Initial public statements[edit] Corporate executives of several companies identified in the leaked documents told The Guardian that they had no knowledge of the PRISM program in particular and also denied making information available to the government on the scale alleged by news reports.[4][106] Statements of several of the companies named in the leaked documents were reported by TechCrunch and The Washington Post as follows:[107][108] 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 dont participate in it.[107][109] Yahoo!: Yahoo! takes users privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.[107] Of the hundreds of millions of users we serve, an infinitesimal percentage will ever be the subject of a government data collection directive.[108] Facebook: We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.[107] Google: Google cares deeply about the security of our users data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government back door into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.[107] [A]ny suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.[108] 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.[110] Dropbox: Weve 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.[107] In response to the technology companies denials of the NSA being able to directly access the companies servers, The New York Times reported that sources had stated the NSA was gathering the surveillance data from the companies using other technical means in response to court orders for specific sets of data.[18] The Washington Post suggested, It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. 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.[3] [I]n context, direct is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as theyre transmitted to some other destination.[108] If these companies received an order under the FISA amendments act, they are forbidden by law from disclosing having received the order and disclosing any information about the order at all, Mark Rumold, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told ABC News.[111] On May 28, 2013, Google was ordered by United States District Court Judge Susan Illston to comply with a National Security Letterissued by the FBI to provide user data without a warrant.[112] Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with VentureBeat said, I certainly appreciate that Google put out a transparency report, but it appears that the transparency didnt include this. I wouldnt be surprised if they were subject to a gag order.[113] The New York Times reported on June 7, 2013, that Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations.[114] The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make data available more efficiently and securely.[114] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.[114] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google andIntel.[114] These details on the discussions provide insight into the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program including a training slide which states, Collection directly from the servers[25] and the companies denials.[114] While providing data in response to a legitimate FISA request approved by the FISA Court is a legal requirement, modifying systems to make it easier for the government to collect the data is not. This is why Twitter could legally decline to provide an enhanced mechanism for data transmission.[114] Other than Twitter, the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.[114] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.[114] Google does not provide a lockbox system, but instead transmits required data by hand delivery or secure FTP.[115]
Posted on: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:41:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015