Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 298 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#91

Post by drhayes9 »

CoryG89 wrote: post #59
drhayes9 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

I guess anyone with half a brain would hire a really good legal team that would probably arrive at the optimum initial salvo in a lawsuit defense:

* No direct access.

* Never heard of Prism.

* We review each request.

* We want more government transparency.

Edit: Formatted the list.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#92

Post by malandrew »

jfoster wrote: post #62
dkulchenko wrote: post #23

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…

What's most likely is that a PR person in companies B, C and D read the first PR piece from company A, deemed it acceptable and followed it with something similar.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#93

Post by rayiner »

dkulchenko wrote: post #23

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…

It's almost as if they all had their lawyers write these statements, who then wrote it in the predictable, stylized, way lawyers do.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#94

Post by Alex3917 »

jhandl wrote: post #44
kjackson2012 wrote: post #11

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.

"It's like what somebody that's being held hostage would do to make you understand that they can't talk freely."

Assuming it the program is classified, and assuming that Zuckerberg has a security clearance, then under federal law he would potentially be eligible for the death penalty if he were to confirm the existence of the program.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#95

Post by andyl »

Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access"

Google: "the U.S. government does not have direct access"

Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access"

Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access"

The consistency is amazing - do they all use the same law firm?

Something stinks here.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#96

Post by akjetma »

jfoster wrote: post #62
dkulchenko wrote: post #23

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…

We could go one deeper and consider the possibility that they wanted us to think that they were trying to signal something to us with the similar statements so they would have our goodwill. I feel like Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#97

Post by Bjorkbat »

dkulchenko wrote: post #23

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…

Whoa, spooky.

First thing I noticed was really the fact that it took these companies so long to put these statements out there, in Mark's case less than an hour ago as of the time of this posting.

Personally, if someone accused my company of giving customer data to the government, and a large segment of my users believed these claims, then I would switch to damage control mode and send a statement out within 6 hours at the most.

Then again, I suppose if you sent out a statement too soon, then people might think that you knew in advance about the leak.

Well, anyway, the weirdness I observed pales in comparison to the odd coincidence you discovered.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#99

Post by camus »

Achshar wrote: post #50
camus wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well , twitter doesnt publish your IP,your email or your social security number everytime you tweet ... so no , all its data is not public.

How would twitter have it's user's SSN?

i was joking , my point is there are some data twitter has that could be interesting for any administration. There was a case here in France where people were making jokes about jews ( "un bon juif"), Anyway, the french government asked for the ips of the people who made that joke , but Twitter refused to give up user ips.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#100

Post by jlgreco »

benmmurphy wrote: post #88
jlgreco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder if this could happen anyway in reverse.

I suppose though that whatever part of a NSL that authorizes the CEO to tell developers to make it would likely also authorize the CEO to tell the security guys not to sound alarms about it.. at least not without consulting senior management first.

Post reply on HN