[deleted]
[deleted]
Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
31–40 of 298 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#32> Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers.
> ...
> When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law.
So no back door at FB, because the front door is open to secret courts signing the secret subpoenas to do secret things.
Got it.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#33I would like to believe these reports from Google [1] and Facebook [2], but someone is not telling the truth. There is evidence that directly contradicts their stories (i.e. The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of t…
The NSA have hooks in various data centers and internet backbones. They collect the intel indirectly giving the companies plausible deniability.
Yes, but how would they do this exactly? To collect anything valuable from Google they would need to MITM SSL on a large scale. And Chrome actually ships with a list of pinned certificates, including those for Google, making it difficult to MITM even for the government.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#34It's so creepy how Zuckerberg and Page, as well as every other CEO's responses are worded exactly the same. The same goes for Apple too. It's entirely not believable that everyone's answers would sound so similar.
Makes sense to me: they can't say the government has no access to their servers because, of course, the US courts could compel access to their servers. They're US companies.
But a running process or piece of hardware sitting in their DC sniffing traffic? No.
That's what I think they're saying, at any rate.
EDIT: One plausible explanation for why everyone keeps using the phrase "direct access" is because it appears in the Guardian story as the first sentence: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#35Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#36Hmm, what I'd like to hear is tech CEOs say "the NSA does not have the private key for our SSL certs." Beam splitters are a pretty cheap buy.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#37Look at the two writeups (Zuckerberg's and Page's) side by side. Each has 4 paragraphs. Each of the pairs of paragraphs addresses the same thing. 1st paragraph: we wanted to respond to these claims. 2nd paragraph: never heard of PRISM, don't give direct access. 3rd paragraph: each request goes through legal channels. 4th paragraph: encourage governments to be more transparent. Terrifying. EDIT: It gets worse. Here's…
Could Zuckerberg's statement have been "inspired" by Google's? Did any other companies release similar statements?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#38I still find it suspicious that the previous White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, left the White House to work at Facebook.
I realize that statement implies that no one from government can go into the private sector without it suddenly becoming a conspiracy theory, but in this particular case the link is especially concerning.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#39I would like to believe these reports from Google [1] and Facebook [2], but someone is not telling the truth. There is evidence that directly contradicts their stories (i.e. The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of t…
Exactly why is no company addressing the fact that the government already accepted the program's existence and the fact that they snoop emails/communications. How can the program exist and take data and these companies not giving the data at the same time? Other explanations include...
* Data is not, as everyone seems to keep saying, "direct access" and either first sent to NSA servers or a copy is sent periodically.
* Companies don't know and NSA is unlawfully getting data (unlikely).
* Companies are being forced to not talk about it and outright deny it.
* There is somehow a plausible deniability. The are not willingly giving up the data but they aren't stopping them from taking it either and just turning a blind eye to NSA's activities.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#40Look at the two writeups (Zuckerberg's and Page's) side by side. Each has 4 paragraphs. Each of the pairs of paragraphs addresses the same thing. 1st paragraph: we wanted to respond to these claims. 2nd paragraph: never heard of PRISM, don't give direct access. 3rd paragraph: each request goes through legal channels. 4th paragraph: encourage governments to be more transparent. Terrifying. EDIT: It gets worse. Here's…
each were prepared by the same law / PR firm ... ( dont know could be :) ), or even worse , it is a template written directly by your government("if you get caught , say that").
The sad truth is most people dont even care ...