31–40 of 82 posts
Nope, according to a new tweet today by Glenn Greenwald (who broke the story): Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121
Nope, according to a new tweet today by Glenn Greenwald (who broke the story): Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/343421926057861121
Which puts everyone on all sides on notice that they should step carefully with their statements.
Eric Schmidt would be the last person I'd believe on matters related to privacy. He's well-known for basically claiming that we're not entitled to any privacy ("if you don't want anyone to know blah blah ... ") and for later being a vindictive fool when CNET published some of his personal details found through Google. Besides, he's not even CEO anymore, why would he know anything about highly confidential dealings wi…
He never claimed you weren't entitled to any privacy. Have you even read or seen his original words? Would you like Larry Page to detail this for you? or Matt Cutts? Who will you believe?
Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just
published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY
FROM THE SERVERS"
Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA
claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have
to work it out *in public* what they do
We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We
reported - accurately - what the companies claim. It
conflicts. That's why we reported it
Just one more time: NSA on PRISM: "Collection directly
from the servers of these US service providers:
Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook.."From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald : Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim.…
The lede on Greenwald's story:
The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.
Then, just 1 graf later:
The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document [...]
Later:
The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.
The access. Was enabled. No qualifications given.
Next graf:
The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information.
The program now exists. The article no longer reports on the contents of a document, but rather on "the program" itself. Is he talking about PRISM, or about the change to FISA law? It's not clear. But it's clear here:
The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services.
Greenwald has now reified the program and the participation of the listed service providers.
He seems to go back to reporting on the document here:
Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007.
But in fact, the "claim" he's referring to is the calendar date of the start of participation. Next graf:
It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.
It is followed. It is continuing to expand. Not, "the document claims". Words mean things, as Greenwald knows very well.
The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies.
Again: by this point in the article, the collection is happening, the way his interpretation of the leaked slide deck says it is.
A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.
It is able to obtain. Not "claims" to be able to obtain.
Greenwald can't now hide from what he actually wrote, and his attempt to do so is telling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet you keep hanging on that they only mention "direct access" and how the denials are similar, it's not about what you believe to be true or not, it's about the things you say that aren't true - here is an example of a denial that does not only include "direct access" but all sorts of access as well.
I don't want to start a flame war with you, but in lieu of repeating what others have already said to you regarding the "direct access" quote (I'm not "hanging on" btw, I have read the other reports as well), I'll just leave this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420
I'm not sure what is rumored or not, or what is true or not. My point is that they deny involvement in PRISM, and by PRISM I mean the program that alleges access to company servers.
From Glenn Greenwald's twitter, https://twitter.com/ggreenwald : Allow me to quote from the NSA document we just published defining PRISM: "COLLECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE SERVERS" Our story was written *from the start* to say NSA claimed this, telecoms deny-we wanted them to have to work it out *in public* what they do We reported - accurately - what the NSA claims. We reported - accurately - what the companies claim.…
On another topic, oh to be a fly in the wall when Mr US Citizen Greenwald passes through JFK customs.