181–190 of 298 posts
1. If you are asked about it, you will deny it, and LIE about it. They actually tell you to lie. 2. If you break the contract you will be destroyed, and everyone you know will be destroyed.
Ask a senior member of the military how this stuff works.
> I have no idea what you're talking about. > We only give access when absolutely necessary within the confines of the law. > We're on our customers side.
Now some of the terms such as "direct access" are errily familiar, I'll give you that but the message being conveyed and the order it's formed woudn't be enough to suprised me on it's own and the guys working PR for these orgs are probably pretty inbred. Still, it is interesting.
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.
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.
I think that explanation strikes an appropriate balance of competence and incompetence.
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...
-priceless. Of course they wouldn't participate in such a thing voluntarily, can you imagine how expensive that would be...
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…
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…
#3 doesn't necessarily require breaking RSA, just TLS (via fake certificates or something else). Breaking RSA would be pretty interesting though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wrong, it does not require that they be incredibly competent, not in the least. It requires that they coordinated with the companies PR departments in the process of setting up the program. The companies asked: what if the shit hits the fan, or this comes out in the public, what do we say? And the government had a simple, boilerplate answer for it. You wouldn't even have to work with the PR dept, just one sing…
Let me be more clear. The part that requires competence is everything up to the leak. Given the scope, keeping this quiet is no small task. It isn't just keeping the people who know about this from talking. It is also preventing other people from finding out. Depending the way they theoretically got this data, that could stretch from keeping this hidden directly in the code base at Facebook to hiding huge amounts of…
Rumors of widespread data collection -- even specifically by the NSA -- from many of the providers at issue have surfaced many times, what was new recently is the same (or substantially similar) bits of documentary evidence substantiating and connecting those rumors.
So, to all appearances, it may not really have been "kept quiet" up until the recent leak, it was just that the information that got out before wasn't as well-supported and therefore hard to dismiss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I agree, and this is the exact same reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists have such a weak argument: of the 535 representatives in Congress, NOT ONE spoke up and said it was an inside job? Or any of their interns, assistants, etc.
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…
