On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:05 AM Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:11 PM juan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 02:22:30 +0000 >> Sean Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM juan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > For Sean, who apparently doesn't know that google and the >> > > rest of 'technology' psychos are US military contractors >> > > >> > > >> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > PRISM required (and received) no cooperation from Facebook or Google, >> >> >> >> "Internet giants like Google and Yahoo received millions of >> dollars from the NSA to cover their surveillance under the >> PRISM program" >> >> "The money was meant to cover expenses the companies incurred >> under court orders mandating the companies assist the NSA in >> its BULK COLLECTION of data" >> >> fuck you Sean. >> >> "The PRISM program involves the bulk collection of data from >> companies under the FISA Amendments Acts," >> >> >> And of course, if these sick fucks especially google, say they >> 'collected' 1% or whatever bullshit figure, multiply that by a >> factor big enough to get 100% >> >> >> But hey, only 'conspiracy theorists' would doubt whatever >> google and the americunt government say. >> >> > You are aware Daily Mail is a *tabloid*, right? The Wikipedia article you > link talks about the NSA giving money to "PRISM partners", but Google was > not a "PRISM partner" in any sense. Nor was Facebook (where I worked at the > time). Pretty sure Apple wasn't. Not as sure about MS but I doubt they were > either, even if they may have been a little bit closer. The most likely > "PRISM partners" were telcos. > > Sorry if I don't play into your desperate motivated reasoning here. If > that angers you, so be it. > Actually I just read one of the links and realized there is probably some confusion here, probably some of it on my part. There's the mass surveillance part and there's the FISA part. Apparently the FISA part is also called "prism", since I guess they just shove all the info into the same database no matter how they get it. Obviously Google complies with FISA warrants, and if you think it makes Google "evil" that they comply with US law and the execs don't want to go to jail, well, I guess that just tells everyone how to interpret the word "evil" when you say that. I'm not super thrilled to see that Google accepted money for it, though it's actually pretty standard practice to compensate companies you're forcing to retain information, like in discovery for lawsuits & criminal proceedings. My guess is that rather than a lump-sum payment to comply they get an itemized bill for overall data retention for the target of the warrant. The mass surveillance part was accomplished with the taps I was talking about, which were unknown to Google until the leaks. AT&T, on the other hand, gave the government its own room with access to all the data coming through their datacenters and let them do whatever they wanted. Google and Facebook require warrants and always have, and they push back on warrants they think are too broad, publish transparency reports detailing everything they can, and fight to inform the target of the surveillance as soon as they can. If that's "evil," then you're a moron.
