3 ms·

OK, so the article grossly underestimates the complexities of PRISM and FISA. But the facts remain the same: Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to

OK, so the article grossly underestimates the complexities of PRISM and FISA. But the facts remain the same: Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to make what they said technically true while not addressing the issue as a whole. What the government said was true and what the tech CEOs said was true, yet they seemed to contradict each other. This was a case of careful politicking from all sides. The thing that confuses me, is did the CEOs really think this contradiction would go in their favor? In other words, did they think no one would call them on that and they would be able to get away with it? Their statements attempted to seem very forward: "Our company 'never' granted 'any' backdoor access" etc. But as a result of that feeling so contradictory to the statements of the government, it necessitated further prying.

danso 13y ago
What contradiction are you referring to? The government has not explicitly referred to PRISM and even if we take their non-denial to be an affirmation, that doesn't preclude the possibility that Google and Facebook aren't being honest and sincere. BTW I'm not saying that PRISM doesn't exist. I'm saying its actual details are unclear in significant ways.
icambron 13y ago
We need to start thinking of lying as "attempting to deceive" instead of "making a knowingly false statement".
kahirsch 13y ago
> Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to make what they said technically true while not addressing the issue as a whole. I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. All the companies issued flat-out denials, which they are not required to do by law. This is as opposed to the normal "no comment" or "if such an order existed..." Google said that they only hand over specific data about specific persons after valid court orders have been reviewed by Google's lawyers. So far I have seen nothing to contradict that. > What the government said was true and what the tech CEOs said was true, yet they seemed to contradict each other. Could you be very specific about "what the government said"? Are you referring to an actual quote from a specific government official or to some anonymous source?

danso 13y ago

What contradiction are you referring to? The government has not explicitly referred to PRISM and even if we take their non-denial to be an affirmation, that doesn't preclude the possibility that Google and Facebook aren't being honest and sincere. BTW I'm not saying that PRISM doesn't exist. I'm saying its actual details are unclear in significant ways.

icambron 13y ago

We need to start thinking of lying as "attempting to deceive" instead of "making a knowingly false statement".

kahirsch 13y ago

> Tech CEOs carefully chose their words in order to make what they said technically true while not addressing the issue as a whole. I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. All the companies issued flat-out denials, which they are not required to do by law. This is as opposed to the normal "no comment" or "if such an order existed..." Google said that they only hand over specific data about specific persons after valid court orders have been reviewed by Google's lawyers. So far I have seen nothing to contradict that. > What the government said was true and what the tech CEOs said was true, yet they seemed to contradict each other. Could you be very specific about "what the government said"? Are you referring to an actual quote from a specific government official or to some anonymous source?