3 ms·
Which in and of itself is tricky because a slidedeck without the presentation itself is hard to interpret. I don't know how much of the slidedeck is historical
by mbreese 13y ago
Which in and of itself is tricky because a slidedeck without the presentation itself is hard to interpret. I don't know how much of the slidedeck is historical vs aspirational. And who made the slides in the first place - did they have a better picture of the program than Snowden?
- tptacek 13y agoIf I'm being asked who I believe more, the person who authored a slide deck selling some kind of surveillance tool to the NSA, or Google's chief architect, their general counsel, and Larry Page, I'm going to go with the Googlers.
- mbreese 13y agoExactly. Google at least has some room for transparency in all of this. Not to mention an economic incentive to get an accurate picture of this out in the public. Google has motivation to bring clarity to their role in all of this. The NSA would rather keep everything secret. I'd believe Google more too...
- subsystem 13y ago"PRISM Collection Manager", "April 2013", "ORCON", "You should use both" and the classification date in relation to the date slide doesn't suggest sales material to me. Note that the slides have different degrees of redaction across sources. These links should together cover what's available on PRISM. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection-facebook-google http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...
- thwest 13y agoOn what basis? Personality?