[deleted]
Larry Page addresses PRISM
71–80 of 482 posts
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#72I assume the government would require them to deny involvement, just like companies aren't (weren't?) allowed to discuss NSLs. Consequently, I view the denials as meaningless.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they bother asking you, when they could simply ask your ISP? Why ask each customer?
Presumably university IT would have been able to provide more precise demographically identifying data than the ISP. It's unlikely the ISP was running the RADIUS server.
You're right, I hadn't considered that. Identifying individual students within public areas of the network was only possible through the schools ID system. Otherwise public access would be anyones guess as to who was using the computer.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#74IDK, if the gov't has core network switch access and is sniffing all of the packets, that's "back door" enough for my mind.
I'm wouldn't be surprised if none of these companies was involved, and it's just a case that the NSA is simply harvesting and processing all of their traffic for a net same result.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#75I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access". It's the kind of language a lawyer would use to qualify a patent clause. - We do not provide direct access to our servers. - We do not provide direct access nor is there a backdoor. - O, but we do still pipe all of your data to external NSA servers. Every company named (I'm not just picking on Google here) has come out with the same overarching statement. "We do…
> I can't understand the repeated use of "direct access".
From the rest of your comment, I think that you understand it quite well.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
US government agencies have money available to them for this sort of things.
OK. How does this automatically make Google and not, I don't know Chevrolet's onstar system, a target for criticism? Where's the evidence?
I only write this to say that money for such activity is not a problem.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#77[deleted]
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#78Larry Page: "the U.S. government does not have direct access" Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access" Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access" Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access" Remarkably consistent - as if it was coordinated, or scripted by an attorney...
It's not "direct" access, it's access through a one-way live xml feed
It's for the government, gotta be CSV in EBCDIC.
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#79yeah but what about Google's Irish branch?
Re: Larry Page addresses PRISM
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The President getting on national television and acknowledging that the program exists is a pretty big shred of evidence.
He said nothing about Google, which is the topic of the OP.
In case you missed it, this is the program he acknowledged - Note the three Google products whose logos feature prominently in the leaked doc: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...