What does this mean for Google and the others participating in the program? I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement.
> I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement.
They swore they didn't allow the NSA to access their servers. All we know that they do is comply with lawful requests for users data. There was no lying involved.
Where's the lie? PRISM is the name of an NSA software package used to collate data the agency receives under a well-known section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
But because of poor reporting and unintentional errors, the name of a software program used to analyze data has become transmorgrified into (1) a "government program" that companies (2) "participate in" that gives the NSA (3) "direct access" to their servers. Not one of those three assertions is true.
I note you didn't actually allege I'm wrong. If you have evidence my representations are incorrect -- and this is HN, after all -- kindly say so directly.
1) NSA is a government agency and PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government. There are many other programs and names.
2) These companies certainly do participate in them under order by the US Government (FISA court).
3) The term "direct access" is quite silly to argue on since the NSA is slurping up any data possible through as many means necessary.
So when Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, etc said they didn't participate in the program and NSA didn't have direct access, they were lying.
An alternative explanation is, of course, that you haven't researched the topic.
1) You are incorrect to say "PRISM is a blanket-term for the surveillance state in effect by the US Government." You may wish to think it is, but wishful thinking does not mean it's true. Accuracy matters.
2) The Internet companies do not "participate" in PRISM, which is a software utility. That's like saying I "participate" in Excel or Chrome. They do turn over data when compelled to through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and other laws. If an ambulance following you turns on its lights to tell you to pull over, you're compelled to do so -- it doesn't mean you're "participating" in a medical emergency.
3) You're right that the NSA would like to slurp up data through as many means as it can. That doesn't mean it is. Put another way, the fact that I would like to have Bill Gates' bank account does not mean I actually do.
If you possess actual evidence that Internet companies "participate" in PRISM, as opposed to being compelled by law and legal threats, and if you have evidence that the NSA has "direct access" to the Internet companies' servers, kindly share it. Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is, except to argue for the sake of arguing.
It's a non-denial denial and Eric Schmidt is the last person I'd trust to be truthful on the matter. Deny doing something you weren't actually accused of doing, but that sounds enough like it, so that you don't have to deny doing the thing you actually did.
"Nope! Not Direct!"
SFTP, virtualized access, automated access - it's all the same but as long as they can find something to deny, they'll run with it. Accuracy matters when you need to spin the lie.
You're talking about arguing for the sake of arguing but that's exactly what you're doing. You can play cheerleader and spin the lies the PR masters put out and I'll continue to read the leaked documents for the truth.
If you somehow claim that doing independent reporting (and reaching independent conclusions) is "spinning," then my attempts at having a reasonable conversation are futile. I will note, once again, that you haven't refuted a single claim I made about the three main errors in reporting on this topic.
I will note, once again, I already did but you're choosing to ignore them since you can't seem to shake away from the "direct access" fallacy because Schmidt told you otherwise.
What does this mean for Google and the others participating in the program? I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement.