Google vs NSA , PRISM and New Tech War

I'll mostly be referring to Google, but that is mostly for brevity's sake. Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Yahoo were also involved.



The narrative that the NSA somehow got the major US internet companies to give them complete “backdoor” access to their servers is simply not true. The notion that all of them would allow this to happen is just nuts. For what possible reason? Money? I think that Larry Page has enough (net worth $30B). Does the NSA have the legal power to force company to do this? Nope.



Anyway, after this PRISM BS leaked last year, all the companies named vehemently denied that the allegations. Anyway, this is what Larry Page said the very next day.

Quote:

Dear Google users— You may be aware of press reports alleging that Internet companies have joined a secret U.S. government program called PRISM to give the National Security Agency direct access to our servers. As Google’s CEO and Chief Legal Officer, we wanted you to have the facts. First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday. Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish. http://ift.tt/13ioMLy

So he thinks the whole episode wouldn’t have happened if there was more transparency. He’s right, nobody would have thought that PRISM was such a huge deal if they knew what it was. Anyway, Google got the government to relent on releasing paperwork showing how many on the accounts are being turned over. This is how Google describes “PRISM”:

Quote:

What does a FISA request compel Google to disclose? Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the government may apply for court orders from the FISA Court to, among other actions, require U.S. companies to hand over users’ personal information and the content of their communications. The FISA Amendments Act, passed in 2008, authorizes the government to require U.S. companies to provide information and the content of communications associated with the accounts of non-U.S. citizens or non-lawful permanent residents who are located outside the United States. If Google were to receive a FISA request, what would it do? Google’s general approach to government requests for information is the same: Before complying with a government request, we make sure it follows the law and Google's policies. And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it.

http://ift.tt/1zzasOY

So Google gives the NSA as many as 28,000 user accounts. That Is a tiny percentage of Google users.



Larry Page did not tell a single lie. No backdoor access built into Google servers, no data given to any government unless the law required it, no data given in mass amounts.



NSA lawyer actually agrees that Larry Page was telling the the truth the whole time even though the retard that wrote the story thought it it was proof Google lied.

Quote:

When asked at a hearing on Wednesday whether tech companies knew about and assisted with PRISM's data collection, Rajesh De, the NSA's general counsel, said "Yes." "PRISM is just an internal government term that as a result of the leaks, became a public term," De said. "So [tech companies] know that their data is being obtained?" James Dempsey, a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, asked in a follow-up question. "They would have received legal process in order to assist the government." De said. In fact, as public resentment of government spying grew, executives' language became even more emotionally charged. The chief executives of Facebook and Microsoft exchanged jabs at the NSA, saying that "the government blew it" and that the "Constitution itself is suffering." Google CEO Larry Page began an open letter to Google users with the line "What the ...?" That claim counters statements issued by tech companies, who one by one denied cooperating in PRISM in the months that followed leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. http://ift.tt/1zzat5e

OK, I know she knows exactly what Larry Page said because she links the same open letter I quoted above. There is nothing contradictory about what he said Larry Page said the day after the leak happened and what this NSA lawyer says. Larry Page said that Google provides data for the government when they legally required, like for PRISM requests. If the argument is that nobody had ever heard of PRISM, well they were telling the truth. They didn't ever hear the term as it was an internal one used in the NSA until the lift.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1ylKZtU