4 ms·

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_3-5

by 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
        The whole problem with PRISM is that the government potentially can tunnel into company servers and take what they like, and that is being disputed by the accused companies. I'm not sure what is rumored or not, or what is true or not. My point is that they deny involvement in PRISM, and by PRISM I mean the program that alleges access to company servers.
    - stanleydrew 13y ago
      The point of posting it multiple times is to make an attempt at unwinding some of the damage done by countless misreports.
      - revscat 13y ago
        Assuming you are qualified at making such a judgement, or even more qualified than any who have differing interpretations.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    What sense of "directly" are they using?
  - steve19 13y ago
    Nobody said they have access to Google servers. We are worried about what data google to sending them (by whatever means).
    - magicalist 13y ago
      > Nobody said they have access to Google servers What are you talking about? Almost every story reporting on this originally said that. The Washington Post backed down, but the originating reporter is still quoting some NSA source(s) as saying it: 'Just one more time: NSA on PRISM: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."'[1] [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343423727066824705 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343423727066824705
    - rasterizer 13y ago
      That is not PRISM though, PRISM is about the existence of backdoors that allow direct access to company servers.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- leoc 13y ago
  > the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness. This seems unfair. There was a specific accusation or suggestion of direct access, so it's not (or at least not necessarily) misdirection for Google and friends to specifically deny it. It certainly doesn't answer all questions about PRISM, but between the denial of direct access, and the denial of any Verizon-scale order which would amount to direct access in all but name, you get a pretty forthright statement limiting the possible extent of the NSA data-gathering.
nappshack 13y ago
I could not agree with your "responsible reporting" remark any more. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed with the majority of those other articles making it to the front page of HN.
mtgx 13y ago
That's what the leak said [1]. Are they not supposed to report it? I'd rather they did, made a big wave about it, and then we can find out if it's really true, or the slide is fabricated or whatever (seems unlikely). [1] http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370711209084/b444b0a8-4436-4802-921e-5c3177bfc0eb-460x276.jpeg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...

by jjguy 13y ago

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
        The whole problem with PRISM is that the government potentially can tunnel into company servers and take what they like, and that is being disputed by the accused companies. I'm not sure what is rumored or not, or what is true or not. My point is that they deny involvement in PRISM, and by PRISM I mean the program that alleges access to company servers.
  - stanleydrew 13y ago
    The point of posting it multiple times is to make an attempt at unwinding some of the damage done by countless misreports.
    - revscat 13y ago
      Assuming you are qualified at making such a judgement, or even more qualified than any who have differing interpretations.
- rhizome 13y ago
  What sense of "directly" are they using?
- steve19 13y ago
  Nobody said they have access to Google servers. We are worried about what data google to sending them (by whatever means).
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > Nobody said they have access to Google servers What are you talking about? Almost every story reporting on this originally said that. The Washington Post backed down, but the originating reporter is still quoting some NSA source(s) as saying it: 'Just one more time: NSA on PRISM: "Collection directly from the servers of these US service providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."'[1] [1] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343423727066824705 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343423727066824705
  - rasterizer 13y ago
    That is not PRISM though, PRISM is about the existence of backdoors that allow direct access to company servers.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
leoc 13y ago
> the term "direct access", which we've seen is the antithesis of forthrightness. This seems unfair. There was a specific accusation or suggestion of direct access, so it's not (or at least not necessarily) misdirection for Google and friends to specifically deny it. It certainly doesn't answer all questions about PRISM, but between the denial of direct access, and the denial of any Verizon-scale order which would amount to direct access in all but name, you get a pretty forthright statement limiting the possible extent of the NSA data-gathering.

nappshack 13y ago

I could not agree with your "responsible reporting" remark any more. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed with the majority of those other articles making it to the front page of HN.

mtgx 13y ago

That's what the leak said [1]. Are they not supposed to report it? I'd rather they did, made a big wave about it, and then we can find out if it's really true, or the slide is fabricated or whatever (seems unlikely). [1] http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370711209084/b444b0a8-4436-4802-921e-5c3177bfc0eb-460x276.jpeg http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...