Facebook Denies Giving NSA Direct Access To Its Servers | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Denies Giving NSA Direct Access To Its Servers

forbes.com

142 points_pius20 comments

Facebook's response is the quintessential non-denial denial. 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.

The statements released by the companies (especially Apple and Facebook) are similar enough that they may be crafted talking points supplied by the government.

And this one http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jun13/06-06st...?

You're right that one is distinct and specifically says that they only release individual customer data.

Since weasel wording is pretty prevalent on this topic I would note that they could still run NSA algorithms on the dataset and return the individuals that are "hits".

> If the government has a broader voluntary national security program

Why was the word voluntary in there?

The voluntary keyword completely invalidates that as a reference. If the program is not voluntary - and there's no way in hell that it was - then what Microsoft just said doesn't even apply to this discussion.

Yes, they deny giving them direct access to their servers, but they admit that they will give them user data when it's requested.

The title is pretty misleading. Facebook isn't denying anything.

They have to. The first rule of NSL is you don't talk about NSL. Until someone decides to be a Bradley and show and tell.

Are they required to deny it, or just not to divulge it?

Considering the punishment by admitting it, and the "silence means you're guilty" thing that happens most of the time, I'd say they're pretty much left with no option other than to deny it even if it's a lie.

Like everybody else, I'm amused by the direct access phrasing.

Obviously the NSA doesn't have direct access. They don't need it, and wouldn't want it. If they had it, they couldn't have put together these nice convenient PR packets for times like this.

What the NSA most likely has, is signed assurances of data integrity, and unlimited API access.

The most important aspect to lying, is the intent to deceive, it binds all forms of lying together. What matters in the blanket denials being issued by all the companies, is their intent to deceive. Is it a lie when they say they don't give direct access to the NSA? Perhaps not, but their intent is deception, and that's what matters.

I'm wondering if the name of the project is a clue. Maybe they don't need access to the structured data. Maybe they just split the fiber optical stream using a 'prism' and pipe the output to Fort Meade.

In which case, Facebook are not lying when they say that the NSA don't have access to their servers, but they do have access to their network traffic.

"Protecting the privacy of our users and their data is a top priority for Facebook." -- and here comes the cue for the sitcom audience to start laughing.

No direct access to servers is needed when you can sniff it all up at the wire on premises. Nice play on words...

"no direct access" Of course the gov't didn't have raw dumps to the SQL databases, they have their own neat little front end web application that Facebook provides to them.

But did Facebook have direct access to a NSA data dump, to which they were required by law to send data?

Why would FB give the NSA direct access? FB employs plenty of people with sufficient skills to send the desired information over when needed.

Because the NSA may not want FB to know who exactly they're interested in.

"Just give us everything." "OK"

How do you prove a negative?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com