6 ms·

Twitter refused to join PRISM

12 points by ig1 13y ago

ig1 13y ago
The key takeaways: 1) There's at least one tech company that was approached about joining Prism. Presumably similar approaches were made to other companies. 2) The participation was at least in this case voluntary 3) Without that participation Prism was unable to access Twitter data (based upon the slides).
- evgen 13y ago
  4) Twitter has no non-public data stored of any significance (or such a small amount that it is easy to get a dump once and then just delta from taps) and the realtime data is coming from Gnip or an optical tap.
mcintyre1994 13y ago
"Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that Twitter was invited to join the Prism programme last year, but rejected the approach from US authorities." According to the NYTimes article, Twitter chose not to build extra systems to help the NSA collect data more easily for FISA requests. Obviously we need to be careful here, but if that's the wording that was used, PRISM could be just that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA requested data.
- ig1 13y ago
  Google have also denied providing any kind of locker-room facility. Also given slide 2 (talking about network traffic routing) it seems unlikely that it's describing FISA requests.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  "Obviously we need to be careful here, but if that's the wording that was used, PRISM could be just that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA requested data." Isn't that exactly what the leaked PowerPoints and original Washington Post article suggested? They had time-line when companies joined. And specific Special Source Operations seal for the operation and companies. >The technology companies, whose cooperation is essential to PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley, according to the document. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted traffic of substantial intelligence interest during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war. >PRISM is an heir, in one sense, to a history of intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s. The NSA calls these Special Source Operations, and PRISM falls under that rubric. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    The Guardian leak claimed direct access, which is the wording being used in denials also. It doesn't seem like a system for easier FISA requests, in the form suggested, would qualify as direct access. I said we should be careful, because if there really was direct access under PRISM this wouldn't fit. Also interesting is that Twitter claim to have been approached about "PRISM" while all the other companies claim not to have known about that program. Would the NSA approach a company using the operation's actual codename? I suspect Twitter are jumping on the good PR after not appearing on the slides.
    - hannibal5 13y ago
      Considering that PRISM is secret government intelligence operation, it should be clear that those who participate can't reveal that they are part of it. I mean, if for example Google is participating, would anybody expect Larry Page just admit it: "Damn. You caught us."
      - mcintyre1994 13y ago
        Right, and if Twitter were approached would they be allowed to go tell the press about it? I'm finding it hard to believe they were the same program.
        hannibal5 13y ago
        You can't forbid people or companies from revealing contact attempts if they have not signed any NDA's.
mvkel 13y ago
Twitter _refused_ PRISM, yet Facebook and Google had never heard of it? Doesn't sound very plausible. I'm actually assuming this is just bad reporting; someone's source saying "refused" instead of "never heard of." Zuck's response sounded pretty genuine in terms of his knowledge (or lack thereof) of PRISM. He would have zero incentive to say what he said if he _did_ know something.
- room271 13y ago
  This is the BBC; they are usually very careful about what they print. Having said that, it does seem odd. They present a (if true) very newsworthy note about Twitter in a two-liner at the bottom of the article. Would be good to hear more on this.

12 points by ig1 13y ago

ig1 13y ago

The key takeaways: 1) There's at least one tech company that was approached about joining Prism. Presumably similar approaches were made to other companies. 2) The participation was at least in this case voluntary 3) Without that participation Prism was unable to access Twitter data (based upon the slides).

evgen 13y ago
4) Twitter has no non-public data stored of any significance (or such a small amount that it is easy to get a dump once and then just delta from taps) and the realtime data is coming from Gnip or an optical tap.

mcintyre1994 13y ago

"Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that Twitter was invited to join the Prism programme last year, but rejected the approach from US authorities." According to the NYTimes article, Twitter chose not to build extra systems to help the NSA collect data more easily for FISA requests. Obviously we need to be careful here, but if that's the wording that was used, PRISM could be just that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA requested data.

ig1 13y ago
Google have also denied providing any kind of locker-room facility. Also given slide 2 (talking about network traffic routing) it seems unlikely that it's describing FISA requests.
hannibal5 13y ago
"Obviously we need to be careful here, but if that's the wording that was used, PRISM could be just that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA requested data." Isn't that exactly what the leaked PowerPoints and original Washington Post article suggested? They had time-line when companies joined. And specific Special Source Operations seal for the operation and companies. >The technology companies, whose cooperation is essential to PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley, according to the document. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted traffic of substantial intelligence interest during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war. >PRISM is an heir, in one sense, to a history of intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s. The NSA calls these Special Source Operations, and PRISM falls under that rubric. http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  The Guardian leak claimed direct access, which is the wording being used in denials also. It doesn't seem like a system for easier FISA requests, in the form suggested, would qualify as direct access. I said we should be careful, because if there really was direct access under PRISM this wouldn't fit. Also interesting is that Twitter claim to have been approached about "PRISM" while all the other companies claim not to have known about that program. Would the NSA approach a company using the operation's actual codename? I suspect Twitter are jumping on the good PR after not appearing on the slides.
  - hannibal5 13y ago
    Considering that PRISM is secret government intelligence operation, it should be clear that those who participate can't reveal that they are part of it. I mean, if for example Google is participating, would anybody expect Larry Page just admit it: "Damn. You caught us."
    - mcintyre1994 13y ago
      Right, and if Twitter were approached would they be allowed to go tell the press about it? I'm finding it hard to believe they were the same program.
      - hannibal5 13y ago
        You can't forbid people or companies from revealing contact attempts if they have not signed any NDA's.

mvkel 13y ago

Twitter _refused_ PRISM, yet Facebook and Google had never heard of it? Doesn't sound very plausible. I'm actually assuming this is just bad reporting; someone's source saying "refused" instead of "never heard of." Zuck's response sounded pretty genuine in terms of his knowledge (or lack thereof) of PRISM. He would have zero incentive to say what he said if he _did_ know something.

room271 13y ago
This is the BBC; they are usually very careful about what they print. Having said that, it does seem odd. They present a (if true) very newsworthy note about Twitter in a two-liner at the bottom of the article. Would be good to hear more on this.