Look 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?
Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
61–70 of 298 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#62Look 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…
PG made a post on Twitter about the Yahoo and Apple quotes being similar, but I initially thought it were probably due to the way the journalist asked the question. The similarity between these two does suggest something else is happening.
Many people are going to jump to the conclusion that it's because they were following the same broad script, but another possibility is that they want people to notice the similarities and become more upset about PRISM.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#63Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pres…
> I'm really not sure why HNers reacted differently in this instance though.
Because the government has admitted it.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google's statement was strong enough to rule out the possibility that either the CEO or chief legal counsel was aware of the existence of NSLs or warrants that are nearly as broad as what Verizon received. Therefore, while they can't say one way or the other whether they receive NSLs, it is a safe inference that Google has not received broad NSLs.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#66Look 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…
I agree with you!
I feel these statements are for the fans of these companies that want to hear it to believe it and quick to dismiss it.
Personally: I got in trouble with Google in 08' and yet I still use their products even assuming that I am probably monitored or easily creating a gov profile that can easily be subpoenaed (or given just b/c they may not like me).
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#67Amazing how much Zuck's PRISM response was like Page's. Almost like the same people were telling them what to say.
Every single official corporate response in this story so far was formulated using the exact same terms, and did not constitute an actual, categorical denial of the claims. We have not giving "direct access". We are providing the government with our data through "legal channels".
Like someone in the other thread about Pages blogpost asked: What could Zuck say more to convince you otherwise?
He says explicitly Facebook is not providing information or metadata "in bulk", which seems to contradict the Guardian article ("direct access").
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#68With the creepy similarities, why do I get the feeling that it's these collective companies way of saying "Yes, they're monitoring you but we just can't say anything..."
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#69Look 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…
I want them to say not only 'direct' access but also no third parties between them and the government. None have said that...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#70I'm now just confused. If I understand it correctly, the government has publicly acknowledged the program and tried to explain how it's "limited and legal," but extant nonetheless. Now the companies are all uniformly denying it. The options:
- The companies are lying.
- The government has infiltrated these companies and developed backdoor access the executive team is unaware of.
- The government is intercepting traffic en-route and doesn't need cooperation of the companies.
- The government is confused on their talking about about what they're confirming here and PRISM has been misinterpreted by the press.
#1 is possible, but implies that there exists a National Security Letter-like mechanism that can coerce this kind of public behavior. I find that unlikely but certainly not impossible; that would definitely be a concerning outcome.
I think #2 is unlikely. There's an interesting passage in the original Washington Post article, though, about how they want to be careful to protect the identities of the cooperating companies so as to not "damage their sources". A simple reading of this is that the companies might pull out if they're publicly exposed as cooperating. However, since they appear capable of coercing cooperating anyway, a slightly more tin-foil-hat reading is that their access is less straightforward than asking Page and Zuckerberg for help.
#3 is probably happening regardless of whatever cooperation the companies are providing. However, if that's the extent of PRISM I think it says interesting things about the likelihood that RSA has fallen. Is that likely? I have no idea. It wouldn't be unprecedented compared to what the NSA and its predecessors have done historically, though. It's worth noting that the NSA hasn't approved asymmetric crypto for protecting classified data. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_B_Cryptography)