My problem is with people who appear convicted of the idea that Google's leadership are conspiring with NSA to deceive its customers, or that NSA is employing exotic and outrageous methods (like optical signal intercepts --- it's right there in the name Prism!), or that Palantir is somehow involved in Google-related surveillance, or that NSA is "disappearing" people... the list goes on and on.
I have a problem with the idea of conversations on HN reifying speculation that Google or Facebook are defrauding their customers; I also have a problem with bullshit stories clouding the very real problems we do have with overreaching surveillance.
To be fair, no one actually said Google and Facebook are defrauding advertisers
I understand your frustration, but I think you're attacking the signal instead of the noise you're talking about.
There's definitely a lot of nonsense floating around (optical signal intercepts from these providers, etc.). This is noise.
But there is also a very real signal. A journalist with an inside source is telling us about a program that indicates some of these companies have given the NSA a level of access than most of us who know anything about systems would not be comfortable with.
While the degree to which this is happening has not been supported with evidence, numerous other claims have been. It has already forced the declassification of orders to the phone companies. This seems to be a very credible source.
Instead of attacking the noise, I see you attacking the signal. You're saying "These companies could not be doing this! Why would you believe someone saying they are!"
Maybe there is no such program, maybe the NSA doesn't even know what it's doing enough to make an accurate presentation, maybe the presentation was planted for the guy to find, and maybe the journalists are hacks. These are all possibilities. But with what we know, these are the extreme possibilities, and speculation about them is mostly noise. Defending hack-job articles attacking the source and messenger isn't increasing the quality of the conversation.
It seems that from what we're getting from the government and companies, we're getting closer to answers, but we're not there yet.
If the question you're raising is about the nature of the Prism program, I am very much looking forward to an answer to that. But I think the best approach is to see the evolution of responses from government and companies rather than smear the journalist as a hack for not immediately releasing the whole presentation.
Agreed. For future, I encourage you to state your objections plainly. Like this (above). And perhaps focus on the issues, facts, details and less about the players.