Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NSA slide you haven’t seen

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 202 posts

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#2

Post by btipling »

> "collection directly from the servers"

So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#4

Post by kimlelly »

btipling wrote: post #2

> "collection directly from the servers" So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.

> I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access.

Do you really have that much faith in those companies? Seems like some kind of super-power to me.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#5

Post by count »

btipling wrote: post #2

> "collection directly from the servers" So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.

So, if you're under oath, you're not allowed to lie. And if you're read into an SCI program that controls the disclosure of the existence of such access, you're most definitely not allowed to say anything about it (or, in many cases, even acknowledge that such a thing exists).

There is no way someone would risk perjuring themselves OR disclosing classified information under oath.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#8

Post by danso »

oscilloscope wrote: post #6

It may have been published at the Post for the first time, but Guardian released this over a month ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...

Was just about to post this, the only difference is that two of the secret program names are unredacted in the Wapo version.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#9

Post by sneak »

oscilloscope wrote: post #6

It may have been published at the Post for the first time, but Guardian released this over a month ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...

The codenames of some of the collection codenames were redacted: FAIRVIEW and BLARNEY were visible, STORMBREW and OAKSTAR were not.

What's really quite interesting is that they're typeset differently on the redacted/unredacted slides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...

EDIT: Also, as the WaPo article points out, the map is different too...

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#10

Post by ktsmith »

oscilloscope wrote: post #6

It may have been published at the Post for the first time, but Guardian released this over a month ago. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server...

There are a number of differences between the two slides including the Post version having no redactions.
Post reply on HN