic. Which would be a type of MITM attack allowing them to get data from all major web sites.
- javert 13y ago
  I think it's completely weaselly. It leaves wide open the possibility that a 3rd party, like Palantir, has access to the data.
  - jmillikin 13y ago
    "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." Those sentences seems straightforward and unambiguous.
    - pbreit 13y ago
      I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but those statements are hardly unambiguous. It's the "press reports" that are called false. Close-ended could pretty much be just as broad. The second sentence is hedged with "on such a scale". What is "information about our users' Internet activity"? Does that preclude sharing the actual internet activity? Also, Page keeps referring to "orders" but the press reports suggest some sort of volunteering.
      - cube13 13y ago
        The fundamental problem here is that we have allegations that the US Government ordered all these companies to do something bad(tm) and not talk about it. So, if we assume that the allegations are correct, then the companies denying it are in on it, and the denial is false. But if the allegations are not true(either wholly or just for Google), then their denial may be entirely true. That's why it's problematic, because if you believe that the reports are true, then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief. If you believe they're false(or even not as extensive as reported), then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief. So realistically, the best approach is just to wait and see.
Dove 13y ago
Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. I'm not sure how much more strongly you'd like that worded. It seems pretty complete to me.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  It's exactly the kind of denial you'd expect them to issue if they were legally required to deny any involvement.
  - cheald 13y ago
    I agree, but what could Page say to convince us otherwise? Either the government is coercing them, and they have to issue lies as denials, or they are participating voluntarily and are voluntarily lying, or they are not participating. The second option seems unlikely to me.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well, you can't prove a negative so I'm not sure there's anything Page can say. But at the same time they can't all be right. NSA says it's getting data in some form from Google, Page says no direct access. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle then... but where?
      - cheald 13y ago
        I'm 100% with you. I don't know what Page could say, and I agree that it's extremely likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but damned if any of us have any ability to actually suss out what that is. It's very frustrating. I just think it's important to not be entirely cynical here, and to keep in mind what such a statement might look like if it were being truthful. I don't know how much different it might be, which generally makes the statement only as good as Larry Page's word, and only then if he doesn't have a gun to his head.
jessaustin 13y ago
There is another explanation: https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001431.html https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001431.html
- btilly 13y ago
  That explanation is far easier for me to believe than the theory that Google would have agreed to cooperate in this spying effort. This link has been submitted to the new queue at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5841505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5841505 and I hope it gets voted up for wider attention.
- defen 13y ago
  I guess the question then, is: how big of a cabal of "rogue" employees would it take to put evil code into production at a place like Google. I seriously doubt one person could do it, no matter how highly placed.
  - blibble 13y ago
    one person, maybe not, but if you're a intelligence agency with a multi-million dollar budget to tap Google, you'd probe the organisation and bribe those with access, and anyone in the chain those employees could credibly report to. this isn't difficult or particularity far-fetched!
    - defen 13y ago
      Don't you think China/Russia/Israel/etc would have attempted/done the same thing, too?
      - blibble 13y ago
        who says they haven't? maybe not completely (it's way easier for the US, as most of Google resides on US soil), but you can bet they have people in a position to extract at least some data on demand. this has previously happened: stuxnet (a product of several intelligence agencies) was digitally signed by a large semiconductor company!
danso 13y ago
OK, in an alternate reality, what would a clear, flat-out denial look like? I mean, how could we tell such a thing differently than what was in the OP? First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday...Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records.
- mullingitover 13y ago
  "We would never do this, not because the government hasn't asked us to, but because it's morally abhorrent. It goes against everything we personally believe in and stand for. Even if we were legally required to cooperate, we would resist and suffer incarceration if necessary. We believe in freedom more strongly than we fear the consequences of not cooperating with an oppressive government." That kind of thing.
  - VikingCoder 13y ago
    Google used to cooperate with China. Google is ACTIVELY forgoing revenue in China, because it wouldn't play by their rules. [1] It's a start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-ce...
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    That would be a lot stronger a statement, but at the end of the day... we'll never know. Anything he says could have been written with a govt. agent holding a gun to his head. I know, I know, total conspiracy theory territory. And I'm not saying that is the case, just pointing out that - at the end of the day - there's very little we can actually know for sure about their involvement or lack thereof. Therefore, IMO, the best thing to do is assume that every single bit that hits a Google server, and every bit stored by Google, is available to the NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, MI6, Mossad, etc., etc... which means using strong crypto to protect your stuff if you really care about keeping it private.
washedup 13y ago
Couldn't agree more. The key terms used are subject to interpretation. Still not feeling comfortable about this.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Is there any statement that would actually make you feel comfortable? If you're going to choose to disbelieve someone's statements, there's very little they can say to change that.
  - hfantods 13y ago
    Larry's post was designed to quickly assuage our knee-jerk fears about a giant like google having anything to do with "PRISM". In that, it is effective. I think for a lot of folks complaining, his language (i.e. "direct access") is just overly precise enough to leave too much room in the margins for technical loopholes concerning "who" has access to "what" data. When Larry defends their general policies stating google "pushes back on requests", I am not convinced when terms like "overly broad" and "correct process" are left undefined. But it's a 4 paragraph blog post- what do I expect?
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      Even legal docs are open to interpretation - they're not math. It's hard to expect a concise and readable post, not couched in legal phrasing, to somehow exclude all possible alternate interpretations. Especially when it can't be absolute in phrasing because there are known (and accepted) exceptions.
jlmorton 13y ago
They're using the phrase "direct access" because that phrase appeared in the leaked NSA slides.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". From the rest of your comment, I think that you understand it quite well.
danielhughes 13y ago
I interpreted the repeated use of "direct access" as a response to the media reports yesterday that used that same phrase. My memory could be mistaken but I seem to recall hearing reporters use that phrase over and over. So it would stand to reason that Google and other companies would use the same phrase in their press releases. That would be a simple explanation of the consistent language. That said, I wish Congress would appoint a special prosecutor so that we can get to the bottom of all this.
saraid216 13y ago
> It just smells of being rehearsed, and carefully coordinated to select such language. Next time, hopefully they'll make it less clear so that you have to translate the company-specific jargon and feel better that it's spontaneous and careless. </sarcasm>
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rasterizer 13y ago
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, to me it reads like the opposite of slick lawyer talk, it's pretty unambiguous: "No direct access", "No backdoors". "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period".
rwhitman 13y ago
The key word here is "direct". Based on the other thread speculating about Palantir its pretty likely there is a 3rd party contractor who does have direct access, and provides convenient plausible deniability to both parties
andreyf 13y ago
Are you alleging they are trying to avoid making untrue statements in this blog post? Then what about "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users' data are false, period."? The first sentence of the WPo article which started this is "The NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies". I think saying "we do not provide direct access" is a reasonable response.
downandout 13y ago
Unfortunately for Google, the Director of National Intelligence himself has confirmed the program and publicly called its disclosure "reprehensible". However, Google and the rest of these companies are in an awkward position. This program is still technically Top Secret, even though everyone now knows about it. Because of the obligation to secrecy that comes with having received classified information through the proper channels, they are essentially the only people in the world that are required by law not to acknowledge the existence of the program. That said, the canned "direct access" line - the exact terminology curiously arrived at by no less than 5 separate corporate PR departments within hours of each other - is a poor facade. They should have considered how using identical terminology would make these denials so transparent.
- declan 13y ago
  That is untrue. See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-nsa-spy-program-were-definitely-not-involved&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-...; James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a statement last night saying the Guardian and Post articles about PRISM "contain numerous inaccuracies." Clapper's statement didn't confirm or deny any NSA activity. He said only that the articles "refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and that any such collection is legal.
  - downandout 13y ago
    So, you are suggesting that the slides detailing their participation were simply made up?
    - gohrt 13y ago
      There are no such slides. The slide just has a name and a date, no details of what "participation" means.
throwaway420 13y ago
The most interesting thing about Google's repeated use of the phrase 'direct access' is that there are so many nerds that don't comprehend how much wiggle room that phrase implies. My bet is that Google is under order of some kind of National Security Letter and has to deny involvement here.
- declan 13y ago
  AT&T didn't deny involvement during EFF's NSA wiretapping lawsuit. They didn't confirm or deny.
AJ007 13y ago
First, we have heard no denials from government officials that these programs exist. Indeed, US Senators & Obama have acknowledged they exist. Second, we have no denials of the document's authenticity. Third, we would assume through logical deduction that someone who does deny the program's existence is either lying, being misleading, or has been mislead themselves. Finally, if this program does not actually exist, what the hell program are Obama and these Senators' referring to?
- aiiane 13y ago
  Program existing != program being exactly as described by the media. > 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. http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...
camus 13y ago
they are required, by the law, to deny any involvment with the NSA anyway or they can go straight in jail.
- jjtheblunt 13y ago
  Citation of such law?
  - eightyone 13y ago
    It's a part of the Patriot Act. This is from a Wikipedia article on a warrant canary, which is a clever method devised to alert customers of such warrants indirectly. [1] > Such subpoenas, including those covered under the USA Patriot Act, provide criminal penalties for revealing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's customers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
w3pm 13y ago
Does it matter? What are the odds these guys are telling the truth when the President himself has lied about it? Maybe it's a concern of national security?
redwood 13y ago
The point is, they don't need to provide anything direct... the problem is the gov monitors the pipes and sees all, period. The problem is at the telcos, fundamentally. Even then it's not the telco's fault since they were forced and given immunity. The problem is our elected government, plain and simple. We've known about this since 2007. Happy to see it finally discussed in the mainstream.
greyman 13y ago
I agree, the wording "direct access" is indeed very suspicious, and I tend to believe Arrington might be into something: http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/06/triangulating-on-truth-the-totalitarian-state&#x2F http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/06/triangulating-on-truth-the-...; I re-read the Larry's response carefully, and he did NOT refute the claim, that they are giving data to some 3rd party (who then forwards it to the government). He just says that government do not have direct access to it. But the issue that someone else can have the access is avoided, and it is exactly the same as the Zuck's response.
lifeguard 13y ago
Totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent. What could go wrong? http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/OccupySniperPlan.PNG?1356861369 http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/Occ...
ig1 13y ago
The term direct access was first used by the Guardian in their original story: "but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers." - most of the early denials (where the companies presumably hadn't read the article) didn't include the phrase but the later ones did. So it's reasonable to suppose that the article was the source of that phrase.
- aiiane 13y ago
  Yeah, this is really the most straightforward explanation.
voidlogic 13y ago
Possibly no direct access because the NSA has copies of Facebook, Google and Apple SSL private keys? Just sniffing the backbone...
zobzu 13y ago
Thats because they do give access through court orders, etc, ie "indirect access". Then again if they're "lying" then it means indirect access as in "they had to authenticate first!!"
myko 13y ago
The top couple of posts on Hacker News are about PRISM right now. On each post the first comment is about how similar the responses of each company are. It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to be conspiracy nuts on Hacker News.
SCAQTony 13y ago
Voted up for an astute observation
chrisbuc 13y ago
"Direct access" is a phrase from the original report in The Guardian: "The National Security Agency had obtained direct access..." - first sentence of the report. http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?CMP=twt_gu http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

packetslave 13y ago

Read the blog post. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period"

ceejayoz 13y ago
Which is still pretty flexible language. "Oh, it's not open-ended access, it's limited to the conditions in the authorization..." The Verizon order was limited to 3 months, for example, which is hardly open-ended... except that it presumably got re-upped every three months.
- packetslave 13y ago
  Read the NEXT SENTENCE! "Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records." AND THE TWO AFTER THAT: "We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
  - hga 13y ago
    "NEXT SENTENCE": I don't think they're a telco with millions of users, Goggle Voice is pretty small, right? The two after that look like a pretty good denial, though.
  - washedup 13y ago
    It is very possible that Google is lying.
    - Kylekramer 13y ago
      Of course it is, but in this conversation that is moving the goalposts. And if we had to address every possibility, very little progress would ever be made in any discussion.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Then why bother parsing their language or even reading their blog posts?
- Thrymr 13y ago
  He also says: "Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received... We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false."
- unreal37 13y ago
  No, its pretty clearly written to me. Larry Page is genuinely surprised that this program thinks it has access to Google data on demand.

DannyBee 13y ago

They can't say "we don't provide access", because depending on the law, they are forced to. They say "we do not provide direct access", because as explained, any access goes through proper legal channels. I'm not sure what you'd call it? Remember language matters, and these are actionable public communications.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
defen 13y ago
Sure, but the statement as worded does not rule out the possibility that a third party contractor (Palantir) has access, and feeds it to the government. So Google has the motive (some theoretical secret law they need to abide) and they haven't denied a potential means (third party mediation). That's enough for people to convict in this situation.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Sure. The statement does not rule out the possibility that aliens are using advanced technology to watch the bits on optical lines without affecting the photos either.
  - defen 13y ago
    True. However, the prior probability of that statement being true is exceedingly remote, so a non-denial of that still leaves me relatively certain that I don't have to worry about aliens conspiring with the federal government to spy on me.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      "prior probability" is a fancy way of saying "without evidence, I believe what I want". Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not something Larry Page can help you with.

tomkarlo 13y ago

I believe everyone's using the term "direct access" in contrast to the access the government is already known to have, which is via warrant or other "indirect" requests.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 13y ago

Same thing with the "we've never heard of PRISM" language a number of companies are using. Well, yeah - that code name probably stayed within the NSA.

unreal37 13y ago

I believe Google on this. The language is clear and non-weasel-y. Google does not hand over user data to the government unless specifically requested. There is no open-ended access. But I also believe the government works with ISP's (all major ISPs) so that they can intercept traffic. Which would be a type of MITM attack allowing them to get data from all major web sites.

javert 13y ago
I think it's completely weaselly. It leaves wide open the possibility that a 3rd party, like Palantir, has access to the data.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." Those sentences seems straightforward and unambiguous.
  - pbreit 13y ago
    I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but those statements are hardly unambiguous. It's the "press reports" that are called false. Close-ended could pretty much be just as broad. The second sentence is hedged with "on such a scale". What is "information about our users' Internet activity"? Does that preclude sharing the actual internet activity? Also, Page keeps referring to "orders" but the press reports suggest some sort of volunteering.
    - cube13 13y ago
      The fundamental problem here is that we have allegations that the US Government ordered all these companies to do something bad(tm) and not talk about it. So, if we assume that the allegations are correct, then the companies denying it are in on it, and the denial is false. But if the allegations are not true(either wholly or just for Google), then their denial may be entirely true. That's why it's problematic, because if you believe that the reports are true, then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief. If you believe they're false(or even not as extensive as reported), then Google's actions are perfectly in-line with that belief. So realistically, the best approach is just to wait and see.

Dove 13y ago

Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. I'm not sure how much more strongly you'd like that worded. It seems pretty complete to me.

mullingitover 13y ago
It's exactly the kind of denial you'd expect them to issue if they were legally required to deny any involvement.
- cheald 13y ago
  I agree, but what could Page say to convince us otherwise? Either the government is coercing them, and they have to issue lies as denials, or they are participating voluntarily and are voluntarily lying, or they are not participating. The second option seems unlikely to me.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well, you can't prove a negative so I'm not sure there's anything Page can say. But at the same time they can't all be right. NSA says it's getting data in some form from Google, Page says no direct access. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle then... but where?
    - cheald 13y ago
      I'm 100% with you. I don't know what Page could say, and I agree that it's extremely likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but damned if any of us have any ability to actually suss out what that is. It's very frustrating. I just think it's important to not be entirely cynical here, and to keep in mind what such a statement might look like if it were being truthful. I don't know how much different it might be, which generally makes the statement only as good as Larry Page's word, and only then if he doesn't have a gun to his head.

jessaustin 13y ago

There is another explanation: https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001431.html https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001431.html

btilly 13y ago
That explanation is far easier for me to believe than the theory that Google would have agreed to cooperate in this spying effort. This link has been submitted to the new queue at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5841505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5841505 and I hope it gets voted up for wider attention.
defen 13y ago
I guess the question then, is: how big of a cabal of "rogue" employees would it take to put evil code into production at a place like Google. I seriously doubt one person could do it, no matter how highly placed.
- blibble 13y ago
  one person, maybe not, but if you're a intelligence agency with a multi-million dollar budget to tap Google, you'd probe the organisation and bribe those with access, and anyone in the chain those employees could credibly report to. this isn't difficult or particularity far-fetched!
  - defen 13y ago
    Don't you think China/Russia/Israel/etc would have attempted/done the same thing, too?
    - blibble 13y ago
      who says they haven't? maybe not completely (it's way easier for the US, as most of Google resides on US soil), but you can bet they have people in a position to extract at least some data on demand. this has previously happened: stuxnet (a product of several intelligence agencies) was digitally signed by a large semiconductor company!

danso 13y ago

OK, in an alternate reality, what would a clear, flat-out denial look like? I mean, how could we tell such a thing differently than what was in the OP? First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday...Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records.

mullingitover 13y ago
"We would never do this, not because the government hasn't asked us to, but because it's morally abhorrent. It goes against everything we personally believe in and stand for. Even if we were legally required to cooperate, we would resist and suffer incarceration if necessary. We believe in freedom more strongly than we fear the consequences of not cooperating with an oppressive government." That kind of thing.
- VikingCoder 13y ago
  Google used to cooperate with China. Google is ACTIVELY forgoing revenue in China, because it wouldn't play by their rules. [1] It's a start. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Ending_of_self-ce...
- mindcrime 13y ago
  That would be a lot stronger a statement, but at the end of the day... we'll never know. Anything he says could have been written with a govt. agent holding a gun to his head. I know, I know, total conspiracy theory territory. And I'm not saying that is the case, just pointing out that - at the end of the day - there's very little we can actually know for sure about their involvement or lack thereof. Therefore, IMO, the best thing to do is assume that every single bit that hits a Google server, and every bit stored by Google, is available to the NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, MI6, Mossad, etc., etc... which means using strong crypto to protect your stuff if you really care about keeping it private.

washedup 13y ago

Couldn't agree more. The key terms used are subject to interpretation. Still not feeling comfortable about this.

tomkarlo 13y ago
Is there any statement that would actually make you feel comfortable? If you're going to choose to disbelieve someone's statements, there's very little they can say to change that.
- hfantods 13y ago
  Larry's post was designed to quickly assuage our knee-jerk fears about a giant like google having anything to do with "PRISM". In that, it is effective. I think for a lot of folks complaining, his language (i.e. "direct access") is just overly precise enough to leave too much room in the margins for technical loopholes concerning "who" has access to "what" data. When Larry defends their general policies stating google "pushes back on requests", I am not convinced when terms like "overly broad" and "correct process" are left undefined. But it's a 4 paragraph blog post- what do I expect?
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    Even legal docs are open to interpretation - they're not math. It's hard to expect a concise and readable post, not couched in legal phrasing, to somehow exclude all possible alternate interpretations. Especially when it can't be absolute in phrasing because there are known (and accepted) exceptions.

jlmorton 13y ago

They're using the phrase "direct access" because that phrase appeared in the leaked NSA slides.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". From the rest of your comment, I think that you understand it quite well.

danielhughes 13y ago

I interpreted the repeated use of "direct access" as a response to the media reports yesterday that used that same phrase. My memory could be mistaken but I seem to recall hearing reporters use that phrase over and over. So it would stand to reason that Google and other companies would use the same phrase in their press releases. That would be a simple explanation of the consistent language. That said, I wish Congress would appoint a special prosecutor so that we can get to the bottom of all this.

saraid216 13y ago

> It just smells of being rehearsed, and carefully coordinated to select such language. Next time, hopefully they'll make it less clear so that you have to translate the company-specific jargon and feel better that it's spontaneous and careless. </sarcasm>

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rasterizer 13y ago

I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, to me it reads like the opposite of slick lawyer talk, it's pretty unambiguous: "No direct access", "No backdoors". "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period".

rwhitman 13y ago

The key word here is "direct". Based on the other thread speculating about Palantir its pretty likely there is a 3rd party contractor who does have direct access, and provides convenient plausible deniability to both parties

andreyf 13y ago

Are you alleging they are trying to avoid making untrue statements in this blog post? Then what about "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users' data are false, period."? The first sentence of the WPo article which started this is "The NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies". I think saying "we do not provide direct access" is a reasonable response.

downandout 13y ago

Unfortunately for Google, the Director of National Intelligence himself has confirmed the program and publicly called its disclosure "reprehensible". However, Google and the rest of these companies are in an awkward position. This program is still technically Top Secret, even though everyone now knows about it. Because of the obligation to secrecy that comes with having received classified information through the proper channels, they are essentially the only people in the world that are required by law not to acknowledge the existence of the program. That said, the canned "direct access" line - the exact terminology curiously arrived at by no less than 5 separate corporate PR departments within hours of each other - is a poor facade. They should have considered how using identical terminology would make these denials so transparent.

declan 13y ago
That is untrue. See: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-nsa-spy-program-were-definitely-not-involved&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588279-38/google-ceo-on-...; James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, released a statement last night saying the Guardian and Post articles about PRISM "contain numerous inaccuracies." Clapper's statement didn't confirm or deny any NSA activity. He said only that the articles "refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," and that any such collection is legal.
- downandout 13y ago
  So, you are suggesting that the slides detailing their participation were simply made up?
  - gohrt 13y ago
    There are no such slides. The slide just has a name and a date, no details of what "participation" means.

throwaway420 13y ago

The most interesting thing about Google's repeated use of the phrase 'direct access' is that there are so many nerds that don't comprehend how much wiggle room that phrase implies. My bet is that Google is under order of some kind of National Security Letter and has to deny involvement here.

declan 13y ago
AT&T didn't deny involvement during EFF's NSA wiretapping lawsuit. They didn't confirm or deny.

AJ007 13y ago

First, we have heard no denials from government officials that these programs exist. Indeed, US Senators & Obama have acknowledged they exist. Second, we have no denials of the document's authenticity. Third, we would assume through logical deduction that someone who does deny the program's existence is either lying, being misleading, or has been mislead themselves. Finally, if this program does not actually exist, what the hell program are Obama and these Senators' referring to?

aiiane 13y ago
Program existing != program being exactly as described by the media. > 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. http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-pre...

camus 13y ago

they are required, by the law, to deny any involvment with the NSA anyway or they can go straight in jail.

jjtheblunt 13y ago
Citation of such law?
- eightyone 13y ago
  It's a part of the Patriot Act. This is from a Wikipedia article on a warrant canary, which is a clever method devised to alert customers of such warrants indirectly. [1] > Such subpoenas, including those covered under the USA Patriot Act, provide criminal penalties for revealing the existence of the warrant to any third party, including the service provider's customers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

w3pm 13y ago

Does it matter? What are the odds these guys are telling the truth when the President himself has lied about it? Maybe it's a concern of national security?

redwood 13y ago

The point is, they don't need to provide anything direct... the problem is the gov monitors the pipes and sees all, period. The problem is at the telcos, fundamentally. Even then it's not the telco's fault since they were forced and given immunity. The problem is our elected government, plain and simple. We've known about this since 2007. Happy to see it finally discussed in the mainstream.

greyman 13y ago

I agree, the wording "direct access" is indeed very suspicious, and I tend to believe Arrington might be into something: http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/06/triangulating-on-truth-the-totalitarian-state&#x2F http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/06/triangulating-on-truth-the-...; I re-read the Larry's response carefully, and he did NOT refute the claim, that they are giving data to some 3rd party (who then forwards it to the government). He just says that government do not have direct access to it. But the issue that someone else can have the access is avoided, and it is exactly the same as the Zuck's response.

lifeguard 13y ago

Totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent. What could go wrong? http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/OccupySniperPlan.PNG?1356861369 http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/Occ...

ig1 13y ago

The term direct access was first used by the Guardian in their original story: "but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers." - most of the early denials (where the companies presumably hadn't read the article) didn't include the phrase but the later ones did. So it's reasonable to suppose that the article was the source of that phrase.

aiiane 13y ago
Yeah, this is really the most straightforward explanation.

voidlogic 13y ago

Possibly no direct access because the NSA has copies of Facebook, Google and Apple SSL private keys? Just sniffing the backbone...

zobzu 13y ago

Thats because they do give access through court orders, etc, ie "indirect access". Then again if they're "lying" then it means indirect access as in "they had to authenticate first!!"

myko 13y ago

The top couple of posts on Hacker News are about PRISM right now. On each post the first comment is about how similar the responses of each company are. It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to be conspiracy nuts on Hacker News.

SCAQTony 13y ago

Voted up for an astute observation

chrisbuc 13y ago

"Direct access" is a phrase from the original report in The Guardian: "The National Security Agency had obtained direct access..." - first sentence of the report. http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?CMP=twt_gu http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]