> Yep...we have no proof of Google or Microsoft being complicit in NSA surveillance.
The top secret internal NSA documents saying they were partners in PRISM with colorful logos and all weren't enough?
The top secret internal NSA documents saying they were partners in PRISM with colorful logos and all weren't enough?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42134_Greenwald-_We_...
Did you accidentally use the wrong word?
The quote Greenwald was using:
> "PRISM: Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: [...]"
Greenwald's interpretation:
> "The Prism program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders."
As to "obtaining targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers", here's a quote by Gellman:
> In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.
Regardless of whether it is actually accurate, that is what the NSA documents stated.
I think the whole "direct access" argument over semantics is a red herring and completely irrelevant by now.
Statements like these have no information value unless you back them up. For all I know, you learned this from the "The Guardian" article I just cited.
> [...] allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations [...]
I don't think a statement about having write access to your own hardware pertains to this discussion, even if that hardware is located in Steve Ballmer's office.
> The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
... and the actual contents of subsection (i). You have to be more specific.
They even wrote later from new leaks, how Microsoft was having a "team play" with the NSA to give them a lot of data from Skype, Outlook.com and Skydrive, in an almost "direct access" kind of way:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...
It may be that Microsoft really, really, loves to give the NSA everything, but so far, there's no evidence of anything beyond complying with the law. Just speculation and spin.
Does that make you feel any better? I know it's not making me feel any better, because I know there's virtually no oversight, and the fact that you can even get a warrant for thousands or millions of people at once, is not right, and quite disgusting move from the government (regardless of how constitutional it is - there's such thing as human rights, too).
Trying to conflate the two for media impact will backfire by making people jaded after they discover the spin being put on things. The info Snowden has released is bad enough as-is (the lack of oversight, the scope, etc.) - there's no need to invent stuff.