5 ms·

This is a lesson in the power of language. The companies involved and their denials of knowledge of PRISM were not lies, but clearly they were making it easier

This is a lesson in the power of language. The companies involved and their denials of knowledge of PRISM were not lies, but clearly they were making it easier for the government to extract data for surveillance, under an unnamed program with specific point people in each company who were only allowed to talk to the government and not talk to their CEOs about the extent in which the government was extracting data. It may go even deeper. We just don't know. The thing that upsets me most is that I suspect nobody except for the whistleblower will take any real heat. I hope more will come forward with more details in the coming weeks, before the government makes an example of the whisteblower. Will this incident change user behavior? I doubt it. We're too dependent on these companies to cut them off en masse.

ritchiea 13y ago
I dunno, it sounds to me like the companies in question were being hit with a lot of government requests and they did the natural thing to take them seriously and make it easy for their employees to deal with: make an API for it and automate the parts of the process that can be automated. It is inevitable they are going to be hit with requests for information, they could dig their heels in on some things but ultimately they legally have to provide some of the information requested. They could have implemented APIs without any idea of how the NSA structured or code named the technology internally on the NSA's side. And I'm sure Google, Facebook, et al implemented whatever they implemented with little knowledge of how other companies were complying or not. What I imagine happened is that any company that took compliance seriously, likely for their own staff's benefit, as a side effect became a stronger asset to the NSA than companies like Twitter who resisted. And lastly, I'm not saying any of this is good. It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible.
- Mystalic 13y ago
  I don't think there's a conspiracy here. Just bad decisions.
- glenra 13y ago
  > It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible. Wait, why can't it be both of those things? What could the phrase "massive conspiracy" mean if it doesn't apply to a situation like this? "conspiracy" suggests a bunch of people were trying to accomplish a goal in secret, at odds with the interests of the general public. Yup! "massive" implies significant scale - that it was a LOT of people sharing a LOT of information. Check! I'm not seeing anything missing...
  - ritchiea 13y ago
    Some things happen in secret but are not part of a conspiracy. Conspiracies require secrecy because they are unlawful or unethical. It is codified into law (which is public) that the US gov will make classified information requests like the ones presented to the companies in question. Automating the exchange of information that the government has announced will by law be exchanged is not a conspiracy even if the specifics of what information is exchanged and the mechanics of the exchange are a secret.
    - glenra 13y ago
      This data exchange is arguably both unlawful and unethical. Unlawful in that it's an illegal search under the 4th amendment to the constitution. Unethical in that it makes liars out of these companies when they claim their customers have a reasonable level of privacy. What conceivable "probable cause" could justify data collection on the scale being discussed? Practices being "codified into law" (largely secret laws, being interpreted in secret ways) doesn't really let anyone off the hook here. Or it shouldn't, at any rate. (Congresscritters and presidents still have an oath of office that promises to defend the constitution, right?)
      - ritchiea 13y ago
        That is not the case according to the article. I understand how you could believe this is happening but specifically with the SV companies we have no evidence of it and even the Washington Post is backing down from some of their boldest claims (e.g. NSA had direct access).
startupfounder 13y ago
"This is a lesson in the power of language." Yes! What exactly is being said, but more importantly what is not being said? Zuck's post was 169 words on one of the most important stories to break about privacy and tech companies.

ritchiea 13y ago

I dunno, it sounds to me like the companies in question were being hit with a lot of government requests and they did the natural thing to take them seriously and make it easy for their employees to deal with: make an API for it and automate the parts of the process that can be automated. It is inevitable they are going to be hit with requests for information, they could dig their heels in on some things but ultimately they legally have to provide some of the information requested. They could have implemented APIs without any idea of how the NSA structured or code named the technology internally on the NSA's side. And I'm sure Google, Facebook, et al implemented whatever they implemented with little knowledge of how other companies were complying or not. What I imagine happened is that any company that took compliance seriously, likely for their own staff's benefit, as a side effect became a stronger asset to the NSA than companies like Twitter who resisted. And lastly, I'm not saying any of this is good. It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible.

Mystalic 13y ago
I don't think there's a conspiracy here. Just bad decisions.
glenra 13y ago
> It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible. Wait, why can't it be both of those things? What could the phrase "massive conspiracy" mean if it doesn't apply to a situation like this? "conspiracy" suggests a bunch of people were trying to accomplish a goal in secret, at odds with the interests of the general public. Yup! "massive" implies significant scale - that it was a LOT of people sharing a LOT of information. Check! I'm not seeing anything missing...
- ritchiea 13y ago
  Some things happen in secret but are not part of a conspiracy. Conspiracies require secrecy because they are unlawful or unethical. It is codified into law (which is public) that the US gov will make classified information requests like the ones presented to the companies in question. Automating the exchange of information that the government has announced will by law be exchanged is not a conspiracy even if the specifics of what information is exchanged and the mechanics of the exchange are a secret.
  - glenra 13y ago
    This data exchange is arguably both unlawful and unethical. Unlawful in that it's an illegal search under the 4th amendment to the constitution. Unethical in that it makes liars out of these companies when they claim their customers have a reasonable level of privacy. What conceivable "probable cause" could justify data collection on the scale being discussed? Practices being "codified into law" (largely secret laws, being interpreted in secret ways) doesn't really let anyone off the hook here. Or it shouldn't, at any rate. (Congresscritters and presidents still have an oath of office that promises to defend the constitution, right?)
    - ritchiea 13y ago
      That is not the case according to the article. I understand how you could believe this is happening but specifically with the SV companies we have no evidence of it and even the Washington Post is backing down from some of their boldest claims (e.g. NSA had direct access).

startupfounder 13y ago

"This is a lesson in the power of language." Yes! What exactly is being said, but more importantly what is not being said? Zuck's post was 169 words on one of the most important stories to break about privacy and tech companies.