Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

facebook.com

141–150 of 298 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#141

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.

You don't get to be CEO unless you can learn to lie & keep secrets.

OTOH, I'm more skeptical about the implementation side. Have you ever set up a feed between two different organizations that needs to transmit a massive amount of data in real-time? It's an immensely complicated undertaking requiring a whole team on both sides, with managers, engineers, techwriters, QA, and support staff. It seems a little unbelievable to me that one of them wouldn't spill the beans, particularly if asked to participate in a morally-questionable program.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#142
Anyone find it interesting that "direct access to servers" keeps being mentioned when PRISM could almost be an in-joke for the kind of beam-splitting tech they were already using in Room 641A (and elsewhere) - i.e. they're not touching servers, they're just siphoning off a perfect copy of all network traffic

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#143

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…

Microsoft did directly deny being in a widescale program - it's here:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jun13/06-06st...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#145
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem likely to me. If you want to let the truth be known, but you feel so much under the gun that you issue not just a minimum-compliance false statement but a fulsome one under your own name, would you really feel safe contacting a bunch of other Silicon Valley CEOs to co-ordinate such a subtle but intentional secret message?

The last part in each, the part about transparency, makes me think that it is possible they all decided to co-ordinate an intentional not secret message: they think there should be more transparency.

Sure: it seems possible that these statements are co-ordinated, but instead of being false or deceptive statements co-ordinated by a three-letter agency they're truthful or largely truthful statements co-ordinated by the tech companies' PR departments, and the close similarities are designed to amplify a message the companies agreed among themselves. Of course, under the circumstances the similarity looks suspicious, but it seems possible that could be an unintentional blunder rather than a genuine sign of guilt.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#146
post #13

Earlier 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?

> I mean Apple only got added in 2011. If what you're saying is true then what does this date refer to?

Growing popularity and usage of icloud and apple's own messaging system? iirc, before icloud, Apple didn't have that much user data.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#147
post #13

Earlier 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?

iMessage debuted in 2011.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#149
post #134

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.

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.

> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can admit to a gag order being placed on you.

At least sometimes that it is the case, though I don't know if it generally is.

If you have been authorized to have access to classified information, such as (if one accepts the authenticity of the presentation that the Guardian and WaPo have reported on) even the existence of PRISM, on the other hand, there are fairly substantial legal consequences to unauthorized divulgence of that information, and those consequences don't necessarily go away because someone else gave out the information first.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#150
post #93

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.

You're raining on someone's conspiracy parade, there.
Post reply on HN