7 ms·

>>..another possibility is that they want people to notice the similarities and become more upset about PRISM. Ah, that makes sense, if they are under a gag or

>>..another possibility is that they want people to notice the similarities and become more upset about PRISM. Ah, that makes sense, if they are under a gag order, but yet want to subtly convey that they are under a gag order! It would be a brilliant way of circumventing it.

leoc 13y ago
That doesn't seem likely to me. If you want to let the truth be known, but you feel so much under the gun that you issue not just a minimum-compliance false statement but a fulsome one under your own name, would you really feel safe contacting a bunch of other Silicon Valley CEOs to co-ordinate such a subtle but intentional secret message?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The last part in each, the part about transparency, makes me think that it is possible they all decided to co-ordinate an intentional not secret message: they think there should be more transparency.
  - leoc 13y ago
    Sure: it seems possible that these statements are co-ordinated, but instead of being false or deceptive statements co-ordinated by a three-letter agency they're truthful or largely truthful statements co-ordinated by the tech companies' PR departments, and the close similarities are designed to amplify a message the companies agreed among themselves. Of course, under the circumstances the similarity looks suspicious, but it seems possible that could be an unintentional blunder rather than a genuine sign of guilt.
- quackerhacker 13y ago
  Agreed...unlikely. But I will say this jokingly...if they were coordinating, they might not be using Verizon to do so. ;)
- jfoster 13y ago
  Actually they wouldn't necessarily need to coordinate. If Google posted first and Zuck wanted to cause this phenomena, the facebook post just needs to mirror the Google one. No communication with Google required.
dkulchenko 13y ago
Realistically though, can you imagine there being so many CEOs knowing that this thing is going on and being forced to lie about it, and not one of them spilling the beans? Even if the gov tries to arrest them for leaking classified information, they'd be near-impossible to convict following the inevitable massive public outcry.
- MattSayar 13y ago
  I agree, and this is the exact same reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists have such a weak argument: of the 535 representatives in Congress, NOT ONE spoke up and said it was an inside job? Or any of their interns, assistants, etc.
  - shalmanese 13y ago
    On the flip side, hundreds of people got NSLs and effectively kept them a secret for years before it came out.
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  CEO's and public figures? Definitely, if the NSA and similar agencies had the power to label them as traitors and / or terrorists (with all due consequences) and/or destroy their companies.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  You don't get to be CEO unless you can learn to lie & keep secrets. OTOH, I'm more skeptical about the implementation side. Have you ever set up a feed between two different organizations that needs to transmit a massive amount of data in real-time? It's an immensely complicated undertaking requiring a whole team on both sides, with managers, engineers, techwriters, QA, and support staff. It seems a little unbelievable to me that one of them wouldn't spill the beans, particularly if asked to participate in a morally-questionable program.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    >"You don't get to be CEO unless you can learn to lie & keep secrets." That doesn't actually answer the parents question. What is the likelihood that a bunch of tech leaders would know about this and it wouldn't get out? That any group of people wouldn't let this out? I agree with the latter half of your comment, but the first sentence is as powerful as saying, "The only way to keep a secret between three people is if two of them are dead." They both sound like ominous truths, but neither is a particularly compelling argument.
untog 13y ago
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you. As in, FB and Google would be totally entitled to say "there is a gag order preventing us from going into this". So they don't need to convey anything.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you. At least sometimes that it is the case, though I don't know if it generally is. If you have been authorized to have access to classified information, such as (if one accepts the authenticity of the presentation that the Guardian and WaPo have reported on) even the existence of PRISM, on the other hand, there are fairly substantial legal consequences to unauthorized divulgence of that information, and those consequences don't necessarily go away because someone else gave out the information first.
- adventured 13y ago
  No, they can't admit if there's a gag order in place by the NSA.
- nostromo 13y ago
  You're wrong on this one sadly. If you receive a national security letter, you are not allowed to tell anyone (not your family, not your lawyer, not anyone). If you break the life-long gag order, you go to jail for up to 5 years. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted&#x2F http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte...; Hundreds of thousands of these have been issued, and the above story (about the owner of an ISP) is one of the few cases where someone fought back and won the right to speak about it.
  - untog 13y ago
    Aha. Thank you for citing a source on this one. I still wonder though, if your involvement has been directly leaked, whether you are able to confirm the existence of it. I suppose it wouldn't be a course of action any lawyer recommends.

leoc 13y ago

That doesn't seem likely to me. If you want to let the truth be known, but you feel so much under the gun that you issue not just a minimum-compliance false statement but a fulsome one under your own name, would you really feel safe contacting a bunch of other Silicon Valley CEOs to co-ordinate such a subtle but intentional secret message?

jlgreco 13y ago
The last part in each, the part about transparency, makes me think that it is possible they all decided to co-ordinate an intentional not secret message: they think there should be more transparency.
- leoc 13y ago
  Sure: it seems possible that these statements are co-ordinated, but instead of being false or deceptive statements co-ordinated by a three-letter agency they're truthful or largely truthful statements co-ordinated by the tech companies' PR departments, and the close similarities are designed to amplify a message the companies agreed among themselves. Of course, under the circumstances the similarity looks suspicious, but it seems possible that could be an unintentional blunder rather than a genuine sign of guilt.
quackerhacker 13y ago
Agreed...unlikely. But I will say this jokingly...if they were coordinating, they might not be using Verizon to do so. ;)
jfoster 13y ago
Actually they wouldn't necessarily need to coordinate. If Google posted first and Zuck wanted to cause this phenomena, the facebook post just needs to mirror the Google one. No communication with Google required.

dkulchenko 13y ago

Realistically though, can you imagine there being so many CEOs knowing that this thing is going on and being forced to lie about it, and not one of them spilling the beans? Even if the gov tries to arrest them for leaking classified information, they'd be near-impossible to convict following the inevitable massive public outcry.

MattSayar 13y ago
I agree, and this is the exact same reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists have such a weak argument: of the 535 representatives in Congress, NOT ONE spoke up and said it was an inside job? Or any of their interns, assistants, etc.
- shalmanese 13y ago
  On the flip side, hundreds of people got NSLs and effectively kept them a secret for years before it came out.
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
CEO's and public figures? Definitely, if the NSA and similar agencies had the power to label them as traitors and / or terrorists (with all due consequences) and/or destroy their companies.
nostrademons 13y ago
You don't get to be CEO unless you can learn to lie & keep secrets. OTOH, I'm more skeptical about the implementation side. Have you ever set up a feed between two different organizations that needs to transmit a massive amount of data in real-time? It's an immensely complicated undertaking requiring a whole team on both sides, with managers, engineers, techwriters, QA, and support staff. It seems a little unbelievable to me that one of them wouldn't spill the beans, particularly if asked to participate in a morally-questionable program.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  >"You don't get to be CEO unless you can learn to lie & keep secrets." That doesn't actually answer the parents question. What is the likelihood that a bunch of tech leaders would know about this and it wouldn't get out? That any group of people wouldn't let this out? I agree with the latter half of your comment, but the first sentence is as powerful as saying, "The only way to keep a secret between three people is if two of them are dead." They both sound like ominous truths, but neither is a particularly compelling argument.

untog 13y ago

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you. As in, FB and Google would be totally entitled to say "there is a gag order preventing us from going into this". So they don't need to convey anything.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you. At least sometimes that it is the case, though I don't know if it generally is. If you have been authorized to have access to classified information, such as (if one accepts the authenticity of the presentation that the Guardian and WaPo have reported on) even the existence of PRISM, on the other hand, there are fairly substantial legal consequences to unauthorized divulgence of that information, and those consequences don't necessarily go away because someone else gave out the information first.
adventured 13y ago
No, they can't admit if there's a gag order in place by the NSA.
nostromo 13y ago
You're wrong on this one sadly. If you receive a national security letter, you are not allowed to tell anyone (not your family, not your lawyer, not anyone). If you break the life-long gag order, you go to jail for up to 5 years. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted&#x2F http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte...; Hundreds of thousands of these have been issued, and the above story (about the owner of an ISP) is one of the few cases where someone fought back and won the right to speak about it.
- untog 13y ago
  Aha. Thank you for citing a source on this one. I still wonder though, if your involvement has been directly leaked, whether you are able to confirm the existence of it. I suppose it wouldn't be a course of action any lawyer recommends.