rasterizer

8 ms·

31.
by rasterizer 13y ago
It depends on who you prefer should read them: Obama or Putin, the CIA or the KGB.
32.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have a transparency report at all unless everything is on the table? I disagree. They aren't even allowed to mention FISA so they don't, and they don't have to disclose anything. Ed
33.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Isn't it illegal to disclose these?
34.
by rasterizer 13y ago
It wouldn't just break IMAP, POP, and search; it would also break the cooler new stuff like Inbox Actions and Google Now. Is it either privacy or usability?! It's fundamentally an issue with the law: if they can't even featur
35.
by rasterizer 13y ago
For those now lauding non-US companies: keep in mind that you can not be certain that they aren't under any local intelligence orders and if/when they plan to enter the massive US market they will probably be tapped as well.
36.
by rasterizer 13y ago
He says it's not integrated: PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program. It is an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence inf
37.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Then how do you explain the difference between Verizon's statement ( http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/from-the-desk-of-... ) in which they basically acknowledge the reports and point to their gag-orde
38.
by rasterizer 13y ago
The gulf between these slides and the issued denials and other theories represented by the likes of the NYT (an automated system to speedup compliance) is widening. Could it be that the slides were made by a non-technical person who was ove
39.
by rasterizer 13y ago
That is not PRISM though, PRISM is about the existence of backdoors that allow direct access to company servers.
40.
by rasterizer 13y ago
The whole problem with PRISM is that the government potentially can tunnel into company servers and take what they like, and that is being disputed by the accused companies. I'm not sure what is rumored or not, or what is true or not.
41.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Yet you keep hanging on that they only mention "direct access" and how the denials are similar, it's not about what you believe to be true or not, it's about the things you say that aren't true - here is an example
42.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Google Chief Legal Officer: "the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box" https://plus.google.com/+google/posts/TMh6gUVrwMq
43.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Drummond adds: We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. I
44.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Google CLO responding to the NYT et al: We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being
45.
The Washington Post Has Now Hedged Its Claims About PRISM(businessinsider.com)
34 points by rasterizer 13y ago|5 comments
46.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Lawyer-speak tends to be consistent.
47.
by rasterizer 13y ago
That's not true, in Verizon's case they just said that they are under a gag-order: http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/from-the-desk-of-...
48.
by rasterizer 13y ago
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion, to me it reads like the opposite of slick lawyer talk, it's pretty unambiguous: "No direct access", "No backdoors". "Press reports that suggest that Goog
49.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Isn't access to actual servers (shell or otherwise) the real issue here? complying with subpoenas and warrants isn't much of an issue at all.
50.
by rasterizer 13y ago
The NYT also disputes earlier claims: While the newspapers portrayed the classified documents as indicating that the N.S.A. obtained direct access to the companies’ servers, several of the companies — including Google, Facebook, Microsoft
51.
by rasterizer 13y ago
The "directly" bit is being questioned: The Washington Post backtracks on claim tech companies ‘participate knowingly’ in PRISM data collection http://thenextweb.com/us/2013/06/07/wapost-backtra
52.
by rasterizer 13y ago
"Front door" is court orders and warrants: these are far less problematic.
53.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Google flatout says "no backdoors".
54.
NSA Monitoring Includes Three Major Phone Companies, ISPs, Credit Card Providers(online.wsj.com)
315 points by rasterizer 13y ago|9 comments
55.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Why is Google being singled out? atleast they are among the ones denieing this report: http://marketingland.com/google-apple-facebook-deny-nsa-pris... And why are you omitting Apple from the title while listing Google twice (YouTube)? and
56.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Why aren't the rest of the companies on that list issuing false denials if that's the case?
57.
Google, Apple and Facebook Deny Participating In Alleged NSA “PRISM” Program(marketingland.com)
201 points by rasterizer 13y ago|100 comments
58.
by rasterizer 13y ago
Actually it's the backdoor bit that's more problematic. If they hand data by court order that is acceptable but if the government has direct lines to servers that is much more problematic.
59.
by rasterizer 13y ago
For what it's worth Apple and Google denie it: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100797046
60.
by rasterizer 13y ago
It's funny how some people can produce walls of text attacking Google at the drop of a hat. If you've actually read that post you'd have noticed that the author is misrepresenting her assumptions as facts by repurposing out of context comme

More ›