4 ms·

The Washington Post articles keep referring to companies/providers as "participating", but no where in the slides does it say that internet companies are knowin

The Washington Post articles keep referring to companies/providers as "participating", but no where in the slides does it say that internet companies are knowingly participating. It seems very likely that the companies listed are unaware of the surveillance, and the dates listed are when the NSA was able to tap and decode their data streams. I would really like to see evidence that companies are knowingly participating, otherwise this may be defamation by the Post. Tech: All the companies listed have multiple sites/datacenters. While they use SSL/TLS to encrypt client-server connections, they may not be using encryption to protect server-server connections. Most of the database replication systems don't use encryption by default. Companies use circuit switched connections between sites, they don't own the fiber between two datacenters. That fiber is owned by the big telco providers, and passes through equipment owned by the telco providers. We know big telco providers like AT&T and Verizon are very willing to give the NSA access to everything without putting up a fight. It seems very possible to me that the NSA is surveilling these companies without their knowledge. For example it was reported that Dropbox was "coming soon" to PRISM. I don't believe for a second that Dropbox is knowingly giving access to the NSA. "Coming soon" may mean that the NSA has tapped Dropbox's communication, and they are working on decoding it, and converting it into a usable format for PRISM.

andrewljohnson 13y ago
That's an unnecessary conspiracy theory. The companies all say that they comply with all legal orders, and secret FISA orders are legal. These slides all seem in line with what the CEOs and reps have said. No one is denying PRISM exists, it just needs to be abolished, and all things like it should be subject to public scrutiny. Obviously it's not ineffective when it's not a secret, so there is no reason for secrecy.
- antoncohen 13y ago
  > The companies all say that they comply with all legal orders, and secret FISA orders are legal. These slides all seem in line with what the CEOs and reps have said. That's not true, the slides describe a system that receives a raw data flow and decodes it. Google and Facebook have both explicitly denied giving access or even receiving a request for blanket or bulk access. They both say the have only received requests for specific individuals, and every request is individually reviewed by their legal team.
  - throwit1979 13y ago
    Oh, well if the companies denied complying with an order they're not allowed to even disclose the existence of, under penalty of treason, then that's the God's honest truth. Case closed. There's nothing to see here, people. The participating companies are not actually participating at all, and a damage control press release is absolute, unquestionable confirmation of this fact. Nothing is more truthful than a press release.
segacontroller 13y ago
I really think that this is the case. Splitting the data would involve considerably less people in the know than asking for cooperation. Also, only the telecoms were granted immunity. The NSLs really appear to be solely for metadata, and maybe the uniformed response to this program by the 9 companies listed is a diversion from the NSLs, and they have not given "direct access".
- natehouk 13y ago
  Agreed. It makes even more sense when you consider the name of the program "prism" is an object that's capable of splitting light into it's colorful components, i.e. decoding the data streams into visible readable more colorful data streams. Each company is a color exposed by prism. It's not an acronym. It's a play on words.
rst 13y ago
The Post describes FBI-maintained equipment on company premises. It doesn't seem likely that Google's controls on their own infrastructure (or, say, Facebook's) are so lax that a few racks full of stuff could show up at their data centers without anyone at the company being aware of it.
- antoncohen 13y ago
  The Post says "government equipment on private company property", but the slides don't say that, they also don't say the private property is that of internet companies (Google, Facebook, etc.). The slides actually refer the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit, which passes the communications to the NSA, including a Protocol Exploitation system.

andrewljohnson 13y ago

That's an unnecessary conspiracy theory. The companies all say that they comply with all legal orders, and secret FISA orders are legal. These slides all seem in line with what the CEOs and reps have said. No one is denying PRISM exists, it just needs to be abolished, and all things like it should be subject to public scrutiny. Obviously it's not ineffective when it's not a secret, so there is no reason for secrecy.

antoncohen 13y ago
> The companies all say that they comply with all legal orders, and secret FISA orders are legal. These slides all seem in line with what the CEOs and reps have said. That's not true, the slides describe a system that receives a raw data flow and decodes it. Google and Facebook have both explicitly denied giving access or even receiving a request for blanket or bulk access. They both say the have only received requests for specific individuals, and every request is individually reviewed by their legal team.
- throwit1979 13y ago
  Oh, well if the companies denied complying with an order they're not allowed to even disclose the existence of, under penalty of treason, then that's the God's honest truth. Case closed. There's nothing to see here, people. The participating companies are not actually participating at all, and a damage control press release is absolute, unquestionable confirmation of this fact. Nothing is more truthful than a press release.

segacontroller 13y ago

I really think that this is the case. Splitting the data would involve considerably less people in the know than asking for cooperation. Also, only the telecoms were granted immunity. The NSLs really appear to be solely for metadata, and maybe the uniformed response to this program by the 9 companies listed is a diversion from the NSLs, and they have not given "direct access".

natehouk 13y ago
Agreed. It makes even more sense when you consider the name of the program "prism" is an object that's capable of splitting light into it's colorful components, i.e. decoding the data streams into visible readable more colorful data streams. Each company is a color exposed by prism. It's not an acronym. It's a play on words.

rst 13y ago

The Post describes FBI-maintained equipment on company premises. It doesn't seem likely that Google's controls on their own infrastructure (or, say, Facebook's) are so lax that a few racks full of stuff could show up at their data centers without anyone at the company being aware of it.

antoncohen 13y ago
The Post says "government equipment on private company property", but the slides don't say that, they also don't say the private property is that of internet companies (Google, Facebook, etc.). The slides actually refer the FBI's Data Intercept Technology Unit, which passes the communications to the NSA, including a Protocol Exploitation system.