Comment by ignostic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ignostic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

They didn't lie - they just made the truth dance with help from legal advisers. I think we already knew that, but the slide just confirms that they knew exactly what they were doing.

EDIT: to clarify, GIVING someone access directly to a server and allowing/knowing about access to the data going in and out of a server are not technically the same thing.

When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers".

When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this.

A smart lawyer would never let the company lie outright. They would advise everyone to speak the truth, but "the truth they speak may not be the truth you think you hear." No direct access to servers. Sure. They just had access to the data going in and out of the server. To someone used to reading political and legal documents, "no direct access to servers" almost screams "some form of access to something." Otherwise the denial would have been more

Zuck and Page didn't lie, but they were less than forthcoming. Myers didn't even bother addressing the claim directly.

I suspect a government lawyer fed them phrases they could use that sound like denials without actually lying.

> When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers". When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this.

I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said direct access verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published).

So, either:

(A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data.

(B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified.

(C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements.

I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data.

And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.

(D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different.

My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.

I kind of rambled around the point, but I was trying to say much the same thing.

It's also very possible that the slide traded some simplicity for accuracy because it was being presented to a group of people who didn't really care or understand the details and technicalities.

Also, (E), The companies didn't "give" the government direct access, but were quietly complicit in allowing them to collect data.

> (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.

The slide I'm talking about ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-... ) states: "collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers."

Since there's currently no way to "browse" private data on, say, my Google search history or my GMail inbox, the conclusion seems to be that they either have broad backdoor access, or a specific way of directly downloading from these companies.

In a traditional warrant situation, the data would be collected by the companies and sent to the requesting agency that provided a warrant. Police officers that request, say, HTTP access logs do not download those logs directly.

Here is this link again: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=204063&cid=16678583

However one wants to define 'directly from the servers of' or 'direct access' I think for all intents and purposes it means the same thing.

> In a traditional warrant situation, the data would be collected by the companies and sent to the requesting agency that provided a warrant.

Yes, that's what PRISM is. Warrant compliance, automated and streamlined.

Although personally I tend to agree with you, this isn't evidence that they did know something else was going on.

A good lawyer would always insist on such phrasing, only addressing the absolute minimum necessary, even if there is nothing to cover up.

Of course, the fact that such outspoken CEO's all let the lawyers use them as sock puppets is still a big red flag.

(And the subsequent transparency theater that carefully circumvented any of the actual accusations makes it even more suspicious.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com