5 ms·

More denialism from tptacek. For those who care about the actual source, the NSA slide in question says "Collection directly from the servers of".... Viewers ca

More denialism from tptacek. For those who care about the actual source, the NSA slide in question says "Collection directly from the servers of".... Viewers can decide for themselves whether the NSA or tptacek has greater credibility when it comes to describing the capabilities of the NSA system. http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/prism-lg.jpg http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/prism-...

tptacek 13y ago
It's not "NSA vs. tptacek". It's "Greenwald's interpretation of NSA slide deck vs. Google". Google categorically denied Greenwald's report. The Guardian then began walking it back.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  Nonsense. You have repeatedly insisted that the NSA document must be wrong ("nothing to see here, folks"), simply because Google denies providing "direct access". You do this by drawing a semantic equivalence between what the NSA asserts and what Google denies, and then assuming that the NSA is wrong. This is not a reasonable position for anyone with a technical background. Because anyone with such a background should surely realize that the two statements are not mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of ways for data to be collected which the NSA might reasonable categorize as "direct" while leaving Google with plausible grounds to categorize as "indirect" or otherwise deny knowledge of.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Everyone, including The Guardian, now agrees that Google had "plausible grounds" to "categorize access as indirect", because that's exactly what their access was.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      I agree it is a semantic distinction and that your characterization of what Google is doing is probably accurate. I disagree that holding this viewpoint gives you any grounds for attacking Snowden's credibility (as you have repeatedly done) or asserting that widespread claims of inappropriate NSA surveillance are implausible or technically impossible.
    - waterlesscloud 13y ago
      There's not nearly enough information yet to make a definitive statement about this. And let's go back to a quote in this article, which seems to have been edited since I originally read it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-com... “The server is controlled by the FBI,” an official with one of the companies said. “We do not offer a download feature from our server.” Well. Now what?
brown9-2 13y ago
Why do people treat this sentence as if it is absolute proof of "direct access" to the company's servers and data? It's easy to see how this sentence, in light of the entire "dropbox" thing, means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. There is ambiguity and room for interpretation in almost all language, especially the vagueness of a Powerpoint presentation.
- trevelyan 13y ago
  I agree with you.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. the "direct collection" is a part of "FAA702 operations". The FAA702 is unrestricted collection of data of "non-USPER"sons, and in particular no individualized FISC orders required. Now there is a choice - either Google combs their data, decides who is FAA 702 "eligible" and of interest to NSA and dumps the "non-USPER" data it has identified to the "dropbox" or the NSA does the combing/identifications itself (and if NSA does the combing - where it does it? on NSA servers attached to Google datacenters or does it transfer all data to NSA datacenter and combs it there?). What do you think NSA has chosen?
  - leoc 13y ago
    Individualised FISC orders are required. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text (Or more precisely, FISC review and approval of individualised FISA 702 orders are required - the court doesn't actually issue 702 orders.) That's almost the only protection non-resident aliens have under FISA and the jurisprudence that upholds FISA, but the protection is there. It could be undermined by issuing millions of FAA 702 orders or one FAA 702 order covering millions of people, but we have reasonable assurance that this hasn't happened (yet) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .
    - 13y ago
jjguy 13y ago
Every USG veteran knows to be skeptical of mission briefs, regardless of important-looking classification markings. That deck was put together by a mid- to low-level government program manager who owned the program. He is playing politics, making his program sound like the most awesome thing EVAR so he gets promoted. It's not an "official" document, despite all the fancy markings. You cannot interpret every word as gospel.

tptacek 13y ago

It's not "NSA vs. tptacek". It's "Greenwald's interpretation of NSA slide deck vs. Google". Google categorically denied Greenwald's report. The Guardian then began walking it back.

trevelyan 13y ago
Nonsense. You have repeatedly insisted that the NSA document must be wrong ("nothing to see here, folks"), simply because Google denies providing "direct access". You do this by drawing a semantic equivalence between what the NSA asserts and what Google denies, and then assuming that the NSA is wrong. This is not a reasonable position for anyone with a technical background. Because anyone with such a background should surely realize that the two statements are not mutually exclusive, and there are plenty of ways for data to be collected which the NSA might reasonable categorize as "direct" while leaving Google with plausible grounds to categorize as "indirect" or otherwise deny knowledge of.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Everyone, including The Guardian, now agrees that Google had "plausible grounds" to "categorize access as indirect", because that's exactly what their access was.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    I agree it is a semantic distinction and that your characterization of what Google is doing is probably accurate. I disagree that holding this viewpoint gives you any grounds for attacking Snowden's credibility (as you have repeatedly done) or asserting that widespread claims of inappropriate NSA surveillance are implausible or technically impossible.
  - waterlesscloud 13y ago
    There's not nearly enough information yet to make a definitive statement about this. And let's go back to a quote in this article, which seems to have been edited since I originally read it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-com... “The server is controlled by the FBI,” an official with one of the companies said. “We do not offer a download feature from our server.” Well. Now what?

brown9-2 13y ago

Why do people treat this sentence as if it is absolute proof of "direct access" to the company's servers and data? It's easy to see how this sentence, in light of the entire "dropbox" thing, means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. There is ambiguity and room for interpretation in almost all language, especially the vagueness of a Powerpoint presentation.

trevelyan 13y ago
I agree with you.
VladRussian2 13y ago
>means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. the "direct collection" is a part of "FAA702 operations". The FAA702 is unrestricted collection of data of "non-USPER"sons, and in particular no individualized FISC orders required. Now there is a choice - either Google combs their data, decides who is FAA 702 "eligible" and of interest to NSA and dumps the "non-USPER" data it has identified to the "dropbox" or the NSA does the combing/identifications itself (and if NSA does the combing - where it does it? on NSA servers attached to Google datacenters or does it transfer all data to NSA datacenter and combs it there?). What do you think NSA has chosen?
- leoc 13y ago
  Individualised FISC orders are required. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text (Or more precisely, FISC review and approval of individualised FISA 702 orders are required - the court doesn't actually issue 702 orders.) That's almost the only protection non-resident aliens have under FISA and the jurisprudence that upholds FISA, but the protection is there. It could be undermined by issuing millions of FAA 702 orders or one FAA 702 order covering millions of people, but we have reasonable assurance that this hasn't happened (yet) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .
  - 13y ago

jjguy 13y ago

Every USG veteran knows to be skeptical of mission briefs, regardless of important-looking classification markings. That deck was put together by a mid- to low-level government program manager who owned the program. He is playing politics, making his program sound like the most awesome thing EVAR so he gets promoted. It's not an "official" document, despite all the fancy markings. You cannot interpret every word as gospel.