Live data from Hacker News

Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

facebook.com

191–200 of 298 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#191
post #174

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…

It's not difficult to keep something quiet when the consequences are that you violate national security and go to prison.

Senator Wyden has openly talked about how he wanted to say something about these programs, and even now he can't reveal details of what's going on because it would violate national security and he'd probably be put in prison or at the least removed from Congress.

The overall fact that the NSA has been reading our email, tracking us on Facebook, tapping our phones, etc. has not been kept quiet. Exact details are far more difficult to come by, even now those are classified. The IRS was talking about their right to read our email four years ago. The IRS has no known infrastructure to pull that off, it's clear they were talking about NSA or FBI programs.

As someone else noted, the government is very frequently both competent and incompetent when performing tasks or running programs. There's nothing unusual about that, you see it throughout the government bureaucracy. Sometimes they pull off impressive feats that you only read about decades later, and other times they're Nixon trying to cover up Watergate.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#192

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…

Maybe they just copied each other's language?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#193
post #170
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implicit confirmation that the programs described in the press are real and as described goes all of the way to Obama himself. For example he responded to a reporter today by saying, "With respect to the Internet and emails, this does not apply to U.S. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the United States." If the programs were not as described, Obama would have certainly said so. Instead he confirmed…

FWIW, here's the press conference referred to, and here's the question: > Q Mr. President, could you please react to the reports of secret government surveillance of phones and Internet? And can you also assure Americans that the government -- your government doesn't have some massive secret database of all their personal online information and activities? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. When I came into this office, I made two…

See http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...; for the full answer to the question. Obama separately addresses the phone issue and the internet issue. In both cases he implicitly admits that what was said in the press about them is substantively true. In both cases he claims that Congress and the FISA court were kept appraised. In both cases he defends the programs with justifications that can be supported by what was said about them in the press. He makes it clear that they are separate programs.

The inevitable conclusion is that while he did not specifically confirm what was said in the press, he lent great credibility to the leaks being real documents describing real programs.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#194

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…

Totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent what could go wrong? http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/14030/large/Occ...

Could you explain what exactly that is?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#195
post #65

Earlier 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.

No it wasn't strong enough. All the companies ruled out is direct access (and Microsoft said is if there's a voluntary program, they're not part of it; they didn't rule out an involuntary program of course). They did not rule out even something so simple as an API, or another party doing the work for the NSA (which the NSA then taps into, ala the Palantir concept).

We may be thinking of different statements by Google. The one that I am thinking of is at https://plus.google.com/106189723444098348646/posts/A98pnaek.... Specifically this chunk of paragraph 3:

Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#196

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...

No, they didn't deny anything meaningful.

An NSA program like this would not be voluntary.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#197
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong on this one sadly. If you receive a national security letter, you are not allowed to tell anyone (not your family, not your lawyer, not anyone). If you break the life-long gag order, you go to jail for up to 5 years. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte... ; Hundreds of thousands of these have been issued, and the above story (about the owner of an ISP) is one of the few cases whe…

Aha. Thank you for citing a source on this one. I still wonder though, if your involvement has been directly leaked, whether you are able to confirm the existence of it. I suppose it wouldn't be a course of action any lawyer recommends.

Particularly at the rate the Obama Admin has been prosecuting people on leaks, there's little question it would still be very advisable to err on the side of extreme caution.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#199
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're wrong on this one sadly. If you receive a national security letter, you are not allowed to tell anyone (not your family, not your lawyer, not anyone). If you break the life-long gag order, you go to jail for up to 5 years. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifte... ; Hundreds of thousands of these have been issued, and the above story (about the owner of an ISP) is one of the few cases whe…

You can't even tell your lawyer?!

That can't be constitutional. The government has no right to even know whether you told your lawyer or not.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#200
post #52

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…

To quote myself in another message, > I've never taken a single lesson in legal or PR and even I can see the big huge holes. They insist on direct access, they insist on servers rather than data and they insist on governments.

Anything else would be simply untrue. These companies obviously give limited data (not server access, not direct) to the government when required by subpoena and whatnot so they couldn't say "we give no access to any data" or anything like that.
Post reply on HN