35 ms·

You may not be interested in a semantic argument, but it's a semantic point you're arguing. The title of the article in question[1] is: "NSA Prism program taps

You may not be interested in a semantic argument, but it's a semantic point you're arguing. The title of the article in question[1] is: "NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others • Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Apple and Facebook • Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007" The first sentence states: "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." Emphasis on according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. If you read on, the content of the article supports this title and summary. It doesn't matter what Emily Bazelon has said, it don't matter what others have said, and it certainly doesn't matter what the mainstream criticism is when determining whether or not the statements in the article are accurate. The slides say the NSA can "collect data directly from the servers" of these companies. Guardian states the the slides state that the NSA can collect data directly from the servers of these companies. That is a demonstrable fact. In fact, I just demonstrated it. Now, I'm in the camp of people who think that whoever wrote the slides just didn't know what they were talking about. Neverthess, I'm also in the camp of people who think that the Guardian was accurate in their reporting--because the reporting is right there to be read. We could, of course, argue over the congruace between the phrases "direct access" and "collect data directly from the servers," but you said you weren't interested in semantics. [1]: 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...

leoc 13y ago
> The slides say the NSA can "collect data directly from the servers" of these companies. Guardian states the the slides state that the NSA can collect data directly from the servers of these companies. The slides do say the NSA can "collect data directly from the servers" of these companies. (Well, they say that the NSA uses "collection directly from the servers" of these companies, to get the quotation exactly right.) But the Guardian stated the the slides state that the NSA has root access (or similar) on the servers of these companies. It was wrong about this. The Grauniad didn't publish a story saying "the NSA has a PowerPoint presentation in which the phrase 'collection directly from the servers' appears, but we do not pretend to offer any interpretation of what may have been meant by this". What it published was a story which said (in paraphrase) "the NSA has a PowerPoint presentation in which the phrase 'collection directly from the servers' appears. What the NSA means by this is that it has root access on Google, Facebook and friends." The NSA writer was correct; the Guardian's reporting of what he said was wrong, both in the sense that it misreported what the NSA writer was claiming, and the claim it misreported him/her as making was (unsuprisingly) untrue.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Where exactly did the Guardian or Greenwald claim the NSA has root access on servers? I haven't seen that anywhere? Please supply a quote of the part of an article you're referring to so we can make up our own minds about what was said. It's quite possible Guardian journalists and editors summarised some points in a sloppy way due to lack of understanding (in particular using direct access instead of directly from), but the broad thrust of everything I've read from them has been surprisingly accurate (as journalism goes), and Snowden's claim to have access to any account at will (given enough clearance) is now sounding far more plausible after these recent revelations that calls recorded and can be accessed without a warrant by any agent with the clearance to do so, and according to cnet, perhaps emails too. To an analyst asking for calls/emails, this would seem very much like 'direct and unilateral access', even if from google's end they only respond to lawful orders and don't allow universal tapping as the phone companies do. I'm surprised that people are talking up minor quibbles over the interpretation of one slide as if all debate hinges on them given the scale of the surveillance which has been exposed. We don't know for sure exactly how the PRISM process works, and what matters is not the process but the legal safegaurds in place (or lack of them), and the extent of surveillance. Why not debate facts we do know and have confirmed?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    What Greenwald/Guardian said about "direct and unilateral access" is what is meant by the paraphrase of "root access". The story made it sound like an NSA analyst could just open an xterm and copy any data about any Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/etc. user, whether the company agreed or not. That is the part that is not only false, but which Greenwald has refused to back down on by just pounding the slides over and over. I don't know why I'm so surprised that a writer reporting on tech-heavy privacy issues would be so clueless about technology but it just gives me even more reason to be jaded about activists in general. Oh well, at least we still have the EFF and ACLU.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      That phrase says nothing about root or xterm and I think you're being misleading by attempting to paraphrase it that way though I think I see how you got there. That's one possible interpretation of it (though not one Greenwald has backed), but it's equally possible, given the assertions of Snowden in the video with the article (which we now know to be true at least for phone calls), that it was an attempt to describe the experience of an analyst using such a system, requesting full access to a user's account, and getting it without interacting with google staff (after what delay we don't know), possibly without any legal paperwork other than making the request. We simply don't know enough details to be able to describe the process any better, we don't even know all the possible sources of intel for it. Since Greenwald provided the sources for his statement and the article clearly indicates which quotes are attribution and which bits are commentary I didn't interpret it the way you did, and do think it's highly misleading to characterise this as a fundamental flaw in the article, or as something the guardian has 'walked back' - the guardian is not a monolithic entity and features content from all sorts of contradictory viewpoints. The writer wasn't clueless about technology necessarily - remember this sort of writing goes through many hands on the way to publication, and attempts to synthesise knowledge from various sources for a non-technical audience, while not revealing damaging details which could leave them open to prosecution. That process is going to result in text which is not as precise or illuminating as we or the writer would like. So I'm all for correcting reporters like Greenwald where they over-reach or imply too much, and I do think he should have clarified this particular detail which has been left very vague, but we should clarify or correct, not attack and patronise, reporters who don't specify technical details, and bear in mind that technical questions of mechanism are not the only story here; there are far more important legal and ethical questions.

leoc 13y ago

> The slides say the NSA can "collect data directly from the servers" of these companies. Guardian states the the slides state that the NSA can collect data directly from the servers of these companies. The slides do say the NSA can "collect data directly from the servers" of these companies. (Well, they say that the NSA uses "collection directly from the servers" of these companies, to get the quotation exactly right.) But the Guardian stated the the slides state that the NSA has root access (or similar) on the servers of these companies. It was wrong about this. The Grauniad didn't publish a story saying "the NSA has a PowerPoint presentation in which the phrase 'collection directly from the servers' appears, but we do not pretend to offer any interpretation of what may have been meant by this". What it published was a story which said (in paraphrase) "the NSA has a PowerPoint presentation in which the phrase 'collection directly from the servers' appears. What the NSA means by this is that it has root access on Google, Facebook and friends." The NSA writer was correct; the Guardian's reporting of what he said was wrong, both in the sense that it misreported what the NSA writer was claiming, and the claim it misreported him/her as making was (unsuprisingly) untrue.

grey-area 13y ago
Where exactly did the Guardian or Greenwald claim the NSA has root access on servers? I haven't seen that anywhere? Please supply a quote of the part of an article you're referring to so we can make up our own minds about what was said. It's quite possible Guardian journalists and editors summarised some points in a sloppy way due to lack of understanding (in particular using direct access instead of directly from), but the broad thrust of everything I've read from them has been surprisingly accurate (as journalism goes), and Snowden's claim to have access to any account at will (given enough clearance) is now sounding far more plausible after these recent revelations that calls recorded and can be accessed without a warrant by any agent with the clearance to do so, and according to cnet, perhaps emails too. To an analyst asking for calls/emails, this would seem very much like 'direct and unilateral access', even if from google's end they only respond to lawful orders and don't allow universal tapping as the phone companies do. I'm surprised that people are talking up minor quibbles over the interpretation of one slide as if all debate hinges on them given the scale of the surveillance which has been exposed. We don't know for sure exactly how the PRISM process works, and what matters is not the process but the legal safegaurds in place (or lack of them), and the extent of surveillance. Why not debate facts we do know and have confirmed?
- mpyne 13y ago
  What Greenwald/Guardian said about "direct and unilateral access" is what is meant by the paraphrase of "root access". The story made it sound like an NSA analyst could just open an xterm and copy any data about any Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/etc. user, whether the company agreed or not. That is the part that is not only false, but which Greenwald has refused to back down on by just pounding the slides over and over. I don't know why I'm so surprised that a writer reporting on tech-heavy privacy issues would be so clueless about technology but it just gives me even more reason to be jaded about activists in general. Oh well, at least we still have the EFF and ACLU.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    That phrase says nothing about root or xterm and I think you're being misleading by attempting to paraphrase it that way though I think I see how you got there. That's one possible interpretation of it (though not one Greenwald has backed), but it's equally possible, given the assertions of Snowden in the video with the article (which we now know to be true at least for phone calls), that it was an attempt to describe the experience of an analyst using such a system, requesting full access to a user's account, and getting it without interacting with google staff (after what delay we don't know), possibly without any legal paperwork other than making the request. We simply don't know enough details to be able to describe the process any better, we don't even know all the possible sources of intel for it. Since Greenwald provided the sources for his statement and the article clearly indicates which quotes are attribution and which bits are commentary I didn't interpret it the way you did, and do think it's highly misleading to characterise this as a fundamental flaw in the article, or as something the guardian has 'walked back' - the guardian is not a monolithic entity and features content from all sorts of contradictory viewpoints. The writer wasn't clueless about technology necessarily - remember this sort of writing goes through many hands on the way to publication, and attempts to synthesise knowledge from various sources for a non-technical audience, while not revealing damaging details which could leave them open to prosecution. That process is going to result in text which is not as precise or illuminating as we or the writer would like. So I'm all for correcting reporters like Greenwald where they over-reach or imply too much, and I do think he should have clarified this particular detail which has been left very vague, but we should clarify or correct, not attack and patronise, reporters who don't specify technical details, and bear in mind that technical questions of mechanism are not the only story here; there are far more important legal and ethical questions.