6 ms·

Eric Schmidt: CNET gets it right on the NSA/Google issue

97 points by moultano 13y ago

pvnick 13y ago
I don't know who to believe anymore...
- eksith 13y ago
  Believe in yourself and take reasonable steps (use your judgment to discern what's reasonable, including my post) and take adequate steps to ensure your privacy by investigating as much as you can. Provided you're of sound mind, you're the only person who can't let you down.
- saraid216 13y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843241
- loceng 13y ago
  This is why they throw out all of this. They know a certain amount of people will just have to disassociate with the situation. I just assume it is happening. I think there are other ways we can help foster a safe environment though, without all of these controls and spying.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Occam's Razor is still good. Likewise for Hanlan's Razor (remember that Greenwald and WaPo both are drawing fairly specific conclusions from a couple of slides that are using jargon and not plain English).
jjguy 13y ago
The referenced story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...; declan submitted his story https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844091 but it languished. It's a shame, because it's the first responsible piece of reporting I've seen on this mess. The media has been trolled by a Powerpoint brief from self-important USG bureaucrats.
- eksith 13y ago
  Yes, but it's still using the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness. Surveillance is tricky business and technology makes the boundaries of what's acceptable to reveal even trickier. It's true that the muddling of the Verizon/AT&T stories is being interwoven with this, which may not have helped. And the scope of the information requested falls well within acceptable procedure for "traditional" investigations I.E. who contacted whom at what hour on which day. But this isn't a traditional investigation anymore. In essence, they tried to automate police footwork, which still doesn't fly with a lot of us. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters
  - rasterizer 13y ago
    Google Chief Legal Officer: "the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box" https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq
    - eksith 13y ago
      Yes, I read your previous excerpt and I've read this very post here before. Repeating it over and over (this is your 3rd post so far posting this link) doesn't make me believe it any more strongly.
      - rasterizer 13y ago
        Yet you keep hanging on that they only mention "direct access" and how the denials are similar, it's not about what you believe to be true or not, it's about the things you say that aren't true - here is an example of a denial that does not only include "direct access" but all sorts of access as well.
        eksith 13y ago
        I don't want to start a flame war with you, but in lieu of repeating what others have already said to you regarding the "direct access" quote (I'm not "hanging on" btw, I have read the other reports as well), I'll just leave this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420
rasterizer 13y ago
Drummond adds: We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for user information. https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq
- lifeguard 13y ago
  THEY SAY THESE THINGS BECAUSE THEIR CO-WORKERS HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THEM, BY LAW
lazyjones 13y ago
Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings with the NSA?
- hahainternet 13y ago
  He never claimed you weren't entitled to any privacy. Have you even read or seen his original words? Would you like Larry Page to detail this for you? or Matt Cutts? Who will you believe?
  - danielsiders 13y ago
    "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6e7wfDHzew https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6e7...
    - mpyne 13y ago
      My grandparents were telling me that since I was in middle school. Even Ben Franklin had a quote about that: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead". Don't blame the weatherman for telling you that it's raining.
- kordless 13y ago
  Whether you trust Eric or not has zero to do with if you trust CNet's claim that "The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned." Inferring he is no longer CEO and might not know about these matters is just an informal fallacy and has zero to do with whether or not Google, Facebook, etc. is telling the truth on the matter. FWIW, I believe them when they say they aren't giving direct access to their servers to the government. That doesn't mean they aren't, and I'm willing to listen to any substantial claims that they are. I don't trust the government to always do the right thing when poking around in our business, but I'm also not going to run around like a chicken with my head cut off when everyone gets their underwear in a knot over leaks like these.
itg 13y ago
Nope, according to a new tweet today by Glenn Greenwald (who broke the story): Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121
- hahainternet 13y ago
  If I take out a warrant against someone, and they then deliver the data on that person from the servers at Google rather than the user's device, what would you call it? I would call it 'directly from the servers'. It's likely used to distinguish client vs server side. Not the actual technical mechanism.
- jasallen 13y ago
  "broke the story" is a very generous description of the original, sensationalistic, poorly supported, hype bait (the powerpoint article).
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  The interesting thing here is that Greenwald is sending a signal that he has more information than he has released. Which puts everyone on all sides on notice that they should step carefully with their statements.
edwardunknown 13y ago
Well done guys! Quite an achievement turning a site for so-called smart people into one dumber than the Drudge Report in only two days.
- nappshack 13y ago
  This place turned into r/conspiracy.
nextstep 13y ago
Apparently neither Eric Schmidt nor the Cheif Legal counsel for Google have sufficient security clearance to know whether or not they're involved in Prism.
shill 13y ago
Hey Eric! How's the Bilderberg conference going? Is the food good? Have you guys picked the next president yet?
- gasull 13y ago
  http://www.news.com.au/business/world-leaders-in-secret-society-bilderberg-meeting/story-e6frfm1i-1226659654991 http://www.news.com.au/business/world-leaders-in-secret-soci...
denzil_correa 13y ago
The problem is "access to private data" as and when required. The problem is NOT "back door access" or any other such term whatever the hell it means. I see carefully worded statements by Internet firms without any evidence.
grappler 13y ago
There are two axis that seem to matter, by my way of thinking, whether this business is conducted via carrier pigeons or fiber optic cables. 1. What is the process. What requests come from the government. What government entities make those requests. What entities within the internet companies process those requests. What parts of the request handling are done by humans with decision-making authority vs what parts are handled by machines or by humans following a rigid script. In either case, what policy drives those decisions. What proportion of the requested information is given or denied. 2. What is the speed and scale of the process How quickly are these requests fulfilled. How much data comes back from a request. What proportion of this data is relevant to the target and the investigation vs “incidental”. How many requests are there per month or per year. How much data is gathered per month or per year. Side-issues not covered above: Is the access “direct”. Is there a “back door”. Is access given to “servers”. Is access given to a “network”. Is there a “beam splitter”. Is the government provided with a private or secret “key”. There are many ways to construct such a system, and there are many ways to describe it (nevermind flat-out lie about it) by carefully parsing these side-issues. What matters is not the implementation details but the effect.
denzil_correa 13y ago
"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do." Please, please can we know about this "formalized legal process"?
guelo 13y ago
From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald https://twitter.com/ggreenwald: Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim. It conflicts. That's why we reported it Just one more time: NSA on PRISM: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."
- tptacek 13y ago
  "We reported - wrongly - what was actually happening in the real world." The lede on Greenwald's story: The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. Then, just 1 graf later: The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document [...] Later: The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012. The access. Was enabled. No qualifications given. Next graf: The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The program now exists. The article no longer reports on the contents of a document, but rather on "the program" itself. Is he talking about PRISM, or about the change to FISA law? It's not clear. But it's clear here: The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Greenwald has now reified the program and the participation of the listed service providers. He seems to go back to reporting on the document here: Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. But in fact, the "claim" he's referring to is the calendar date of the start of participation. Next graf: It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online. It is followed. It is continuing to expand. Not, "the document claims". Words mean things, as Greenwald knows very well. The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies. Again: by this point in the article, the collection is happening, the way his interpretation of the leaked slide deck says it is. A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more. It is able to obtain. Not "claims" to be able to obtain. Greenwald can't now hide from what he actually wrote, and his attempt to do so is telling.
onecommentonly 13y ago
To Eric Schmidt: You have ZERO credibility in this issue. and this "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."
tptacek 13y ago
Any of you who have been reading Declan McCullagh's reporting regarding online privacy and civil liberties know he's the last person you'd expect to find writing a takedown of the WaPo NSA story. He's also a frequent commenter on HN.
lifeguard 13y ago
This is evil because if Schmidt knew anything he would be sworn to secrecy under penalty of prison and fine.
robomartin 13y ago
The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to <insert company name here> DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to <insert company name here> users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about "direct access to servers". We care about access to data. And this can be provided through many channels, direct and indirect. It can even be provided via daily tape backup dumps. Of course, it can be provided to organizations peripherally working for or with a government yet not directly to a government agency. And, finally, it could be provided to another government that, in turn, can pipe it back to US governnment agencies or collaborators. Anyone can say "The US government does not have direct access to our servers" while still feeding them a firehose of information through alternative means.
- magicalist 13y ago
  "have access, directly or indirectly, through any means" is a not a useful basis for the question, because a regular search warrant certainly qualifies as that.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Criticism accepted. Now, could you suggest better language?
- mpyne 13y ago
  The answer is "Yes" and has been since the Cold War. I think the shocking part was that the NSA might have been able to essentially run grep themselves on a company's servers (though apparently it's not that simple), but that's not the question you're asking.
neya 13y ago
I don't buy it, There is every single possibility that CNET was forced to write this article by someone from the top. I'm not angry about my details leaking to governments, what I'm angry about is how manipulative the media is and how much stupid they assume we are. I rather trust Mark Zuckerberg than CNET. Their tech reviews are mostly biased sponsored ads, why would I trust them with something serious like this?
- monkeyspaw 13y ago
  I don't buy it either. There is every single possibility that the person who leaked the document has a financial stake in CNET and the Guardian and made the whole thing up for pageviews. </s> I'm not sure what you mean by "every single possibility." Do you just mean "it's possible"?
cromwellian 13y ago
"Collection directly from the servers" doesn't actually have to mean real time interception of data. It could mean "we send a National Security Letter, and when they comply, they send us the user's data in a TARBALL." That's application level data "directly from the servers" instead of upstream fiber packet traffic. Greenwald pisses me off and I don't trust him. We know there are 41 slides. They are putting out 1 new slide per day it seems. Just release all of it and get it over with. This seems designed to maximize the Guardian's traffic by doling out the information piecemeal. Today they released a slide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance...) that shows NSA upstream fiber-interception (outside company datacenters) + PRISM, but again, it is vague as to what PRISM is. If the slide definitely said "Data from internal datacenter taps or backdoors" it would be clear and inarguable. All that would need to be discussed is whether they did this with HUMINT moles, or whether the companies knowingly cooperated. As it stands now, PRISM could be anything from "Google Takeout NSA Edition" that lets the NSA get a ZIP file of account data after it's been requested via a warrant/NSA, or it could be a hack into Google's servers that somehow allows them to slurp up and intercept data and it flows around the data center. We don't know, but if Greenwald has other slides that clarify this, just release them, the speculation right now is irresponsible and based on lack of knowledge.
nir 13y ago
I don't understand - was it not obvious from the get go? The PPS lists various types of data the NSA gets from various companies. For some reason most commenters here chose to interpret this to mean the NSA has a direct pipe feeding it all of these companies data. The fact the PPS mentions it's a $20m program should inform that this is obviously not the case. Is it just a matter of wanting to believe the more outrageous version?
alan_cx 13y ago
Interesting watching these guys react. Kinda tells us how serious this really is.
MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
The NSA does not need direct access to the servers to monitor activity. Strategically placed traffic monitoring at major ISPs is enough to build a pretty complete picture. I can imagine SSL traffic doesn't even pose much of a hurdle to a well funded project. You don't need the data in real time.
cinquemb 13y ago
An echo chamber of debate as the ship continues to sail into the flames… godspeed everyone.
gasull 13y ago
How can you misread "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" (sic)? https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 And what about the FISA requests Google cannot legally talk about? http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/07/cowards/ http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/07/cowards/
leoc 13y ago
So, what's new news in the CNET story? The order has to be for account information or an intercept directed at a specific foreign person, and "you can't say everyone in Pakistan who searched for 'X'... It still has to be particularized." This seems to contradict the NYT's claim http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-... that FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. . Maybe it's specifically there to contradict the NYT claim.

97 points by moultano 13y ago

pvnick 13y ago

I don't know who to believe anymore...

eksith 13y ago
Believe in yourself and take reasonable steps (use your judgment to discern what's reasonable, including my post) and take adequate steps to ensure your privacy by investigating as much as you can. Provided you're of sound mind, you're the only person who can't let you down.
saraid216 13y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5843241
loceng 13y ago
This is why they throw out all of this. They know a certain amount of people will just have to disassociate with the situation. I just assume it is happening. I think there are other ways we can help foster a safe environment though, without all of these controls and spying.
mpyne 13y ago
Occam's Razor is still good. Likewise for Hanlan's Razor (remember that Greenwald and WaPo both are drawing fairly specific conclusions from a couple of slides that are using jargon and not plain English).

jjguy 13y ago

The referenced story: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies&#x2F http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...; declan submitted his story https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5844091 but it languished. It's a shame, because it's the first responsible piece of reporting I've seen on this mess. The media has been trolled by a Powerpoint brief from self-important USG bureaucrats.

eksith 13y ago
Yes, but it's still using the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness. Surveillance is tricky business and technology makes the boundaries of what's acceptable to reveal even trickier. It's true that the muddling of the Verizon/AT&T stories is being interwoven with this, which may not have helped. And the scope of the information requested falls well within acceptable procedure for "traditional" investigations I.E. who contacted whom at what hour on which day. But this isn't a traditional investigation anymore. In essence, they tried to automate police footwork, which still doesn't fly with a lot of us. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-metadata-matters
- rasterizer 13y ago
  Google Chief Legal Officer: "the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box" https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq
  - eksith 13y ago
    Yes, I read your previous excerpt and I've read this very post here before. Repeating it over and over (this is your 3rd post so far posting this link) doesn't make me believe it any more strongly.
    - rasterizer 13y ago
      Yet you keep hanging on that they only mention "direct access" and how the denials are similar, it's not about what you believe to be true or not, it's about the things you say that aren't true - here is an example of a denial that does not only include "direct access" but all sorts of access as well.
      - eksith 13y ago
        I don't want to start a flame war with you, but in lieu of repeating what others have already said to you regarding the "direct access" quote (I'm not "hanging on" btw, I have read the other reports as well), I'll just leave this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420

rasterizer 13y ago

Drummond adds: We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for user information. https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq

lifeguard 13y ago
THEY SAY THESE THINGS BECAUSE THEIR CO-WORKERS HIDE THE TRUTH FROM THEM, BY LAW

lazyjones 13y ago

Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings with the NSA?

hahainternet 13y ago
He never claimed you weren't entitled to any privacy. Have you even read or seen his original words? Would you like Larry Page to detail this for you? or Matt Cutts? Who will you believe?
- danielsiders 13y ago
  "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6e7wfDHzew https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6e7...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    My grandparents were telling me that since I was in middle school. Even Ben Franklin had a quote about that: "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead". Don't blame the weatherman for telling you that it's raining.
kordless 13y ago
Whether you trust Eric or not has zero to do with if you trust CNet's claim that "The National Security Agency has not obtained direct access to the systems of Apple, Google, Facebook, and other major Internet companies, CNET has learned." Inferring he is no longer CEO and might not know about these matters is just an informal fallacy and has zero to do with whether or not Google, Facebook, etc. is telling the truth on the matter. FWIW, I believe them when they say they aren't giving direct access to their servers to the government. That doesn't mean they aren't, and I'm willing to listen to any substantial claims that they are. I don't trust the government to always do the right thing when poking around in our business, but I'm also not going to run around like a chicken with my head cut off when everyone gets their underwear in a knot over leaks like these.

itg 13y ago

Nope, according to a new tweet today by Glenn Greenwald (who broke the story): Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121

hahainternet 13y ago
If I take out a warrant against someone, and they then deliver the data on that person from the servers at Google rather than the user's device, what would you call it? I would call it 'directly from the servers'. It's likely used to distinguish client vs server side. Not the actual technical mechanism.
jasallen 13y ago
"broke the story" is a very generous description of the original, sensationalistic, poorly supported, hype bait (the powerpoint article).
waterlesscloud 13y ago
The interesting thing here is that Greenwald is sending a signal that he has more information than he has released. Which puts everyone on all sides on notice that they should step carefully with their statements.

edwardunknown 13y ago

Well done guys! Quite an achievement turning a site for so-called smart people into one dumber than the Drudge Report in only two days.

nappshack 13y ago
This place turned into r/conspiracy.

nextstep 13y ago

Apparently neither Eric Schmidt nor the Cheif Legal counsel for Google have sufficient security clearance to know whether or not they're involved in Prism.

shill 13y ago

Hey Eric! How's the Bilderberg conference going? Is the food good? Have you guys picked the next president yet?

gasull 13y ago
http://www.news.com.au/business/world-leaders-in-secret-society-bilderberg-meeting/story-e6frfm1i-1226659654991 http://www.news.com.au/business/world-leaders-in-secret-soci...

denzil_correa 13y ago

The problem is "access to private data" as and when required. The problem is NOT "back door access" or any other such term whatever the hell it means. I see carefully worded statements by Internet firms without any evidence.

grappler 13y ago

There are two axis that seem to matter, by my way of thinking, whether this business is conducted via carrier pigeons or fiber optic cables. 1. What is the process. What requests come from the government. What government entities make those requests. What entities within the internet companies process those requests. What parts of the request handling are done by humans with decision-making authority vs what parts are handled by machines or by humans following a rigid script. In either case, what policy drives those decisions. What proportion of the requested information is given or denied. 2. What is the speed and scale of the process How quickly are these requests fulfilled. How much data comes back from a request. What proportion of this data is relevant to the target and the investigation vs “incidental”. How many requests are there per month or per year. How much data is gathered per month or per year. Side-issues not covered above: Is the access “direct”. Is there a “back door”. Is access given to “servers”. Is access given to a “network”. Is there a “beam splitter”. Is the government provided with a private or secret “key”. There are many ways to construct such a system, and there are many ways to describe it (nevermind flat-out lie about it) by carefully parsing these side-issues. What matters is not the implementation details but the effect.

denzil_correa 13y ago

"It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," the person said. "None of it's true. It's a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do." Please, please can we know about this "formalized legal process"?

guelo 13y ago

From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald https://twitter.com/ggreenwald: Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim. It conflicts. That's why we reported it Just one more time: NSA on PRISM: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."

tptacek 13y ago
"We reported - wrongly - what was actually happening in the real world." The lede on Greenwald's story: The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. Then, just 1 graf later: The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document [...] Later: The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012. The access. Was enabled. No qualifications given. Next graf: The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The program now exists. The article no longer reports on the contents of a document, but rather on "the program" itself. Is he talking about PRISM, or about the change to FISA law? It's not clear. But it's clear here: The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Greenwald has now reified the program and the participation of the listed service providers. He seems to go back to reporting on the document here: Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. But in fact, the "claim" he's referring to is the calendar date of the start of participation. Next graf: It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online. It is followed. It is continuing to expand. Not, "the document claims". Words mean things, as Greenwald knows very well. The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies. Again: by this point in the article, the collection is happening, the way his interpretation of the leaked slide deck says it is. A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more. It is able to obtain. Not "claims" to be able to obtain. Greenwald can't now hide from what he actually wrote, and his attempt to do so is telling.

onecommentonly 13y ago

To Eric Schmidt: You have ZERO credibility in this issue. and this "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."

tptacek 13y ago

Any of you who have been reading Declan McCullagh's reporting regarding online privacy and civil liberties know he's the last person you'd expect to find writing a takedown of the WaPo NSA story. He's also a frequent commenter on HN.

lifeguard 13y ago

This is evil because if Schmidt knew anything he would be sworn to secrecy under penalty of prison and fine.

robomartin 13y ago

The real question clamoring for a clear statement is far more complex: Does any government, US or otherwise, their agents, representatives, contractors or NGO's have access, directly or indirectly, through any means, to <insert company name here> DATA, FILES, COMMUNICATIONS, LOGS or any other information having any relationship whatsoever to <insert company name here> users? This could be, and probably should be, refined, IANAL. The point is simple: We don't care about "direct access to servers". We care about access to data. And this can be provided through many channels, direct and indirect. It can even be provided via daily tape backup dumps. Of course, it can be provided to organizations peripherally working for or with a government yet not directly to a government agency. And, finally, it could be provided to another government that, in turn, can pipe it back to US governnment agencies or collaborators. Anyone can say "The US government does not have direct access to our servers" while still feeding them a firehose of information through alternative means.

magicalist 13y ago
"have access, directly or indirectly, through any means" is a not a useful basis for the question, because a regular search warrant certainly qualifies as that.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Criticism accepted. Now, could you suggest better language?
mpyne 13y ago
The answer is "Yes" and has been since the Cold War. I think the shocking part was that the NSA might have been able to essentially run grep themselves on a company's servers (though apparently it's not that simple), but that's not the question you're asking.

neya 13y ago

I don't buy it, There is every single possibility that CNET was forced to write this article by someone from the top. I'm not angry about my details leaking to governments, what I'm angry about is how manipulative the media is and how much stupid they assume we are. I rather trust Mark Zuckerberg than CNET. Their tech reviews are mostly biased sponsored ads, why would I trust them with something serious like this?

monkeyspaw 13y ago
I don't buy it either. There is every single possibility that the person who leaked the document has a financial stake in CNET and the Guardian and made the whole thing up for pageviews. </s> I'm not sure what you mean by "every single possibility." Do you just mean "it's possible"?

cromwellian 13y ago

"Collection directly from the servers" doesn't actually have to mean real time interception of data. It could mean "we send a National Security Letter, and when they comply, they send us the user's data in a TARBALL." That's application level data "directly from the servers" instead of upstream fiber packet traffic. Greenwald pisses me off and I don't trust him. We know there are 41 slides. They are putting out 1 new slide per day it seems. Just release all of it and get it over with. This seems designed to maximize the Guardian's traffic by doling out the information piecemeal. Today they released a slide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance...) that shows NSA upstream fiber-interception (outside company datacenters) + PRISM, but again, it is vague as to what PRISM is. If the slide definitely said "Data from internal datacenter taps or backdoors" it would be clear and inarguable. All that would need to be discussed is whether they did this with HUMINT moles, or whether the companies knowingly cooperated. As it stands now, PRISM could be anything from "Google Takeout NSA Edition" that lets the NSA get a ZIP file of account data after it's been requested via a warrant/NSA, or it could be a hack into Google's servers that somehow allows them to slurp up and intercept data and it flows around the data center. We don't know, but if Greenwald has other slides that clarify this, just release them, the speculation right now is irresponsible and based on lack of knowledge.

nir 13y ago

I don't understand - was it not obvious from the get go? The PPS lists various types of data the NSA gets from various companies. For some reason most commenters here chose to interpret this to mean the NSA has a direct pipe feeding it all of these companies data. The fact the PPS mentions it's a $20m program should inform that this is obviously not the case. Is it just a matter of wanting to believe the more outrageous version?

alan_cx 13y ago

Interesting watching these guys react. Kinda tells us how serious this really is.

MiguelHudnandez 13y ago

The NSA does not need direct access to the servers to monitor activity. Strategically placed traffic monitoring at major ISPs is enough to build a pretty complete picture. I can imagine SSL traffic doesn't even pose much of a hurdle to a well funded project. You don't need the data in real time.

cinquemb 13y ago

An echo chamber of debate as the ship continues to sail into the flames… godspeed everyone.

gasull 13y ago

How can you misread "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" (sic)? https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121 And what about the FISA requests Google cannot legally talk about? http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/07/cowards/ http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/07/cowards/

leoc 13y ago

So, what's new news in the CNET story? The order has to be for account information or an intercept directed at a specific foreign person, and "you can't say everyone in Pakistan who searched for 'X'... It still has to be particularized." This seems to contradict the NYT's claim http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-... that FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. . Maybe it's specifically there to contradict the NYT claim.