251–260 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There's no point in being a billionaire high-tech visionary if you're stuck behind bars on treason charges. To us he'd be a hero, to the rest of America he's just helped out terrorists by coming clean.
I don't think it would happen. It would be a disaster and a scandal for any administration to pursue such charges against someone so high profile.
Responses from Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg are suspiciously very similar...
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…
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…
Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access" Google: "the U.S. government does not have direct access" Apple: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access" Yahoo: "We do not provide the government with direct access" The consistency is amazing - do they all use the same law firm? Something stinks here.
That's what they mean by not providing direct access.
The government can't just waltz into their front doors and just ask for the data of all the users. Nor does the government have straight access to the servers or databases.
Hope you understand now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There's no point in being a billionaire high-tech visionary if you're stuck behind bars on treason charges. To us he'd be a hero, to the rest of America he's just helped out terrorists by coming clean.
I don't think it would happen. It would be a disaster and a scandal for any administration to pursue such charges against someone so high profile.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So imagine Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg comes out and admits it. Do you think they end up in federal prison?
Yes. There's no point in being a billionaire high-tech visionary if you're stuck behind bars on treason charges. To us he'd be a hero, to the rest of America he's just helped out terrorists by coming clean.
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'