Mark Zuckerberg addresses PRISM

Post by joonix » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:05 AM UTC

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

Post by jonny_eh » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:18 AM UTC

joonix wrote: post #231

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

So imagine Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg comes out and admits it. Do you think they end up in federal prison?

Post by pyre » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:26 AM UTC

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…

  | 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.

Post by drhayes9 » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:41 AM UTC

drhayes9 wrote: post #34

kjackson2012 wrote: post #11

It's so creepy how Zuckerberg and Page, as well as every other CEO's responses are worded exactly the same. The same goes for Apple too. It's entirely not believable that everyone's answers would sound so similar.

Makes sense to me: they can't say the government has no access to their servers because, of course, the US courts could compel access to their servers. They're US companies. But a running process or piece of hardware sitting in their DC sniffing traffic? No. That's what I think they're saying, at any rate. EDIT: One plausible explanation for why everyone keeps using the phrase "direct access" is because it appears in…

Post by mattront » Sat, Jun 08, 2013, 2:44 AM UTC

wheels wrote: post #190

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…

Wouldn't Occam's Razor instead suggest that since the Page statement was much earlier that Zuckerberg or whoever wrote this (probably not Mark) just copied the style of Page's statement semi-intentionally? They'd have almost certainly have read it.