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

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#161

Post by morpher »

mpyne wrote: post #121
moskie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that "direct access to servers" is not a specific term. Given the various definitions it could have, everyone could be being truthful. Some would interpret "direct access" to mean root level access to their entire infrastructure, which sounds absurd to me, yet some people seem to believe that's what's happening. And it's my understanding that this is what Google, facebook, etc. have been denying.…

> It is just not a useful term, and should be replaced with something more specific in all these instances How about "collection directly from the server of..." just like it appeared in the actual slide, instead of 'direct access' as everyone else misquotes it?

Compared to data intercepted from "upstream", any data sent in response to a FISA request would be "directly from company X's servers". That doesn't necessarily imply that the NSA has direct access to the servers.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#162

Post by b6 »

furyofantares wrote: post #160
specialist wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was expecting to find comment by tptacek explaining how WP's Craig Timberg has no journalistic integrity because "direct access" clearly doesn't mean the NSA gets whatever data it wants by whatever means necessary. Rather, "direct access" can only imply the NSA administers the credentials of each and every server and database existent, which clearly couldn't be true. Maybe he's busy. I'll check back.

How is this related to the comment you're replying to? I don't understand the connection.

It wasn't. I agree there's a little bit of wrongness to that, but I hope his parent post won't mind too much, because there's a lot of truth to his point. Often we get more information like this, a fuller understanding of how Americans have been paying billions of dollars to fund this surveillance weapon that threatens the human race, and find an extremely well-written post by an obviously highly intelligent tptacek at the top, explaining why, strictly speaking, this is all legal -- or something. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it annoying.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#163

Post by ignostic »

mpyne wrote: post #139
david_shaw wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this. I totally agree that these organiz…

(D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.

I kind of rambled around the point, but I was trying to say much the same thing.

It's also very possible that the slide traded some simplicity for accuracy because it was being presented to a group of people who didn't really care or understand the details and technicalities.

Also, (E), The companies didn't "give" the government direct access, but were quietly complicit in allowing them to collect data.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#164

Post by jlgreco »

chrissnell wrote: post #131

For those with security clearances, clicking on a random HN link is risking your job and livelihood. It's easy to see a link to WikiLeaks and avoid that but when it's the WP posting it, not so much. These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them. I don't want to see a TS/SCI-classified document and I don't want to be seen as seeking them out. I love the technical stories…

> These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them

If you are not permitted to use the internet like an adult, that is your problem.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#165

Post by ajtaylor »

anigbrowl wrote: post #146

I'm amused by BLARNEY. I presume this represents cable that runs from the US to Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blarney_Stone Before the safeguards were installed, the kiss was performed with real risk to life and limb, as participants were grasped by the ankles and dangled bodily from the height. I can reliably inform you that this is indeed as scary as it sounds.

Been there, done that. I've only kissed the Blarney Stone with the safeguards, but it was still pretty freaky leaning down for the kiss. Everyone should do it at least once. :)

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#166

Post by falk »

zmmmmm wrote: post #159

Are we agreed that the Washington Post has had access to the full set of slides all along and are choosing to dribble them out, one by one? If so I feel that there's a certain lack of ethics involved in this. We now have a slide recommending "direct access", after weeks of denials and pointless discussion about it that would have been much clarified and bolstered if this slide had been released. On the other hand, we…

On the contrary, we've caught a lot of people in a lot of lies. It's worth noting that the Guardian published this slide weeks ago, except they redacted some information. We most likely wouldn't still be talking about this if the Washington Post and Guardian played all their cards at once.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#167

Post by mh- »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #142
chrissnell wrote: post #131

For those with security clearances, clicking on a random HN link is risking your job and livelihood. It's easy to see a link to WikiLeaks and avoid that but when it's the WP posting it, not so much. These articles really need to be flagged/tagged by HN and by the newspapers that publish them. I don't want to see a TS/SCI-classified document and I don't want to be seen as seeking them out. I love the technical stories…

How about taking the necessary precautions yourself instead of asking a website to protect you from illegal information?

what precautions should/could he take, other than avoiding HN entirely?

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#168

Post by PavlovsCat »

b6 wrote: post #162
furyofantares wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this related to the comment you're replying to? I don't understand the connection.

It wasn't. I agree there's a little bit of wrongness to that, but I hope his parent post won't mind too much, because there's a lot of truth to his point. Often we get more information like this, a fuller understanding of how Americans have been paying billions of dollars to fund this surveillance weapon that threatens the human race, and find an extremely well-written post by an obviously highly intelligent tptacek…

Those posts usually have a lot of responses that rise to the challenge though, and without any opposition or advocacy for the devil, much less (or even nothing) is learned. I don't think it's fair to call him out like that, HN is better than this and posts can be dealt with on a one by one basis.

Take off all the nicks, for maximum message resolution.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#169

Post by furyofantares »

b6 wrote: post #162
furyofantares wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this related to the comment you're replying to? I don't understand the connection.

It wasn't. I agree there's a little bit of wrongness to that, but I hope his parent post won't mind too much, because there's a lot of truth to his point. Often we get more information like this, a fuller understanding of how Americans have been paying billions of dollars to fund this surveillance weapon that threatens the human race, and find an extremely well-written post by an obviously highly intelligent tptacek…

Oh, I figured I was missing some context. I still hope that's the case. I'm not sure what value there is to replying to imagined posts by people who aren't posting, and hijacking the top rated comment to boot.

Re: The NSA slide you haven’t seen

#170

Post by zmmmmm »

falk wrote: post #166
zmmmmm wrote: post #159

Are we agreed that the Washington Post has had access to the full set of slides all along and are choosing to dribble them out, one by one? If so I feel that there's a certain lack of ethics involved in this. We now have a slide recommending "direct access", after weeks of denials and pointless discussion about it that would have been much clarified and bolstered if this slide had been released. On the other hand, we…

On the contrary, we've caught a lot of people in a lot of lies. It's worth noting that the Guardian published this slide weeks ago, except they redacted some information. We most likely wouldn't still be talking about this if the Washington Post and Guardian played all their cards at once.

> It's worth noting that the Guardian published this slide weeks ago, except they redacted some information

Heh, well, I guess I fell for the incorrect headline then. Thanks.

Post reply on HN