So either Snowden has incorrect slides, the slides are falsified, or everyone has been lying. Actual evidence of direct access would be better than these slides. I would like someone from Google, Facebook, et al to testify under oath that there is no direct access. Or maybe even the NSA, but we know they share inaccuracies under oath, so maybe that isn't worth so much.
Google et al. have fully complied with this law. The FBI manages the government-end of the CALEA tapping capabilities. The NSA makes requests to the FBI, which passes them on to Google, which flips a switch and enables the tapping of user "xyzzy123". From then on, xyzzy123's stored data and new communications get sent to the FBI through the CALEA connection, which forwards them to the NSA. CALEA also requires the service provider to provide all sorts of metadata about the user.
This IS "direct access" to Google's servers. The denials about this have been carefully worded things that all access is supported by some sort of legal process, etc. The denials are non-denial denials. Yes, GOOGLE (et al.), not the NSA, flips the final switch which sends the data. But Google is required by law to do so, so....... And once the switch is flipped, all of the data is flowing automatically to the NSA.
I hope this is clear.
Aside from that I'd say it's a very clear, and it's sad that there seems to be a pervasive inference that these companies are something something beyond what our elected law makers have forced them to do. Why isn't more angst directed at the politicians responsible for this?
Search for 51.
And as for warrants, no they do not always need a warrant. They only need that if both parties in the communication are US citizens. If none of them are no warrant is needed at all and if just one party is US then they (according to the Wikipedia article on PRISM) can wiretap for up to a week without getting a warrant.
CALEA does not apply to Google (except Google fiber and perhaps Google Voice). Google does have to comply with FBI requests for emails and stored data, but they do not have to comply with CALEA (which mandates technical standards for the wiretapping of the phone network and most internet networks). Google does NOT have to build real-time domestic spying tools for the government, though it is arguable whether the 702 program (which PRISM is part of) does.
The FBI would LOVE to extend CALEA to Facebook and Google, etc, but this has not happened yet.
That said, it is likely that the FBI's backbone spying network (DCSNET), which was built for CALEA, is being used for PRISM.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri...
Moreover the language it was written implies that the same order was made to the other providers, changing just the recipient.
(If you are on the network which blocks access to Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/us-army-blocks-g... you're missing a lot! Visit some friends, surf from their computer.)
It's not clear at all that this is legal, especially given the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Jones, requiring warrants for GPS tracking of automobiles.
Some would interpret "direct access" to mean root level access to their entire infrastructure, which sounds absurd to me, yet some people seem to believe that's what's happening. And it's my understanding that this is what Google, facebook, etc. have been denying. They could instead be giving "direct access" to an FTP server or some other portal set up to provide the requested data, meaning that Snowden and these slides are being truthful in that context.
I also think it could be argued that we all gain "direct access" to Google's servers every time we type "www.google.com" into a browser's address bar. It is just not a useful term, and should be replaced with something more specific in all these instances.
How about "collection directly from the server of..." just like it appeared in the actual slide, instead of 'direct access' as everyone else misquotes it?
Also realize that Glenn Greenwald shares a good amount of blame for this misquote. The first line in the first article about PRISM is "The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...)
I agree, and have said as much multiple times.
But that's no reason to continue to perpetuate the usage of a semantically-different variant of the original quote, especially with all the other data we have on PRISM now that can help disambiguate what the original quote could reasonably be construed as.
The real story here is the "Upstream" collection. Just horribly irresponsible behavior for a steward of much of the Internet's infrastructure. Shameful.
Either way, the tapping of cables is bad enough.
This might be what the slides meant. And the NSA has already lied under oath to congress. Maybe even twice.
There is no way someone would risk perjuring themselves OR disclosing classified information under oath.
Yeah but what stops you from doing so? I mean, not lying, just giving the "least untruthful" statement you can:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-...
Because law enforcement (like everyone really) LOVES having their time wasted.
It's possible Snowden is making the whole thing up but the government haven't denied anything is going on. It should also be possible for at least some of Snowdens claims to be verified. For example he has claimed that the government was hacking Universities it might be possible to see evidence of that. Or he claimed people have been wiretapped, maybe he knows some of the conversations.
It's possible the government won't deny due to a policy of denial and are sticking to it despite the huge PR issues. Or maybe they want people to think they are watching. Or maybe the people in positions to deny stuff want the current government to look bad.
Maybe the government will deny later and it's taken a while due to bureaucracy. But by that time it will be to late since if there was anything they will have had time to clean house.
Only Google have so for made a post saying the whole thing is fake.
It's not direct from the servers, but to the analysts it might as well could be the same. These slides might have been meant for tech-illiterate people, saying that might be clearer.
( The mentionend post for reference and sources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5965994 )
Do you really have that much faith in those companies? Seems like some kind of super-power to me.
Such naivety.