About this direct access phrase, I read a post earlier today (linked from a comment on HN but can't find it now...) that described a hypothetical system offered by facebook to intelligence agencies, this system would allow the user to search for a person and then accept a EULA before being given access to personal information. If this system were to automate the submission and acceptance of a subpoena, would the system then be classed as having given indirect access through the correct "legal channels"?
Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
81–90 of 298 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#82Look 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?
They have good lawyers who come to similar conclusions how to formulate these statements from a legal and PR perspective.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How should he phrased his FB post differently?
The question is not "how should" but rather "how could".
And the answer is "a myriad of different phrasings could have expressed the same content. English, even encumbered by lawyers, is like that.".
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#84Look 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…
I hope someone can find out if possibly these CEOs met yesterday. Perhaps they decided to try and come up with a uniform and consistent way to respond to this situation, and there wasn't some external source actually able to tell them all what to say. If there is not some kind of explanation such as this I am going to have to rethink how much trust I can have in such huge companies with no real clue about who is really controlling the show.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#85I have also been skeptical of the carefully worded releases, but looking at the PRISM slides more carefully just now, nothing on them necessarily indicates that the target companies actually know what is happening. Perhaps PRISM is based on partnering with backbone providers to suck data straight off the pipe, and the "Dates When PRISM Collection Began" refer to dates when they completed software to scope out information specifically destined for or leaving the services of each "provider".
This is just a possibility - I tend to believe the companies are simply lying. But it is possible.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#86I'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 traff…
#3 doesn't necessarily require breaking RSA, just TLS (via fake certificates or something else). Breaking RSA would be pretty interesting though.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#87ok now... how Twitter's CEO will respond with 140 chars?
Well the original comment was a bit of a joke. As many of you say that twitter info is public I do not agree. Twitter knows what i search, knows where I am all the time and what I feel about it. Knows with what I interact. I never said that I liked "kittens" but it has that information as google does.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yeah, I'm wondering if "someone down the chain in Gmail got NSL'd" is a possibility or not. I'm not familiar with Google's org chart nor do I know if NSLs are even flexible enough to accomplish such a thing. 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 incredibl…
I assume they can but it would be a risky strategy. If google security found a breach where customer data was being leaked then they might disclose publicly before they can be informed that it is a national security issue.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NSA have hooks in various data centers and internet backbones. They collect the intel indirectly giving the companies plausible deniability.
Right. But if you look at the slide why would companies slowly get "added" rather than just implicitly be being spied upon? I mean Apple only got added in 2011. If what you're saying is true then what does this date refer to?
> But if you look at the slide why would companies slowly get "added" rather than just implicitly be being spied upon?
Well, if they are intercepting data through backbones, and much of that data is encrypted, they need to defeat the encryption in a durable way to get a clear feed. While I don't suggest that this is what was going on, if it was, there would be know reason that each provider would necessarily be broken at the same time; there would likely both be prioritization of resources directed at each provider, differences in the security of each provider, and chance involved as to when each was broken.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
One explanation is a coordinated call for transparency. The last paragraph certainly has greater weight when sung in chorus. If you look at the releases of the EFF and Google over the last 48 hours there seems to be a growing plea for this.