ok now... how Twitter's CEO will respond with 140 chars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0
"400 billion Tweets and not one useful bit of data was ever transmitted"
Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
51–60 of 298 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#52I 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…
To quote myself in another message,
> I've never taken a single lesson in legal or PR and even I can see the big huge holes. They insist on direct access, they insist on servers rather than data and they insist on governments.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#53I believe, without a doubt, that both the Zuck response and the Page response were created from the same template or set of explanations. Unless all these CEOs met up together and decided how they would respond, then this seems very shady to me indeed.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#54Apple's response:
We hadn't even heard of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Facebook before yesterday.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#55Look 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…
This is the first thing I noticed. It really scares me as well. I put more of my trust in Google, and perhaps even Facebook then I place in the Gov. or the phone companies and others. However, these definitely look like they are created from the same template. Very worrying coming from Page and Zuckerberg like this at the exact same time. I just hope there really isn't a man behind the curtain pulling the strings of such powerful figures in technology today.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could Zuckerberg's statement have been "inspired" by Google's? Did any other companies release similar statements?
In college, after we'd submit a programming assignment, our code was run through a program to test for plagiarism of another student's code. Can we run the same analysis on these announcements?
Something like this? http://churnalism.com/
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#57I 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…
There is no contradiction if you accept the suggestion from http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001431.html that the NSA got access to this information by planting moles at target companies who then created back doors for the NSA to use. This would be reasonably easy for the NSA to do, relatively hard for companies to catch, and perfectly explains all published facts.
How are NSLs addressed? I assume to the CEO, but what if one was sent to a departmental VP? Would that VP be permitted, by the NSL, to inform the CEO that the letter had been received?
For that matter, who is the CEO authorized to tell if the CEO got the letter. Obviously they have to be authorized to tell at least enough employees to actually implement the demand.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#58> Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. Amazing how all them, to a company, are using the "direct access" phrase. Plausible deniability for the whole world to see along with the revelation of the biggest spying operation in history.
I agree, the funny thing is Obama already admitted the programs existence (WSJ article).
The WSJ article was about NSA requesting CDRs from Verizon. This is not the same as having unrestricted access to private user data as the presentation titled PRISM claims.
The strange thing is that just having a presentation is usually not enough for the HN crowd. If it would have been, I would never have to execute on any of my ideas beyond the presentation stage. Personally, I really don't think some making a presentation is really evidence of anything.
I'm really not sure why HNers reacted differently in this instance though.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#59It'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…
It's not just using the phrase 'direct access'. Anyone with half a brain knows that all these CEOs could not have released this responses that are so exactly the same except for choice of words independently. There has to be some explanation, whether it is completely innocent, or otherwise, is the question for me.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#60The keyword for me here is "direct".
If PRISM is indeed a "prism", that is, a network-level dump, duplicate RAW of data, then there is no direct access involved.