8 ms·

The PRISM letter Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft are sending Congress

124 points by johnkoetsier 13y ago

lostoptimist 13y ago
Why was the title cropped here? If you're going to explicitly name companies don't you think all should be named? The title is implying other companies (i.e. Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc.) aren't a part of this. Maybe it should've been along the lines of "major tech companies including..." Edit: The title has since been updated.
- fooodbar 13y ago
  Business as usual here.. Google and Apple = good and people will protect anything the do, rest = meh unless they do something bad, then the pitchforks are out.
  - nothingToHide 13y ago
    My pitchforks are always out. I'm fair that way.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  There are nearly 50 companies or organizations signing the letter. That would make for a pretty damn unwieldy headline.
  - lostoptimist 13y ago
    The poster updated the title. I would agree with you but article's title named 5 companies and the poster's title named 3. Either copy the title in it's entirety or don't name any companies.
  - Aldo_MX 13y ago
    You can always use a headline like "Google, Apple, Facebook and 50 others like this"
znowi 13y ago
It's a fine initiative, I guess. Except, how is it related to PRISM, which provides direct access to user data for the interested parties? There's no FISA request to be made. As I see it, they want to come out as privacy advocates while closely partnered with NSA.
agoandanon 13y ago
Keep in mind - this is a PR move. None of these companies did anything before their backdoors were revealed. They are only writing this extremely-public press notice because they are getting called on their shenanigans.
- fear91 13y ago
  Yeah as long as they collect personal data, we can't trust them. Government can always demand it from them. If not by PRISM then with something else.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  The ACLU and the EFF have signed the letter. Is this a PR move for them as well?
  - TallGuyShort 13y ago
    They're certainly not signing it just to save face. They weren't the ones who were recently revealed to have secretly cooperated with the program.
  - Aldo_MX 13y ago
    If you were the EFF would you refrain from signing when the outcome aligns to an acceptable result? I believe that this is a PR move, but I also believe this is not the moment to dismiss the effort.
- acomar 13y ago
  Yahoo took the gov't to court over it and lost, and until recently were forbidden from admitting that fact.
  - codyb 13y ago
    Yahoo received special commendations from the EFF for it's fights to secure your privacy. I wonder if it a business strategy. "We seem to be losing market share so lets fight strongly for our users privacy and when it comes out we're doing it it will convince people to switch." Or is it just a company morality. And why aren't other companies acting in our interests in a similar manner? And I'm not actually sure about their market share since their stock is remarkably steady over 5 years and has been steadily climbing since the middle of 2012. Yahoo's commendation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-... Yahoo's stock: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=yhoo;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=y... I know look at the max length of Yahoo's stock and yes, it seems they have dropped quite a bit at points. Dec 1999 being their highest at 108 and change (dot com bust I'd imagine came shortly after), and as high as 39 in 2006 up from a low of 4.45 in Sep 2001. Currently 29 though so they've been putting in work since they dropped to 11.51 in Nov 2008.
mtgx 13y ago
So what else, more real, are they doing? OTR and PGP for everyone? Yes?
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  Absolutely fuck all. Damage control and posturing is all they are doing. Once someone has failed on this scale, they should never be trusted again.
  - mynameisvlad 13y ago
    Okay, so who exactly are you going to trust, then? Basically all of the major companies most people use day-to-day have been caught. Are you now going to excise every one of them completely out of your life?
    - harrytuttle 13y ago
      Well it's either that or throw my morals end ethics out of the window instead.
      - mynameisvlad 13y ago
        I mean, your morals and ethics are great, but if they lead you to not using any major product because of them, then how effective is that? I understand sticking by your morals, but literally every big companies has turned over data to PRISM. Not using any of these products because of morals is silly.
- dmix 13y ago
  The first one to add real encryption to their platform could make a lot of money... especially if they are in desperate need of a competitive advantage.
  - falk 13y ago
    Yahoo! should pivot into a privacy and security conscious company. They're already on record for fighting against government tyranny.
jjcm 13y ago
Theoretically, what would happen to someone like Microsoft if they revealed exactly what the NSA asked them to do? Would there be any real punishment?
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  There probably would. They'd lose all the blind eyes on their tax practices.
- ddunkin 13y ago
  I guess the government can switch all their PCs to Linux, that would show them! :)
- scrrr 13y ago
  Perhaps it's just a conspiracy theory: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-a...
tlrobinson 13y ago
The problem I have with every company's response so far is that they deny very specific accusations using vague language, then tell us they "only provide data when required to by the law". I don't care about "Section 215" and "Section 702" specifically. We've seen the government has had no problem with coming up with their own secret "interpretations" of these laws, what's stopping them from using other laws to secretly justify programs? It's like a "blacklist" rather than a "whitelist" approach. I want companies to categorically state with no wiggle room the only circumstances under which they provide data to government/law enforcement before I even begin to think about trusting them again.
monkeynotes 13y ago
This letter basically sets out "it's ok to snoop on our customers, just as long as we can report it". Why aren't these companies, and people in general, demanding that operations like PRISM are terminated entirely? Why are people prepared to accept this sort of intrusion into their private lives at all? If a peeping tom kept bothering me I would not accept his presence as long as he called me up before he started watching my house. The major issue here isn't the way the government snoops on its citizens, it's that it happens at all.
- thomasahle 13y ago
  It's never a bad idea taking small steps with such changes. Once transparency is in place, it'll be much easier to argue for stopping the practice altogether. As a sidenote, think about how efficient copyright advocates have been with this strategy: slowly pushing through seemingly innocent changes.
  - monkeynotes 13y ago
    In principal I agree, transparency is essential to political and social debate. However, in this case we are not dealing with business law or economic policy and such. We're dealing with something insidious and socially toxic. To me the correct course is to outright object to mass personal surveillance from the outset. We should not allow tyranny to edge its way into our society, it should be stamped out and named to be the rotten cancer that it is.
- cik 13y ago
  It's sad. The reality is that people don't care. There's no way the government could have built their Panopticon without people doing it for them. But that reminds me of one of my favourite series: http://www.amazon.com/Traveler-Fourth-Realm-Trilogy-Book/dp/1400079292/ http://www.amazon.com/Traveler-Fourth-Realm-Trilogy-Book/dp/...
Buzaga 13y ago
"hey guys, for the sake of the surveillance state, let's not ruin everyones's businesses here, amirite? We're in this together"
munificent 13y ago
Bias up front: I am a Googler. I don't understand the tone of the comments here. I see lots of pitchforks out and pointed at these companies, but I don't get why. Yes, it appears that companies released data to the US government. That seriously sucks. But as far as I can tell, the affected companies are the victims here. They were forced into doing this by the US government. There's no "cooperation" when the US government says "we are legally compelling you to do this". If it wasn't by force, why would any of these companies do it? What's the upside for Microsoft of Twitter to send user data to the government? If it's cooperation, what do they get out of it? I think this letter is a good thing because, even if the US government doesn't respond to it, it communicates that the companies involved are apparently releasing less information than people think. Why would they ask to show the numbers if they were large? The companies here are asking to be more transparent. I can't see how anyone can argue that it isn't a step in the right direction.
- dominotw 13y ago
  People are mad because google led people to believe their data is completely secure. Which was not true. They should have gotten out of the business of amassing personal information if they truly believed in 'dont be evil'.
- sixothree 13y ago
  It's not obvious that people feel betrayed on an extremely personal and professional level? These companies allowed people with a perverted sense of morality and the law to root through the most private details of our personal lives and our company's. Then they release the most weaselly denial ever contrived, and now this weak excuse for action.
- arihant 13y ago
  I'll play the devil's advocate here. The tone of the comments is probably due to the fact that this letter is being written after it was out in the open what these companies were doing. It is due to the fact that it is coming after their vague language filled response letters to their customers over PRISM. The pushback from these companies should have started at the time they were "legally compelled to" to participate in the program. And besides, if what you say is true, how do we know that these companies weren't legally compelled to write this letter to brainwash everyone? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they were legally compelled to do before. How would we ever know if they will be legally compelled to report wrong numbers?
mladenkovacevic 13y ago
My latest conspiracy theory about the relationship between Silicon Valley and the U.S. government: Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook and others don't have time to do a lot of research and development unless it's directly related to the product they sell. So Google hires a lot of programmers who figure out how to deal with a lot of data, Apple hires a lot of software and hardware people who design beautiful integrated computing experiences...but their success depends on so much more than those narrow fields. For example I read recently about some really high-tech networking switches that Google uses which allow their data centers to run that much more efficiently. Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably not. Maybe to build and deploy them... but not to invent. So they make a deal with DARPA, NSA or whoever. The government will trickle down any technological breakthroughs they've made using tax-payer money to the corporate sector, and the corporations will in exchange be VERY compliant and VERY quiet when it comes to feeding the NSA user data it hungers for. Now shit's hit the fan, and the companies are attempting to simulate their dislike for the NSA.
- minwcnt5 13y ago
  > Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably not. Hah. If they have time to invent self-driving cars, balloon powered internet, and wearable computing devices I'm pretty sure they can spare a few people to invent networking equipment that would save them millions.
  - mladenkovacevic 13y ago
    Hey all good conspiracy theories have a few holes in them.
  - count 13y ago
    Heh, funny you mention that: http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-custom-network-switches-for-data-centers/ http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-cu...
- astrange 13y ago
  It's probably too much to hope people would stop posting conspiracy theories on HN. That one about "non-denial denials" still seems popular though.
scrrr 13y ago
I don't think I can ever trust any of these companies again, sorry. It's sad. I really liked their products. In my case it only matters with regards to Google. Gmail, for instance, feels creepy when I log in. On the other hand, competitors have a chance to catch up now. Which is great news for consumers.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hayward2 13y ago
I'm with Steve Jobs. Google's motto is total bullshit
wil421 13y ago
When I first read this I starting thinking this is a good start but I think these companies are just trying to save face. Now that these programs have been exposed in more light both sides, the government and the companies who participate, are just trying to minimize the impact without telling the full truth about other programs. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-it-analyzes-more-peoples-data-previously-revealed/67287/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-i...
- apass 13y ago
  That's my problem too. They still seem to be trying to just spin the requests better and not addressing the basic over-reach assumption that everyone's info is up for grabs if there is a "51% confidence" you may be whatever their current rationalization is.
coldcode 13y ago
There are better ways these companies could force the government to change: refuse to do business with it. Of course that won't happen.
Bender22 13y ago
Why are links to this letter going down? Even the link at venturebeat.com linked to here is dead now.
mifreewil 13y ago
Fuck the NSA
cik 13y ago
Does anyone seriously believe that this is anything other than PR? While these companies were prevented from disclosing details, they easily could have announced that they're fighting for rights. And that's the problem. Although I won't agree with it, I can understand that Google (and crew) were prevented from DISCLOSING that they're being tapped. Fine, gun to the head and all that. But what prevented them from saying "we receive requests, we fight them", and even providing information on the process of fighting a request.

124 points by johnkoetsier 13y ago

Why was the title cropped here? If you're going to explicitly name companies don't you think all should be named? The title is implying other companies (i.e. Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc.) aren't a part of this. Maybe it should've been along the lines of "major tech companies including..." Edit: The title has since been updated.

fooodbar 13y ago
Business as usual here.. Google and Apple = good and people will protect anything the do, rest = meh unless they do something bad, then the pitchforks are out.
- nothingToHide 13y ago
  My pitchforks are always out. I'm fair that way.
jlgreco 13y ago
There are nearly 50 companies or organizations signing the letter. That would make for a pretty damn unwieldy headline.
- lostoptimist 13y ago
  The poster updated the title. I would agree with you but article's title named 5 companies and the poster's title named 3. Either copy the title in it's entirety or don't name any companies.
- Aldo_MX 13y ago
  You can always use a headline like "Google, Apple, Facebook and 50 others like this"

znowi 13y ago

It's a fine initiative, I guess. Except, how is it related to PRISM, which provides direct access to user data for the interested parties? There's no FISA request to be made. As I see it, they want to come out as privacy advocates while closely partnered with NSA.

agoandanon 13y ago

Keep in mind - this is a PR move. None of these companies did anything before their backdoors were revealed. They are only writing this extremely-public press notice because they are getting called on their shenanigans.

fear91 13y ago
Yeah as long as they collect personal data, we can't trust them. Government can always demand it from them. If not by PRISM then with something else.
darkarmani 13y ago
The ACLU and the EFF have signed the letter. Is this a PR move for them as well?
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  They're certainly not signing it just to save face. They weren't the ones who were recently revealed to have secretly cooperated with the program.
- Aldo_MX 13y ago
  If you were the EFF would you refrain from signing when the outcome aligns to an acceptable result? I believe that this is a PR move, but I also believe this is not the moment to dismiss the effort.
acomar 13y ago
Yahoo took the gov't to court over it and lost, and until recently were forbidden from admitting that fact.
- codyb 13y ago
  Yahoo received special commendations from the EFF for it's fights to secure your privacy. I wonder if it a business strategy. "We seem to be losing market share so lets fight strongly for our users privacy and when it comes out we're doing it it will convince people to switch." Or is it just a company morality. And why aren't other companies acting in our interests in a similar manner? And I'm not actually sure about their market share since their stock is remarkably steady over 5 years and has been steadily climbing since the middle of 2012. Yahoo's commendation: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-... Yahoo's stock: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=yhoo;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined; http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=y... I know look at the max length of Yahoo's stock and yes, it seems they have dropped quite a bit at points. Dec 1999 being their highest at 108 and change (dot com bust I'd imagine came shortly after), and as high as 39 in 2006 up from a low of 4.45 in Sep 2001. Currently 29 though so they've been putting in work since they dropped to 11.51 in Nov 2008.

mtgx 13y ago

So what else, more real, are they doing? OTR and PGP for everyone? Yes?

harrytuttle 13y ago
Absolutely fuck all. Damage control and posturing is all they are doing. Once someone has failed on this scale, they should never be trusted again.
- mynameisvlad 13y ago
  Okay, so who exactly are you going to trust, then? Basically all of the major companies most people use day-to-day have been caught. Are you now going to excise every one of them completely out of your life?
  - harrytuttle 13y ago
    Well it's either that or throw my morals end ethics out of the window instead.
    - mynameisvlad 13y ago
      I mean, your morals and ethics are great, but if they lead you to not using any major product because of them, then how effective is that? I understand sticking by your morals, but literally every big companies has turned over data to PRISM. Not using any of these products because of morals is silly.
dmix 13y ago
The first one to add real encryption to their platform could make a lot of money... especially if they are in desperate need of a competitive advantage.
- falk 13y ago
  Yahoo! should pivot into a privacy and security conscious company. They're already on record for fighting against government tyranny.

jjcm 13y ago

Theoretically, what would happen to someone like Microsoft if they revealed exactly what the NSA asked them to do? Would there be any real punishment?

harrytuttle 13y ago
There probably would. They'd lose all the blind eyes on their tax practices.
ddunkin 13y ago
I guess the government can switch all their PCs to Linux, that would show them! :)
scrrr 13y ago
Perhaps it's just a conspiracy theory: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-joseph-nacchio-a...

tlrobinson 13y ago

The problem I have with every company's response so far is that they deny very specific accusations using vague language, then tell us they "only provide data when required to by the law". I don't care about "Section 215" and "Section 702" specifically. We've seen the government has had no problem with coming up with their own secret "interpretations" of these laws, what's stopping them from using other laws to secretly justify programs? It's like a "blacklist" rather than a "whitelist" approach. I want companies to categorically state with no wiggle room the only circumstances under which they provide data to government/law enforcement before I even begin to think about trusting them again.

monkeynotes 13y ago

This letter basically sets out "it's ok to snoop on our customers, just as long as we can report it". Why aren't these companies, and people in general, demanding that operations like PRISM are terminated entirely? Why are people prepared to accept this sort of intrusion into their private lives at all? If a peeping tom kept bothering me I would not accept his presence as long as he called me up before he started watching my house. The major issue here isn't the way the government snoops on its citizens, it's that it happens at all.

thomasahle 13y ago
It's never a bad idea taking small steps with such changes. Once transparency is in place, it'll be much easier to argue for stopping the practice altogether. As a sidenote, think about how efficient copyright advocates have been with this strategy: slowly pushing through seemingly innocent changes.
- monkeynotes 13y ago
  In principal I agree, transparency is essential to political and social debate. However, in this case we are not dealing with business law or economic policy and such. We're dealing with something insidious and socially toxic. To me the correct course is to outright object to mass personal surveillance from the outset. We should not allow tyranny to edge its way into our society, it should be stamped out and named to be the rotten cancer that it is.
cik 13y ago
It's sad. The reality is that people don't care. There's no way the government could have built their Panopticon without people doing it for them. But that reminds me of one of my favourite series: http://www.amazon.com/Traveler-Fourth-Realm-Trilogy-Book/dp/1400079292/ http://www.amazon.com/Traveler-Fourth-Realm-Trilogy-Book/dp/...

Buzaga 13y ago

"hey guys, for the sake of the surveillance state, let's not ruin everyones's businesses here, amirite? We're in this together"

munificent 13y ago

Bias up front: I am a Googler. I don't understand the tone of the comments here. I see lots of pitchforks out and pointed at these companies, but I don't get why. Yes, it appears that companies released data to the US government. That seriously sucks. But as far as I can tell, the affected companies are the victims here. They were forced into doing this by the US government. There's no "cooperation" when the US government says "we are legally compelling you to do this". If it wasn't by force, why would any of these companies do it? What's the upside for Microsoft of Twitter to send user data to the government? If it's cooperation, what do they get out of it? I think this letter is a good thing because, even if the US government doesn't respond to it, it communicates that the companies involved are apparently releasing less information than people think. Why would they ask to show the numbers if they were large? The companies here are asking to be more transparent. I can't see how anyone can argue that it isn't a step in the right direction.

dominotw 13y ago
People are mad because google led people to believe their data is completely secure. Which was not true. They should have gotten out of the business of amassing personal information if they truly believed in 'dont be evil'.
sixothree 13y ago
It's not obvious that people feel betrayed on an extremely personal and professional level? These companies allowed people with a perverted sense of morality and the law to root through the most private details of our personal lives and our company's. Then they release the most weaselly denial ever contrived, and now this weak excuse for action.
arihant 13y ago
I'll play the devil's advocate here. The tone of the comments is probably due to the fact that this letter is being written after it was out in the open what these companies were doing. It is due to the fact that it is coming after their vague language filled response letters to their customers over PRISM. The pushback from these companies should have started at the time they were "legally compelled to" to participate in the program. And besides, if what you say is true, how do we know that these companies weren't legally compelled to write this letter to brainwash everyone? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they were legally compelled to do before. How would we ever know if they will be legally compelled to report wrong numbers?

mladenkovacevic 13y ago

My latest conspiracy theory about the relationship between Silicon Valley and the U.S. government: Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook and others don't have time to do a lot of research and development unless it's directly related to the product they sell. So Google hires a lot of programmers who figure out how to deal with a lot of data, Apple hires a lot of software and hardware people who design beautiful integrated computing experiences...but their success depends on so much more than those narrow fields. For example I read recently about some really high-tech networking switches that Google uses which allow their data centers to run that much more efficiently. Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably not. Maybe to build and deploy them... but not to invent. So they make a deal with DARPA, NSA or whoever. The government will trickle down any technological breakthroughs they've made using tax-payer money to the corporate sector, and the corporations will in exchange be VERY compliant and VERY quiet when it comes to feeding the NSA user data it hungers for. Now shit's hit the fan, and the companies are attempting to simulate their dislike for the NSA.

minwcnt5 13y ago
> Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably not. Hah. If they have time to invent self-driving cars, balloon powered internet, and wearable computing devices I'm pretty sure they can spare a few people to invent networking equipment that would save them millions.
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  Hey all good conspiracy theories have a few holes in them.
- count 13y ago
  Heh, funny you mention that: http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-custom-network-switches-for-data-centers/ http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-cu...
astrange 13y ago
It's probably too much to hope people would stop posting conspiracy theories on HN. That one about "non-denial denials" still seems popular though.

scrrr 13y ago

I don't think I can ever trust any of these companies again, sorry. It's sad. I really liked their products. In my case it only matters with regards to Google. Gmail, for instance, feels creepy when I log in. On the other hand, competitors have a chance to catch up now. Which is great news for consumers.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hayward2 13y ago

I'm with Steve Jobs. Google's motto is total bullshit

wil421 13y ago

When I first read this I starting thinking this is a good start but I think these companies are just trying to save face. Now that these programs have been exposed in more light both sides, the government and the companies who participate, are just trying to minimize the impact without telling the full truth about other programs. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-it-analyzes-more-peoples-data-previously-revealed/67287/ http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-i...

apass 13y ago
That's my problem too. They still seem to be trying to just spin the requests better and not addressing the basic over-reach assumption that everyone's info is up for grabs if there is a "51% confidence" you may be whatever their current rationalization is.

coldcode 13y ago

There are better ways these companies could force the government to change: refuse to do business with it. Of course that won't happen.

Bender22 13y ago

Why are links to this letter going down? Even the link at venturebeat.com linked to here is dead now.

mifreewil 13y ago

Fuck the NSA

cik 13y ago

Does anyone seriously believe that this is anything other than PR? While these companies were prevented from disclosing details, they easily could have announced that they're fighting for rights. And that's the problem. Although I won't agree with it, I can understand that Google (and crew) were prevented from DISCLOSING that they're being tapped. Fine, gun to the head and all that. But what prevented them from saying "we receive requests, we fight them", and even providing information on the process of fighting a request.