4 ms·

After seeing this article today, I made a post on Facebook to explain to some of my friends that aren't closely following the PRISM story that this is not compa

After seeing this article today, I made a post on Facebook to explain to some of my friends that aren't closely following the PRISM story that this is not compatible with the statements released by Mark Zuckerberg, Marissa Mayer, and Larry Page. I'll reproduce some of my post here--I'd link directly, but my Facebook is set to 'private.' Remember when Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Marissa Mayer (Yahoo!) and Larry Page (Google) all denied "directly" giving the NSA everyone's data? They claimed that all access was done through national security letters and warrants, because the slides that had leaked at the time supported that. Turns out new slides leaked, and everyone lied! *snip* (I linked to the WaPo article, and the slide directly) And for sources on the original denial (each claiming "no direct access"): https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631 (Zuckerberg/FB) http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/53243441454/our-commitment-to-our-users-privacy http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/53243441454/our-commitment-to-o... (Mayer/Yahoo!) http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html (Page/Google)

pudquick 13y ago
Well, the best we can do is assume they lied. However unlikely, it's still possible the NSA had moles or secret legal proceedings against certain employees that directed them to provide the NSA with a direct connection to the servers. The reason why I say 'unlikely' is that such a setup would also involve data connectivity out of those data centers and additionally would probably trip all sorts of intrusion monitoring systems (if the big companies are doing their jobs right). There's still a little wiggle room here, just not much very realistically.
ignostic 13y ago
They didn't lie - they just made the truth dance with help from legal advisers. I think we already knew that, but the slide just confirms that they knew exactly what they were doing. EDIT: to clarify, GIVING someone access directly to a server and allowing/knowing about access to the data going in and out of a server are not technically the same thing. When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this. A smart lawyer would never let the company lie outright. They would advise everyone to speak the truth, but "the truth they speak may not be the truth you think you hear." No direct access to servers. Sure. They just had access to the data going in and out of the server. To someone used to reading political and legal documents, "no direct access to servers" almost screams "some form of access to something." Otherwise the denial would have been more Zuck and Page didn't lie, but they were less than forthcoming. Myers didn't even bother addressing the claim directly. I suspect a government lawyer fed them phrases they could use that sound like denials without actually lying.
- david_shaw 13y ago
  > When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this. I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said direct access verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published). So, either: (A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data. (B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified. (C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements. I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data. And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.
    - ignostic 13y ago
      I kind of rambled around the point, but I was trying to say much the same thing. It's also very possible that the slide traded some simplicity for accuracy because it was being presented to a group of people who didn't really care or understand the details and technicalities. Also, (E), The companies didn't "give" the government direct access, but were quietly complicit in allowing them to collect data.
mpyne 13y ago
You do realize that PRISM is a separate program from NSA's upstream data collection efforts, right?
monochromatic 13y ago
> Facebook is set to 'private.' LOL
- dil8 13y ago
  Yeah, I noticed that too haha

pudquick 13y ago

Well, the best we can do is assume they lied. However unlikely, it's still possible the NSA had moles or secret legal proceedings against certain employees that directed them to provide the NSA with a direct connection to the servers. The reason why I say 'unlikely' is that such a setup would also involve data connectivity out of those data centers and additionally would probably trip all sorts of intrusion monitoring systems (if the big companies are doing their jobs right). There's still a little wiggle room here, just not much very realistically.

ignostic 13y ago

They didn't lie - they just made the truth dance with help from legal advisers. I think we already knew that, but the slide just confirms that they knew exactly what they were doing. EDIT: to clarify, GIVING someone access directly to a server and allowing/knowing about access to the data going in and out of a server are not technically the same thing. When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this. A smart lawyer would never let the company lie outright. They would advise everyone to speak the truth, but "the truth they speak may not be the truth you think you hear." No direct access to servers. Sure. They just had access to the data going in and out of the server. To someone used to reading political and legal documents, "no direct access to servers" almost screams "some form of access to something." Otherwise the denial would have been more Zuck and Page didn't lie, but they were less than forthcoming. Myers didn't even bother addressing the claim directly. I suspect a government lawyer fed them phrases they could use that sound like denials without actually lying.

david_shaw 13y ago
> When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this. I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said direct access verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published). So, either: (A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data. (B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified. (C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements. I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data. And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.
- mpyne 13y ago
  (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.
  - ignostic 13y ago
    I kind of rambled around the point, but I was trying to say much the same thing. It's also very possible that the slide traded some simplicity for accuracy because it was being presented to a group of people who didn't really care or understand the details and technicalities. Also, (E), The companies didn't "give" the government direct access, but were quietly complicit in allowing them to collect data.

mpyne 13y ago

You do realize that PRISM is a separate program from NSA's upstream data collection efforts, right?

monochromatic 13y ago

> Facebook is set to 'private.' LOL

dil8 13y ago
Yeah, I noticed that too haha