41–49 of 49 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says right there in the slides PRISM has direct access to their servers. How the media and the public interpret that, that's different. Maybe if the government was more transparent, this wouldn't happen.
Or maybe the slides are inaccurate?
IMO both journalism and the American people failed to pay adequate attention to this issue, both have gotten what they paid for, and the faux-surprise act of both is hilarious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There is no such thing as a legal obligation to lie. So what are you supposed to do if you're not allowed to disclose something and someone directly asks you about it? An obvious evasion is clearly going to be a de facto admission, and you're not allowed to admit it, so you either have to lie or mislead. I'm not sure the distinction between a lie and a misleading statement is particularly meaningful in this context.
You can say you are not in a legal position to comment on the issue: for a company with scores of lawyers, it's easy enough to hint that you are bound by gag order. None of the big tech companies have an incentive to cover up: for them wiretapping both an extra cost and a continuous PR nightmare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. Hey, why don't we ask someone with first hand knowledge? ...
We can't ask the person who supplied said info since they are anonymous, but you can ask Zuck or Larry since they've personally said the allegations are totally false, so there is that.
I don't know about the collapse of journalism. What it seems to me is the collapse of credibility. Here we have major publications publishing something and then major corporations denying it. Then the publications step back from it, but not entirely. At the same time, this is an issue about which the parties involved may be under a legal obligation to lie . If there is a room at Facebook that does the same thing as t…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server... The slide with the explicit formulation in published today: "Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple." This supports the claims of Glenn Greenwald's article and is exactly what companies claimed not existing.
If it is true, whats worrying is how fast things can escalate to Dr. Stranglove territory.
I don't know about the collapse of journalism. What it seems to me is the collapse of credibility. Here we have major publications publishing something and then major corporations denying it. Then the publications step back from it, but not entirely. At the same time, this is an issue about which the parties involved may be under a legal obligation to lie . If there is a room at Facebook that does the same thing as t…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server... The slide with the explicit formulation in published today: "Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Paltalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple." This supports the claims of Glenn Greenwald's article and is exactly what companies claimed not existing.
Especially in the context of that slide where they are contrasting it with their "upstream" collection which would require sorting out the packets (and presumably decrypting them) before analyzing the data.
It has become a topic but once again, Orwell to the rescue: "the past is alterable." 1984. How true, in this case. But it has been the Post, not the Government, who altered it. Sad, shameful and pathetic.
Correcting your mistakes is not shameful or pathetic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being under a gag order is VERY different from being under a "legal obligation to lie". There is no such thing as a legal obligation to lie. You can be under a legal obligation to not disclose it, or to not talk about it, yes, but to lie about it? No, absolutely not. Maybe these companies have VOLUNTARILY lied, that's possible, but that's also rather unlikely as that would suggest they are friendly with the NSA for s…
>There is no such thing as a legal obligation to lie. So what are you supposed to do if you're not allowed to disclose something and someone directly asks you about it? An obvious evasion is clearly going to be a de facto admission, and you're not allowed to admit it, so you either have to lie or mislead. I'm not sure the distinction between a lie and a misleading statement is particularly meaningful in this context.