1. It would be nice if these statements defined "direct access to our servers". It's safe to guess that they are using the narrowest definition possible, meanin

1. It would be nice if these statements defined "direct access to our servers". It's safe to guess that they are using the narrowest definition possible, meaning that a NSA employee can walk into the building that Facebook's servers are hosted in and log in to any server and run arbitrary commands. This is likely not what a layman's use of "direct access" would mean. The issue is whether or not the government can access whatever user data they wish provided the correct clearance or assertions. 2. "We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday." Somehow I doubt that the National Security Agency is in the habit of telling companies that they work with the names they use for projects internally. 3. "we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure." This doesn't preclude the idea that the government accesses more Facebook user data than the general public might realize under current law. Facebook can provide large volumes of info as the PRISM slides suggest if it is indeed lawful, and this statement would not be a lie. It hinges on what exactly is "required by law", or more precisely, what is allowed under the current interpretation of the law.