US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#2If the companies knew about the data collection but were prevented from speaking about it due to being served with national security letters, does this admission change what they can talk about? And/or does it indirectly confirm the existence of NSLs?
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#3No one denied complying with 702 orders. The main contention about PRISM isn't that the entities receiving data requests knew that they were receiving these requests, the main contention was/is about the "direct access" allegations which is what these companies actually denied, that and knowing the government codename for the program.
Bad reporting.
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#4If the companies knew about the data collection but were prevented from speaking about it due to being served with national security letters, does this admission change what they can talk about? And/or does it indirectly confirm the existence of NSLs?
No. They were only prevented from speaking about how many they received, and still are except in broad buckets. The existence of NSLs and the fact that they were about collecting certain users' data have both been directly confirmed by all parties since NSLs existed.
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#5First, even if the companies did know, there was probably a tacit agreement with the NSA that the NSA would always allow them plausible deniability. "Not only are you doing your country a great (and legally-required) service, but everyone involved will go to their graves with the details. Have you heard about how [competitors/famous-companies X, Y, Z] have fully cooperated for decades? You haven't? Exactly."
The NSA seems to have been forced by events to break that likely mutual-understanding.
Second, what does it mean for a "company" to know something? What if one compartmentalized group of employees know – perhaps ex-military/intelligence people themselves – and believe they are both compelled to comply and to keep the full details from upper management (for everyone's protection)?
Does that count as the "company" knowing? I could see the CEOs saying, as they have, "no", and the NSA saying, as they are here, "yes".
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#6Ah - so we've been focusing our hate on the wrong entity?
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#7No one denied complying with 702 orders. The main contention about PRISM isn't that the entities receiving data requests knew that they were receiving these requests, the main contention was/is about the "direct access" allegations which is what these companies actually denied, that and knowing the government codename for the program. Bad reporting.
The second paragraph of the article claims that companies knew about "upstream" collection as well. This is, from my understanding, the main point, as the Google engineer Brandon Downey issued the very harsh statement, and I quote, "fuck these guys", when the infamous smiley-face slide leaked.
EDIT: Apparently the "upstream" collection does not refer to the third capture method in question, which exploited the fact that Google did not (at the time) encrypt its internal communications.
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#8Simply disgusting.
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#9No one denied complying with 702 orders. The main contention about PRISM isn't that the entities receiving data requests knew that they were receiving these requests, the main contention was/is about the "direct access" allegations which is what these companies actually denied, that and knowing the government codename for the program. Bad reporting.
The second paragraph of the article claims that companies knew about "upstream" collection as well. This is, from my understanding, the main point, as the Google engineer Brandon Downey issued the very harsh statement, and I quote, "fuck these guys", when the infamous smiley-face slide leaked. EDIT: Apparently the "upstream" collection does not refer to the third capture method in question, which exploited the fact t…
iirc "upstream" refers to collection out on the Internet - the "fuck those guys" program is MUSCULAR, which is the tapping of private interdatacenter links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstream_collection vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCULAR
Re: US tech giants knew of NSA data collection, agency's top lawyer insists
#10No one denied complying with 702 orders. The main contention about PRISM isn't that the entities receiving data requests knew that they were receiving these requests, the main contention was/is about the "direct access" allegations which is what these companies actually denied, that and knowing the government codename for the program. Bad reporting.
The second paragraph of the article claims that companies knew about "upstream" collection as well. This is, from my understanding, the main point, as the Google engineer Brandon Downey issued the very harsh statement, and I quote, "fuck these guys", when the infamous smiley-face slide leaked. EDIT: Apparently the "upstream" collection does not refer to the third capture method in question, which exploited the fact t…
The "fuck you"s were directed at interceptions under executive order 12333 which as the second to last paragraph makes clear was not a subject of discussion.
PRISM and UPSTREAM featured in the same slide which would explain them being discussed together, but UPSTREAM isn't subject to tech firms' whims so the discussion might have been concerning telecom firms as well.
The reporting isn't clear, best read the transcript when available.