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

131–140 of 298 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#131

Post by [deleted] »

slg wrote: post #123
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…

The implication that there is some central figure behind this giving these companies scripts to read meets the most common flaw of governmental conspiracy theories. It requires the government to be simultaneously incredibly competent and incompetent. If the NSA was able to keep this project under wraps for so long with the number of people involved, I think they would be smart enough to at least slightly alter the wo…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#132

Post by Cthulhu_ »

dkulchenko wrote: post #103
pitchups wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>..another possibility is that they want people to notice the similarities and become more upset about PRISM. 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.

Realistically though, can you imagine there being so many CEOs knowing that this thing is going on and being forced to lie about it, and not one of them spilling the beans? Even if the gov tries to arrest them for leaking classified information, they'd be near-impossible to convict following the inevitable massive public outcry.

CEO's and public figures? Definitely, if the NSA and similar agencies had the power to label them as traitors and / or terrorists (with all due consequences) and/or destroy their companies.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#133

Post by Miner49er »

frisco wrote: post #70

I'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…

I'm glad you pointed out that the government acknowledged the program. Obama himself did. If I had to guess, there was miscommunication in the government. Somebody ordered the CEO's to lie, and somebody acknowledged the program. I think this is also why the company's statements are nearly the same, they were either given a script or they are trying to send a message.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#134

Post by untog »

pitchups wrote: post #76
jfoster wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>..another possibility is that they want people to notice the similarities and become more upset about PRISM. 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.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you. As in, FB and Google would be totally entitled to say "there is a gag order preventing us from going into this". So they don't need to convey anything.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#135

Post by jlgreco »

samstave wrote: post #126
slg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication that there is some central figure behind this giving these companies scripts to read meets the most common flaw of governmental conspiracy theories. It requires the government to be simultaneously incredibly competent and incompetent. If the NSA was able to keep this project under wraps for so long with the number of people involved, I think they would be smart enough to at least slightly alter the wo…

We see Eglin's sockpuppets all the time on reddit, they are actually pretty easy to spot.

The airforce base has sock puppets?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#137

Post by uh_oh »

deno wrote: post #109
uh_oh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but how would they do this exactly? To collect anything valuable from Google they would need to MITM SSL on a large scale. And Chrome actually ships with a list of pinned certificates, including those for Google, making it difficult to MITM even for the government.

They wouldn’t do that, obviously, even if it was actually feasible. That kind of MITM would be easily detectable (though still effective, in short term)—we know when the Chinese do it. However the private keys have to deployed, on scale. So if as someone here is suggesting the NSA has infiltrated those companies, they could have got those keys and just decrypt the stream. I wouldn’t bet my money on that… but it’s mor…

My understanding is that MITM (but in a perfect way, using the leaked private key) is still required, if ephemeral Diffie-Hellman is involved. You can't just passively record the stream and decrypt it, since you don't know the exchanged DH secret.

The suggestion that the companies actually gave them the keys and this explains the "direct access" phrase makes a lot of sense!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#138

Post by ralfd »

andyl wrote: post #95

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.

What else should they say in your opinion?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#139

Post by adventured »

paulrademacher wrote: post #127
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…

You seem to be suggesting one of two things. Either: 1) The heads of these companies had a conference call this morning and agreed on a 4-paragraph format, with specific points for each paragraph. Or 2) The federal government instructed each company to respond today, with a 4-paragraph point-by-point, and then Larry and Mark obediently complied. Ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous at all that the companies were given basic PR instruction when they signed on, in the case of being asked about the program. In fact, that's exactly what would occur.

What's ludicruous is thinking the Feds are tapping every major telecom provider, but wouldn't do the same to Facebook / Google / Apple / Microsoft. These companies are collectively vastly more important than AT&T and Verizon, worth about a cool trillion dollars, and now make-up a huge portion of the data infrastructure for American consumers.

A spy is given instructions in case of interrogation by the enemy. Why wouldn't a $250 billion corporation be given instruction in case one of the largest spying systems in history hits the public news? It's absurd to think they wouldn't be.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#140

Post by akiselev »

aniket_ray wrote: post #58
jaydz wrote: post #30

Earlier 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…

Sorry, kind of have to throw "benefit of the doubt" out the window when dealing with "massive state-wide surveillance programs that have no transparent oversight."
Post reply on HN