71–80 of 298 posts
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…
> 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.
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…
what could go wrong? http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/Occ...
It'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.
I can't help but think that they agreed to word this so similarly as a way to hint that the words have been put in their mouths. It's like what somebody that's being held hostage would do to make you understand that they can't talk freely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If it is possible though, there could perhaps be an NSL that covers "just gmail" that is otherwise as broad as the Verizon one.
The notion that a CEO could be unaware of something like that happening is incredibly disturbing though. I hope that is not possible.
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…
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 similari…
Ah, that makes sense, if they are under a gag order, but yet want to subtly convey that they are under a gag order! It would be a brilliant way of circumventing it.
I 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.
I mean you still need to deal with private keys but the NSA might have the certificate authorities wrapped around their fingers.
I 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.
I mean Apple only got added in 2011. If what you're saying is true then what does this date refer to?
I 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…
Secondly, in defense of the companies, at least Google and Facebook, they've put up real people (Zuckerberg and Page) behind these assertions. In the case of the leaker, we just know that he/she is a career intelligence official...which could mean many things.
No, I'm not saying that leakers should be distrusted until they identify themselves...I'm saying when the evidence that the leaker has given is heavily redacted, then it's hard to know what assertions the responding companies have to actually lie about.
In other words, it could be the case that we shouldn't believe anyone so far.
