Snowden maintains NSA has access to company servers, so someone's lying(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
Snowden maintains NSA has access to company servers, so someone's lying
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/09/snowden-maintains-the-nsa-has-direct-access-to-company-servers-which-means-someone-is-lying/
5 comments
How is Snowden possibly lying? He's reading verbatim from the NSA documents which use the words "direct access". Also he isn't "maintaining" this, this is part of his original interview from over a month ago.
Which ones? The PRISM slides said "collection directly from the servers of..." which is not the same as 'direct access'. Are there different NSA documents, if so it would be useful to see the context of the wording in that case.
Your quote is accurate, "direct access" is not verbatim. Though "collection directly" and "direct access" seem semantically the same to me in the context of the slide. [1]
The relevant slide is talking about two types of mechanisms the NSA analyst should use. The "Upstream" and "PRISM". It's within the the Prism description that the words "collection directly from the servers of.." is used. So it's not referring to raw data collection through neutral access points, as that's what the "Upstream" is. It's explicitly saying the NSA has direct access to these companies.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/kIEtXjk.jpg
The relevant slide is talking about two types of mechanisms the NSA analyst should use. The "Upstream" and "PRISM". It's within the the Prism description that the words "collection directly from the servers of.." is used. So it's not referring to raw data collection through neutral access points, as that's what the "Upstream" is. It's explicitly saying the NSA has direct access to these companies.
[1] http://i.imgur.com/kIEtXjk.jpg
> It's explicitly saying the NSA has direct access to these companies
It's explicitly saying that the NSA has access to data that would come directly from the relevant company servers, as opposed to having to intercept that data during transmission across the network. (Edit: an intercept is what 'upstream' collection would imply)
The companies themselves are still the ones who end up providing the data to NSA though, just like the fact that my browser obtained your comment "directly from the servers of Hacker News" does not imply that I have direct access to the server hardware underlying HN.
It's explicitly saying that the NSA has access to data that would come directly from the relevant company servers, as opposed to having to intercept that data during transmission across the network. (Edit: an intercept is what 'upstream' collection would imply)
The companies themselves are still the ones who end up providing the data to NSA though, just like the fact that my browser obtained your comment "directly from the servers of Hacker News" does not imply that I have direct access to the server hardware underlying HN.
> The companies themselves are still the ones who end up providing the data to NSA though
Well that's certainly what the companies are saying. Whether they are telling truth (personally I think they are) or not is something else. Snowden is definitely not the one lying about this, since at worst his interpretation was very sensible, and at best it is the very interpretation intended by the author.
Well that's certainly what the companies are saying. Whether they are telling truth (personally I think they are) or not is something else. Snowden is definitely not the one lying about this, since at worst his interpretation was very sensible, and at best it is the very interpretation intended by the author.
> Snowden is definitely not the one lying about this, since at worst his interpretation was very sensible, and at best it is the very interpretation intended by the author.
"His interpretation"?
Snowden is the one who actually has experience within the Intelligence Community. I managed to figure out what it meant with a little background in computer and networks knowledge and no background with IC work. Snowden has superior qualifications in both, and you're saying that Snowden might have made an honest mistake?
He knew what NSA jargon meant; he knew what the slide meant. The only thing you can say for him 'at best' is that he allowed journalists to come to a sensible conclusion based on what they knew, but that is still manipulative.
And in the actual event he even claimed that they could see the very thoughts form in your head, which is something beyond even mere manipulation.
"His interpretation"?
Snowden is the one who actually has experience within the Intelligence Community. I managed to figure out what it meant with a little background in computer and networks knowledge and no background with IC work. Snowden has superior qualifications in both, and you're saying that Snowden might have made an honest mistake?
He knew what NSA jargon meant; he knew what the slide meant. The only thing you can say for him 'at best' is that he allowed journalists to come to a sensible conclusion based on what they knew, but that is still manipulative.
And in the actual event he even claimed that they could see the very thoughts form in your head, which is something beyond even mere manipulation.
> I managed to figure out what it meant with a little background in computer and networks knowledge and no background with IC work.
We still don't know what exactly is going on, or know if direct access really exists, so this is premature.
Secondly, your earlier example of using your web browser to collect directly has nothing to do with the actual slides, which talk about getting special access from the companies, and the document includes a timeline indicating when each company finally signed on to the Prism program.
He said "direct access" and the document says "collection directly from the servers of..".
> He knew what NSA jargon meant; he knew what the slide meant.
The NSA is a huge organization with a budget of tens of billions of dollars and employs tens of thousands of people. Snowden of course does not have complete understanding of everything, nor does Keith Alexander, nor does James Clapper, the DNI who blatantly lied to congress about collecting data on millions of Americans.
Placing any kind of blame on Snowden for directly paraphrasing a NSA document makes absolutely no sense.
Edit: 'paraphase' is far too kind. It's nearly the exact words, with the addition of 'access'. That NSA has special non-public access is something even the companies admit.
We still don't know what exactly is going on, or know if direct access really exists, so this is premature.
Secondly, your earlier example of using your web browser to collect directly has nothing to do with the actual slides, which talk about getting special access from the companies, and the document includes a timeline indicating when each company finally signed on to the Prism program.
He said "direct access" and the document says "collection directly from the servers of..".
> He knew what NSA jargon meant; he knew what the slide meant.
The NSA is a huge organization with a budget of tens of billions of dollars and employs tens of thousands of people. Snowden of course does not have complete understanding of everything, nor does Keith Alexander, nor does James Clapper, the DNI who blatantly lied to congress about collecting data on millions of Americans.
Placing any kind of blame on Snowden for directly paraphrasing a NSA document makes absolutely no sense.
Edit: 'paraphase' is far too kind. It's nearly the exact words, with the addition of 'access'. That NSA has special non-public access is something even the companies admit.
Is it possible the NSA compromised Google, Facebook, etc. servers without the companies knowing?
These publicly traded companies lying? There's plenty of things that companies are legally obligated to lie about. See Boeing, Raytheon etc.... The fact that it is now a tech company is just new players in the game.
The problem with his claims is that he has made far-reaching accusations such as "I could wiretap the president's email" with no proof. While I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if he could (see the existence of Carnivore), to make that level of a claim without SHOWING and VERIFYING that claim in the same video is frightnigly foolish in my opinion. I'm guessing that it would have to be access to servers since other 'communications' require the actual application. In other words, there would almost need to be application level awareness of this external output point. Again, not impossible but could / should have been presented better.
The problem with his claims is that he has made far-reaching accusations such as "I could wiretap the president's email" with no proof. While I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if he could (see the existence of Carnivore), to make that level of a claim without SHOWING and VERIFYING that claim in the same video is frightnigly foolish in my opinion. I'm guessing that it would have to be access to servers since other 'communications' require the actual application. In other words, there would almost need to be application level awareness of this external output point. Again, not impossible but could / should have been presented better.
[deleted]