>I haven't followed the NSA Prism story as closely as maybe I should have, but I'm curious: is this TRUE? it is the "least untruthful statement". > or, is it

>I haven't followed the NSA Prism story as closely as maybe I should have, but I'm curious: is this TRUE? it is the "least untruthful statement". > or, is it more like, we can't be sure what they do and don't have access to, therefore, it's better to assume the worst? it is just hard to imagine how they don't have access to something. They obviously capable of accessing everything they want. Thus if they don't access something, it would mean they don't want to. Ed absurdum. Interesting piece of history btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Hellman#Computer_privacy_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Hellman#Computer_privacy... "Hellman has been a long-time contributor to the computer privacy debate. He and Diffie were the most prominent critics of the short key size of the Data Encryption Standard in 1975. An audio recording survives of their review of DES at Stanford in 1976 with Dennis Branstad of NBS and representatives of the National Security Agency.[12] Their concern was well-founded: subsequent history has shown not only that NSA actively intervened with IBM and NBS to shorten the key size ..."