Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaonashi | Hacker News Reader

So if they're getting money directly from the NSA, it's hard for them to claim that they were in the dark as far as allowing the NSA direct access to their data.

View on HN

They're just going to keep moving the goalposts about the definition of "direct".

So if you buy a hot dog from someone, are you now unable to claim you hired them to kill your wife?

The NSA could have paid for a lot of things besides "direct access to Google's data", as you claim. There are hundreds of shades of gray here.

They paid for Prism compliance. The Prism program entails access to the data.

Since when does 'access' mean 'direct access'?

Remember when Gmail got hacked by the Chinese? It was reported at the time that they were using the interface that Google had set up for the US government to get access to user emails. They don't need a warrant to view email headers or emails that are more than 6 months old.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hackin...

> They don't need a warrant to view email headers or emails that are more than 6 months old.

Interesting you say that, because in the article you linked, it says this:

> In order to comply with government search warrants on user data

Can you explain this discrepancy?

Read these for more information on the six months rule. It's rather ridiculous and I didn't believe it when I first heard about it.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/ecpa-turns-twenty-f... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

Okay, but how does this make Google incapable of saying they didn't know the NSA had direct access to their data?

Because they, and the other companies who used the exact same terminology, never said what they meant by "direct."

You'll have to really connect the dots for me here, I guess I'm just not getting how the 6 month rule has anything to do with the meaning of "direct".

Since when does using the weasel word 'direct' entail any functional difference?

Since 'direct' means 'without Google interaction'. It's a different scenario if the government just goes into your email and pulls your info, vs. if they request the info and Google has the ability to deny/verify validity of the request.

Is that what direct implies in this context? AFAIK it was never defined; i.e. having access to a bit-for-bit copy of their database wouldn't necessarily be 'direct'.

It's defined by the English meaning of the term. If there are layers between you and something, that is not direct. The end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com