6 ms·

Wow. First they lie and deny, now this. What does this mean for Google and the others participating in the program? I'd love to read some explanations from Pag

Wow. First they lie and deny, now this. What does this mean for Google and the others participating in the program? I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement.

myko 13y ago
> I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement. They swore they didn't allow the NSA to access their servers. All we know that they do is comply with lawful requests for users data. There was no lying involved.
- brymaster 13y ago
  No, not quite. > Google had no involvement in the PRISM program and the first we heard of it was when Greenwald's article hit the press. -Yonatan Zunger I'd say that's a pretty big lie right there.
  - declan 13y ago
    Where's the lie? PRISM is the name of an NSA software package used to collate data the agency receives under a well-known section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But because of poor reporting and unintentional errors, the name of a software program used to analyze data has become transmorgrified into (1) a "government program" that companies (2) "participate in" that gives the NSA (3) "direct access" to their servers. Not one of those three assertions is true.
    - brymaster 13y ago
      You seem to be spinning it the same way the participating companies were.
      - declan 13y ago
        I reached these conclusions as a result of my own reporting: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/ I note you didn't actually allege I'm wrong. If you have evidence my representations are incorrect -- and this is HN, after all -- kindly say so directly.
        brymaster 13y ago
        All three points you made seem to be irrelevant. 1) NSA is a government agency and PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government. There are many other programs and names. 2) These companies certainly do participate in them under order by the US Government (FISA court). 3) The term "direct access" is quite silly to argue on since the NSA is slurping up any data possible through as many means necessary. So when Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, etc said they didn't participate in the program and NSA didn't have direct access, they were lying.
        declan 13y ago
        An alternative explanation is, of course, that you haven't researched the topic. 1) You are incorrect to say "PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government." You may wish to think it is, but wishful thinking does not mean it's true. Accuracy matters. 2) The Internet companies do not "participate" in PRISM, which is a software utility. That's like saying I "participate" in Excel or Chrome. They do turn over data when compelled to through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other laws. If an ambulance following you turns on its lights to tell you to pull over, you're compelled to do so -- it doesn't mean you're "participating" in a medical emergency. 3) You're right that the NSA would like to slurp up data through as many means as it can. That doesn't mean it is. Put another way, the fact that I would like to have Bill Gates' bank account does not mean I actually do. If you possess actual evidence that Internet companies "participate" in PRISM, as opposed to being compelled by law and legal threats, and if you have evidence that the NSA has "direct access" to the Internet companies' servers, kindly share it. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is, except to argue for the sake of arguing.

myko 13y ago

> I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement. They swore they didn't allow the NSA to access their servers. All we know that they do is comply with lawful requests for users data. There was no lying involved.

brymaster 13y ago
No, not quite. > Google had no involvement in the PRISM program and the first we heard of it was when Greenwald's article hit the press. -Yonatan Zunger I'd say that's a pretty big lie right there.
- declan 13y ago
  Where's the lie? PRISM is the name of an NSA software package used to collate data the agency receives under a well-known section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But because of poor reporting and unintentional errors, the name of a software program used to analyze data has become transmorgrified into (1) a "government program" that companies (2) "participate in" that gives the NSA (3) "direct access" to their servers. Not one of those three assertions is true.
  - brymaster 13y ago
    You seem to be spinning it the same way the participating companies were.
    - declan 13y ago
      I reached these conclusions as a result of my own reporting: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57593538-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/ I note you didn't actually allege I'm wrong. If you have evidence my representations are incorrect -- and this is HN, after all -- kindly say so directly.
      - brymaster 13y ago
        All three points you made seem to be irrelevant. 1) NSA is a government agency and PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government. There are many other programs and names. 2) These companies certainly do participate in them under order by the US Government (FISA court). 3) The term "direct access" is quite silly to argue on since the NSA is slurping up any data possible through as many means necessary. So when Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, etc said they didn't participate in the program and NSA didn't have direct access, they were lying.
        declan 13y ago
        An alternative explanation is, of course, that you haven't researched the topic. 1) You are incorrect to say "PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government." You may wish to think it is, but wishful thinking does not mean it's true. Accuracy matters. 2) The Internet companies do not "participate" in PRISM, which is a software utility. That's like saying I "participate" in Excel or Chrome. They do turn over data when compelled to through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other laws. If an ambulance following you turns on its lights to tell you to pull over, you're compelled to do so -- it doesn't mean you're "participating" in a medical emergency. 3) You're right that the NSA would like to slurp up data through as many means as it can. That doesn't mean it is. Put another way, the fact that I would like to have Bill Gates' bank account does not mean I actually do. If you possess actual evidence that Internet companies "participate" in PRISM, as opposed to being compelled by law and legal threats, and if you have evidence that the NSA has "direct access" to the Internet companies' servers, kindly share it. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is, except to argue for the sake of arguing.