White House admits it has 'access' to Facebook, Google

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:27 AM UTC

ihsw wrote: post #8

winslow wrote: post #3

"EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this story was published, The Guardian has reported that the UK intelligence gathering organisation GCHQ has had access to the PRISM system since at least June 2010 and has generated 197 intelligence reports." So other governments have a backdoor to our government's backdoor... What stops China among others from being able to access this? On the other hand, what is the truth if Larry Page is say…

> So other governments have a backdoor to our government's backdoor And we have a backdoor to their backdoor. It's fairly easy to assume that they -- state-sponsored intelligence agencies -- collude with each-other by offering access to each-other's data stores. In a sense we are all foreign to each-other, and the USG may access American data through requests acting as foreign agencies.

Post by milkshakes » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:45 AM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #60

jcampbell1 wrote: post #10

The presentation makes it seem they are harvesting the data. That would resolve any apparent contradiction. The biggest question is how? Surely google has noticed these man in the middle attacks. I think the guardian misinterpreted the word "provider". Edit: it appears the NSA has google's ssl keys. That would explain all the talk about "direct access".

Why would the government choose to use this route to get data from Google/Facebook/etc? This would require them to have to know, and be kept up-to-date, with how every one of their applications sends data across the wire.

Post by jcampbell1 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #57

jcampbell1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you resolve the the fact the presentation is real, and Larry Page's statements? This is the only explanation that makes sense. Some secret court compels Google to provide their TLS keys, which is a a few kb of data. No one at Google has to know, and no one at Google can accidentally detect the leak. Also, can you clarify for me why you think giving someone access to eavesdrop overlaps with "direct access to se…

Could it be that the presentation describes targeted surveillance? PRISM may just be a program to standardize a process and the type and format of information returned.

Post by jcampbell1 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:06 AM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #66

jcampbell1 wrote: post #10

The presentation makes it seem they are harvesting the data. That would resolve any apparent contradiction. The biggest question is how? Surely google has noticed these man in the middle attacks. I think the guardian misinterpreted the word "provider". Edit: it appears the NSA has google's ssl keys. That would explain all the talk about "direct access".

Network dumps would seem unreasonably difficult to deal with considering that the provider has structured data and tools to deal with it.

Post by jcampbell1 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:16 AM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #60

jcampbell1 wrote: post #10

The presentation makes it seem they are harvesting the data. That would resolve any apparent contradiction. The biggest question is how? Surely google has noticed these man in the middle attacks. I think the guardian misinterpreted the word "provider". Edit: it appears the NSA has google's ssl keys. That would explain all the talk about "direct access".

Why would the government choose to use this route to get data from Google/Facebook/etc? This would require them to have to know, and be kept up-to-date, with how every one of their applications sends data across the wire.