Google goes public: "The feds are NOT in our servers." - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Medevilae;40951231]PRISM Wonder what will be written in the history books about it Doubt it'll ever reach Watergate level on the scandal-o-meter[/QUOTE] Not much, or it will be painted in the least negative light possible. In some recent history textbooks there's pages of stuff about 9/11 and on the war on terror, but it's pretty biased, and there's little to no mention of the clusterfuck it cause in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor of things like the PATRIOT Act and the wholesale gutting of civil liberties that happened the past decade. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=innerfire34;40951546]the fuck is paltalk [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] hold on, the paltalk spokesman said the [B]exact[/B] same thing as the people above [url]http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/technology/security/paltalk-nsa-surveillance/?hpt=hp_t2[/url] [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] they all say direct access, sounds like careful wordplay[/QUOTE] As someone else pointed out, it seems like they may be subject to a strict NDA and are all writing their 'we don't give the fed direct access' speeches based off the same document, which probably includes directions and 'approved language' on how to address the situation. In other words, they *may* be forced to lie to their customers under threat of legal repercussions.

Okay so what's the difference between what's happening and direct access. How does it affect me?

[QUOTE=Krinkels;40956592]Okay so what's the difference between what's happening and direct access. How does it affect me?[/QUOTE] The reason why people are pointing out the "direct access" denial is the fact that that is entirely unlikely and improbable. Direct access would mean that the NSA could inadvertently break something, while it is more likely that datasets are simply copied onto an external server during operation or similar. If a company was doing such a thing, or allowing for the communications to be intercepted without actually "handing over data" a clever denial would technically not be a lie.

[url]http://www.osnews.com/story/27108/Silicon_Valley_responds_to_PRISM_with_coordinated_PR_campaign[/url]

Wait, so the US government's been doing this for six years? I wonder how much of each company actually knew about it...

Doubt this is legitimate. Too much to lose for every company involved, ESPECIALLY Google whose company motto is "don't be evil"

[QUOTE=Silentfood;40949727]Even Facebook denied the rumors [img]http://i.imgur.com/EmkL0y9.png[/img] [url]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631[/url][/QUOTE] Facebook is basically open source intelligence anyways so you know what you get when you sign up.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;40949727]Even Facebook denied the rumors [img]http://i.imgur.com/EmkL0y9.png[/img] [url]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631[/url][/QUOTE] they trust me dumb fucks

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40949799]Why is Facebook's post so similar to Google's? Looks like they just copypasted :v:[/QUOTE] [url]http://colingourlay.github.io/deny-prism/[/url]

there's probably government mules everywhere in there

[quote=Yahoo]We want to set the record straight about stories that Yahoo! has joined a program called PRISM through which we purportedly volunteer information about our users to the U.S. government and give federal agencies access to our user databases. These claims are false. Yahoo! has not joined any program in which we volunteer to share user data with the U.S. government. We do not voluntarily disclose user information. The only disclosures that occur are in response to specific demands. And, when the government does request user data from Yahoo!, we protect our users. We demand that such requests be made through lawful means and for lawful purposes. We fight any requests that we deem unclear, improper, overbroad, or unlawful. We carefully scrutinize each request, respond only when required to do so, and provide the least amount of data possible consistent with the law. The notion that Yahoo! gives any federal agency vast or unfettered access to our users’ records is categorically false. Of the hundreds of millions of users we serve, an infinitesimal percentage will ever be the subject of a government data collection directive. Where a request for data is received, we require the government to identify in each instance specific users and a specific lawful purpose for which their information is requested. Then, and only then, do our employees evaluate the request and legal requirements in order to respond—or deny—the request. We deeply value our users and their trust, and we work hard everyday to earn that trust and, more importantly, to preserve it.[/quote] And another one.

Well, if you truly want to know then post something about bomb threads in facebook chat, if the police show up at your door you know they're spying on you.

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40961461]And another one.[/QUOTE] i didn't notice the world voluntary until this one maybe that's where we needed to be focusing the semantics rays

[quote=Apple]We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.[/quote] Direct access. Court order. Never heard of PRISM. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [quote=Microsoft]We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.[/quote] Legally binding order. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] [quote=Dropbox]We’ve seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any such program and remain committed to protecting our users’ privacy.[/quote] [quote=Paltalk]We have not heard of PRISM. Paltalk exercises extreme care to protect and secure users’ data, only responding to court orders as required to by law. Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers.[/quote] Never heard of PRISM. Court orders. Direct access. [quote=AOL]We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program. We do not disclose user information to government agencies without a court order, subpoena or formal legal process, nor do we provide any government agency with access to our servers.[/quote] No knowledge. Court order. Access to our servers.

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40961491]Direct access. Court order. Never heard of PRISM. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] Legally binding order.[/QUOTE] i don't know just fuck all this make it go away shoot the national security department

[QUOTE=Gran PC;40961491]Direct access. Court order. Never heard of PRISM. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] Legally binding order. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] Never heard of PRISM. Court orders. Direct access. No knowledge. Court order. Access to our servers.[/QUOTE] To be fair that's pretty much specifically what any lawyer would say. "We're not doing what people are accusing us of doing (giving direct access) the only thing we're doing is something similar but that people already know we're doing (complying with court orders for information)" That's why they're going to look similar regardless of whether they're being honest or not. All of these services are in a similar situation and the fact that they'll give the government information in response to a court order is relevant in every case.

Naturally, None of these corporations did anything illegal. Naturally, New laws were created, The proper paperwork was filled out. So, they aren't lying. They are just full of shit.

[QUOTE=Whiterfire;40954537]big brother is watching... [/QUOTE] REALLY wish people would stop quoting/referring to 1984 in these circumstances.

If anything you should be namedropping Huxley.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;40949727]Even Facebook denied the rumors [img]http://i.imgur.com/EmkL0y9.png[/img] [url]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631[/url][/QUOTE] about a year ago, while surfing on DarkWeb, i saw FB's official information pdf about a user. there was statuses, messages, and even deleted statuses. everything. likes and shit. And it wasn't even issued by NSA or something like that, city police department asked for it.

[QUOTE=Silentfood;40949727]Even Facebook denied the rumors [img]http://i.imgur.com/EmkL0y9.png[/img] [url]https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10100828955847631[/url][/QUOTE] Is this the same guy that said only "dumb fucks" trust him with data?