> Finally, on Friday, the New York Times reported[1]—using some conveniently leaked documents—that Yahoo had tried to resist the NSA’s attempts to compel it to

> Finally, on Friday, the New York Times reported[1]—using some conveniently leaked documents—that Yahoo had tried to resist the NSA’s attempts to compel it to provide user data but was ultimately unsuccessful and was ordered by the court to comply. > These companies may have convinced themselves that cooperation was inevitable, or that they needed to do something to help the government catch terrorists, or that by automating the legally legitimate FISA process they could save themselves a lot of trouble and expense, or some combination of all the above. But in reality, they have not only shown themselves to be weak—which will encourage the NSA to pressure them even further because it knows it can win—but also fundamentally untrustworthy, and that could cause them a lot more problems with users than they ever contemplated. Who is voting up this nonsense? Since when is losing in court equivalent to rolling over for the NSA? Not only does the author refer to the "the legally legitimate FISA process" multiple times (apparently the government is absolved from blame here), he also writes multiple times that we has no idea what PRISM actually is. But why not jump to conclusions anyway! > So far, the only company that seems to have emerged unscathed is Twitter, which reportedly fought the government’s attempts to enrol the company in the Prism program and succeeded, a tale that has burnished Twitter’s claim to be the “free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Except that Twitter has agreed with Google in saying that companies should be allowed to disclose ranges of FISA requests separate from other requests, rather than lumping all requests (federal and local) together[2]. It's not a slam dunk, but it strongly implies that, regardless of what PRISM is, Twitter has received and complied with FISA orders. This article seems like the author said, "We still don't know what PRSIM is, but I have a deadline, so let's see what I can bang out in 5 minutes." Not only are there no new facts, what speculation is here doesn't even seem well thought through. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru... [2] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/google-calls-u-s-data-request-disclosures-a-step-backward-for-users/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/google-calls-u-s-da...