Hacker News Reader

Comment by eksith | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I read your previous excerpt and I've read this very post here before. Repeating it over and over (this is your 3rd post so far posting this link) doesn't make me believe it any more strongly.

View on HN

The point of posting it multiple times is to make an attempt at unwinding some of the damage done by countless misreports.

Assuming you are qualified at making such a judgement, or even more qualified than any who have differing interpretations.

Yet you keep hanging on that they only mention "direct access" and how the denials are similar, it's not about what you believe to be true or not, it's about the things you say that aren't true - here is an example of a denial that does not only include "direct access" but all sorts of access as well.

I don't want to start a flame war with you, but in lieu of repeating what others have already said to you regarding the "direct access" quote (I'm not "hanging on" btw, I have read the other reports as well), I'll just leave this here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5836420

The whole problem with PRISM is that the government potentially can tunnel into company servers and take what they like, and that is being disputed by the accused companies.

I'm not sure what is rumored or not, or what is true or not. My point is that they deny involvement in PRISM, and by PRISM I mean the program that alleges access to company servers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com