4 ms·
But these companies do more than what is required by law. They do not by law have to provide API access, only to provide the data in some form. None of the smal
by jeltz 13y ago
But these companies do more than what is required by law. They do not by law have to provide API access, only to provide the data in some form. None of the smaller webmail hosts cooperate in PRISM.
And as for warrants, no they do not always need a warrant. They only need that if both parties in the communication are US citizens. If none of them are no warrant is needed at all and if just one party is US then they (according to the Wikipedia article on PRISM) can wiretap for up to a week without getting a warrant.
- rasterizer 13y agoThey deny providing an API (at least Google denies it): I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...