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

221–230 of 298 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#221

Post by khuey »

adventured wrote: post #191
slg wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

Which is complete bullshit of course. Mike Gravel anyone?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#222

Post by corresation »

electic wrote: post #125
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…

Things done in haste tend to look like this. It is almost absurd to think that every company mentioned somehow came up with the same statement by chance.

We've had this same conspiracy appear a number of times.

It isn't chance that their statements look similar: You can be absolutely sure that each looked to the other for some sort of direction, and once that came they followed the leader simply because it makes sense.

Even excluding that, really how many variations could there possibly be? Someone said you did something illegal. Say "no I didn't do something illegal, and everything I have done has been above the board and transparent". Do the same thing to twenty people and you would get remarkably similar statements, because a response can only come in so many forms.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#223

Post by lifeguard »

akama wrote: post #205
namwen wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain what exactly that is?

I might be wrong, but I believe it a section of the leaked document that discussed using a sniper to kill leaders of Occupy movements.

That is correct. Blackwater working for DHS essentially.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#224

Post by hahnfeld »

slg wrote: post #174
adventured wrote: post #130

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…

That implies the same people who architected this are responsible for the damage control... highly doubtful. The press releases & language reeks of one thing... Lawyers.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#225

Post by [deleted] »

taktix wrote: post #212
arange wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or all these companies are intentionally making similar press releases in hopes people will catch on that theyre being coerced into denying involvement. this way they're (assuming they have one) fulfilling their denial obligation with the NSA, yet still are protesting what they dont actually want to be doing

Yes. The uniformity of their responses is too similar to ignore or dismiss. It's chilling to read. It's a big fat hint to anyone not already drunk on the kool-aid that the NSA is coercing them to lie. They couldn't say it louder if they used a bullhorn.

[deleted]

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#226

Post by incongruity »

arange wrote: post #204
Dove wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not impressed. Most press releases have only a handful of paragraphs. I'd believe it was common to go over the topics of "What We're Talking About, What We Deny, What We Affirm, and How It Could Be Better." It may look impressive that they all say they don't allow "direct access to servers", but it's hardly surprising, since the original Guardian headline[1] was "Top-secret Prism program claims direct access to s…

or all these companies are intentionally making similar press releases in hopes people will catch on that theyre being coerced into denying involvement. this way they're (assuming they have one) fulfilling their denial obligation with the NSA, yet still are protesting what they dont actually want to be doing

The real issue, IMHO, isn't whether or not the companies are participating in PRISM or any similar program – yes, it'd be problematic if they are – but yes or no, the fact that we can so easily be suspicious of our government is much, much more telling about the state of democracy and society in the United States of America. We've seen enough to be unable to trust, regardless of ground truth in this case.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#227

Post by einhverfr »

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…

I looked at these very carefully and slowly, looking for signs of shared authorship or template structure, and the only structures I could find were those practically dictated.

This being said, if you read it more closely what they say is actually quite a bit more damning. Read closely, the denial is actually entirely nonsensical.

Both deny involvement in "PRISM" but both then go on to mistakenly identify PRISM with the Verizon order. Page says he learned about it when Greenwald broke the story (Greenwald broke the Verizon story, the Washington Post broke the PRISM story). Zucherberg similarly talks about metadata significantly.

In essence it is a bait and switch. Sort of like "I wasn't at work yesterday. I can show this because I didn't go on vacation."

The Norwegians have a story called "Good day fellow. Ax handle" which would be a fair summary of what is going on here. The story is about an old deaf ferryman who is deep in debt and left all alone to face the bailiff. So he thinks about all the questions he will face and answers he will give, but when the bailiff comes to ask directions to the inn, he gives answers that are entirely humorous.

Things like:

"Where is your wife?" asked the bailiff (hoping to find someone less confused).

"I am going to tar her. She's lying down on the beach, cracked up at both ends." Replied the ferryman (thinking he was being asked about his boat).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#228

Post by homosaur »

Why would you believe anything these guys have to say on this matter? For one, the government has clearly given them some kind of deniability. For two, if they were given orders under the National Security Letter program, they couldn't admit they had knowledge even if they did.

I don't trust Zuckerberg, I don't trust Larry Page, hell, I wouldn't trust you either if you had to respond.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#229

Post by borlak »

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…

This phrase 'direct access' -- I wouldn't assume, if there exists something like PRISM, that it would have 'direct access' to anybody's servers. More likely, the data would be given from a company TO PRISM.

You could even argue that an API would not be 'direct access'

Re: Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

#230

Post by AJ007 »

mpyne wrote: post #210
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…

Option #6: PRISM is the NSA-end of an interface to each named company to help automate data collection. The company still grabs the data, still runs each request through their legal team, etc. But there's no email or fax needed, requests arrive via something like a JSON request and are automatically returned to NSA once the company looks up the requested data. Company doesn't know NSA calls it PRISM. As far as the co…

There is no way that this is just some nice interface for court ordered collections. Watch the Washington Post video with the (Pulitzer Prize) author Barton Gellman.

Gellman says that "We did hold back quite a bit from this story" and then later goes on to explain the reason the companies joined ... "The law does provide that they can give access and a secret surveillance court can make them give access, but in a situation that you have a clandestine program and a very rich and powerful component ... They don't want to litigate this with Facebook, they don't want a chance of it leaking ... Facebook also being a highly regulated industry, having all kinds of issues with privacy and whatever else doesn't want to antagonize the government, so they negotiate it. Now Apple took .. 5 years .. I don't know what happened, but Microsoft joined in 2007 and Apple didn't do it until the end of 2012."

Unless the author, Gellman, exaggerated the story it is very clear that this is well beyond FISA court ordered surveillance.

If Page's & Zuckerberg's denials are somewhat truthful it means there is a compromise in the traffic streams themselves.

Post reply on HN