> Google has officially denied being a part of PRISM.
They have denied knowledge of the use of the word "PRISM" to describe anything that they are participating in. So, they've denied nothing in that regard. It just means PRISM is the NSA codename.
> First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.
"Any program" would be broad enough, but he didn't say that at all. He said they are not part of "any program that would give any government direct access to their servers." I could drive a truck through the holes left in that wording.
Do they have indirect access? Some API perhaps? Do they have any means by which they can automate the export of data for whoever they want, perhaps after clicking a checkbox that says that the target is officially under surveillance? Is there some form of data sharing that is brokered through a trusted non-government entity?
He also goes on to say that they follow the law (meaningless if the law says to hand over the data), and they frequently push back (which orders do they push back on? Probably not the orders that they aren't allowed to legally push back on).
He states that they don't follow "broad orders for all data", but this is easily satisfied by the description in the Guardian article that says an analyst simply has to certify each request by saying they believe that there is a 51% probability that the request is legitimate. Obviously, no one at Google even could challenge such requests.
They have denied knowledge of the use of the word "PRISM" to describe anything that they are participating in. So, they've denied nothing in that regard. It just means PRISM is the NSA codename.