
The PRISM letter Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft are sending Congress - johnkoetsier
http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/18/the-full-prism-letter-google-yahoo-apple-facebook-and-microsoft-are-sending-congress/
======
munificent
Bias up front: I am a Googler.

I don't understand the tone of the comments here. I see lots of pitchforks out
and pointed at these companies, but I don't get _why_. Yes, it appears that
companies released data to the US government. That seriously sucks.

But as far as I can tell, the affected companies are the victims here. They
were _forced_ into doing this by the US government. There's no "cooperation"
when the US government says "we are legally compelling you to do this".

If it wasn't by force, why would any of these companies do it? What's the
upside for Microsoft of Twitter to send user data to the government? If it's
cooperation, what do they get out of it?

I think this letter is a good thing because, even if the US government doesn't
respond to it, it communicates that the companies involved are apparently
releasing less information than people think. Why would they ask to show the
numbers if they were large?

The companies here are asking to be more transparent. I can't see how anyone
can argue that it isn't a step in the right direction.

~~~
beloch
People are upset with Google because they trusted an ever increasing amount of
their personal data to a company who's mantra is, "Don't be evil", only to
discover Google was facilitating snooping from a third party whistle blower.
Google has asked its users to trust their good intentions. The revelation that
nobody at Google was willing to speak out before Snowden can only be viewed as
a deep failure of ethics on an organization-wide level.

Trust is necessary for Google's business model. This letter represents a truly
minimal attempt at self-preservation. If you truly want to regain you users'
trust then _you_ need to be transparent. Who at Google failed to tell the
truth until it served their own interests? Who decided to meekly comply rather
than taking a stand? Name names. What is going on that we still don't know
about? Silence is support.

~~~
res0nat0r
>only to discover Google was facilitating snooping from a third party whistle
blower.

This directly contradicts what he is mentioning above. When you are
_compelled_ to do something, it doesn't mean you are facilitating. It means
you are being forced.

> Who at Google failed to tell the truth until it served their own interests?

Has anyone up until the last month when the press decided to take up the
Snowden case 24x7 actually _asked_ Google if this was going on? Books about
this subject and the NSA goings on have been published for 5+ years now. Maybe
no one cared enough to pay attention? Or it was known and ignored until now
because no one thought it newsworthy? That doesn't mean Google was keeping it
secret.

~~~
angersock
The issue is that if your motto is "Don't be evil.", you can't later pretend
it was "Don't be evil (unless you're forced to do so)."

Especially for a company that big, you'd expect some backbone.

~~~
DannyBee
Google has been fighting it.

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-
nsl/](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/) for
example.

Just because not every fight is public doesn't mean they aren't happening.

Yahoo fought for _5 years_ before their fight became public.

------
tlrobinson
The problem I have with every company's response so far is that they deny very
specific accusations using vague language, then tell us they "only provide
data when required to by the law".

I don't care about "Section 215" and "Section 702" specifically. We've seen
the government has had no problem with coming up with their own secret
"interpretations" of these laws, what's stopping them from using other laws to
secretly justify programs?

It's like a "blacklist" rather than a "whitelist" approach. I want companies
to categorically state with no wiggle room the only circumstances under which
they provide data to government/law enforcement before I even begin to think
about trusting them again.

------
agoandanon
Keep in mind - this is a PR move. None of these companies did anything before
their backdoors were revealed. They are only writing this extremely-public
press notice because they are getting called on their shenanigans.

~~~
acomar
Yahoo took the gov't to court over it and lost, and until recently were
forbidden from admitting that fact.

~~~
codyb
Yahoo received special commendations from the EFF for it's fights to secure
your privacy. I wonder if it a business strategy. "We seem to be losing market
share so lets fight strongly for our users privacy and when it comes out we're
doing it it will convince people to switch." Or is it just a company morality.
And why aren't other companies acting in our interests in a similar manner?

And I'm not actually sure about their market share since their stock is
remarkably steady over 5 years and has been steadily climbing since the middle
of 2012.

Yahoo's commendation: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-
users-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-
company-special-recognition)

Yahoo's stock:
[http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=y...](http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=YHOO+Interactive#symbol=yhoo;range=my;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;)

I know look at the max length of Yahoo's stock and yes, it seems they have
dropped quite a bit at points. Dec 1999 being their highest at 108 and change
(dot com bust I'd imagine came shortly after), and as high as 39 in 2006 up
from a low of 4.45 in Sep 2001. Currently 29 though so they've been putting in
work since they dropped to 11.51 in Nov 2008.

------
monkeynotes
This letter basically sets out "it's ok to snoop on our customers, just as
long as we can report it".

Why aren't these companies, and people in general, demanding that operations
like PRISM are terminated entirely? Why are people prepared to accept this
sort of intrusion into their private lives _at all_?

If a peeping tom kept bothering me I would not accept his presence as long as
he called me up before he started watching my house.

The major issue here isn't the way the government snoops on its citizens, it's
that it happens at all.

~~~
thomasahle
It's never a bad idea taking small steps with such changes. Once transparency
is in place, it'll be much easier to argue for stopping the practice
altogether.

As a sidenote, think about how efficient copyright advocates have been with
this strategy: slowly pushing through seemingly innocent changes.

~~~
monkeynotes
In principal I agree, transparency is essential to political and social
debate.

However, in this case we are not dealing with business law or economic policy
and such. We're dealing with something insidious and socially toxic. To me the
correct course is to outright object to mass personal surveillance from the
outset. We should not allow tyranny to edge its way into our society, it
should be stamped out and named to be the rotten cancer that it is.

------
scrrr
I don't think I can ever trust any of these companies again, sorry. It's sad.
I really liked their products. In my case it only matters with regards to
Google. Gmail, for instance, feels creepy when I log in.

On the other hand, competitors have a chance to catch up now. Which is great
news for consumers.

------
jjcm
Theoretically, what would happen to someone like Microsoft if they revealed
exactly what the NSA asked them to do? Would there be any real punishment?

~~~
scrrr
Perhaps it's just a conspiracy theory: [http://www.businessinsider.com/the-
story-of-joseph-nacchio-a...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-story-of-
joseph-nacchio-and-the-nsa-2013-6)

------
znowi
It's a fine initiative, I guess. Except, how is it related to PRISM, which
provides direct access to user data for the interested parties? There's no
FISA request to be made. As I see it, they want to come out as privacy
advocates while closely partnered with NSA.

------
mladenkovacevic
My latest conspiracy theory about the relationship between Silicon Valley and
the U.S. government:

Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook and others don't have time to do a lot
of research and development unless it's directly related to the product they
sell. So Google hires a lot of programmers who figure out how to deal with a
lot of data, Apple hires a lot of software and hardware people who design
beautiful integrated computing experiences...but their success depends on so
much more than those narrow fields.

For example I read recently about some really high-tech networking switches
that Google uses which allow their data centers to run that much more
efficiently. Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking
equipment? Probably not. Maybe to build and deploy them... but not to invent.
So they make a deal with DARPA, NSA or whoever. The government will trickle
down any technological breakthroughs they've made using tax-payer money to the
corporate sector, and the corporations will in exchange be VERY compliant and
VERY quiet when it comes to feeding the NSA user data it hungers for.

Now shit's hit the fan, and the companies are attempting to simulate their
dislike for the NSA.

~~~
minwcnt5
> Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably
> not.

Hah. If they have time to invent self-driving cars, balloon powered internet,
and wearable computing devices I'm pretty sure they can spare a few people to
invent networking equipment that would save them millions.

~~~
count
Heh, funny you mention that:

[http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-
cu...](http://www.nethosting.com/buzz/blog/a-rare-look-at-google-custom-
network-switches-for-data-centers/)

------
mtgx
So what else, more _real_ , are they doing? OTR and PGP for everyone? Yes?

~~~
dmix
The first one to add real encryption to their platform could make a lot of
money... especially if they are in desperate need of a competitive advantage.

~~~
jlgreco
The first one to add real encryption to their platform will have a hard time
explaining to their users why their platform is secure and their competitors
are not.

~~~
mullingitover
The first one to add real encryption will have to figure out how to deal with
the angry users who don't understand that if they lose their private key, all
their encrypted data is completely gone, forever.

------
lostoptimist
Why was the title cropped here? If you're going to explicitly name companies
don't you think all should be named? The title is implying other companies
(i.e. Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc.) aren't a part of this. Maybe it
should've been along the lines of "major tech companies including..."

 __Edit: The title has since been updated.

~~~
jlgreco
There are nearly 50 companies or organizations signing the letter. That would
make for a pretty damn unwieldy headline.

~~~
lostoptimist
The poster updated the title. I would agree with you but article's title named
5 companies and the poster's title named 3. Either copy the title in it's
entirety or don't name any companies.

------
wil421
When I first read this I starting thinking this is a good start but I think
these companies are just trying to save face. Now that these programs have
been exposed in more light both sides, the government and the companies who
participate, are just trying to minimize the impact without telling the full
truth about other programs.

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-
admits-i...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/07/nsa-admits-it-
analyzes-more-peoples-data-previously-revealed/67287/)

~~~
apass
That's my problem too. They still seem to be trying to just spin the requests
better and not addressing the basic over-reach assumption that everyone's info
is up for grabs if there is a "51% confidence" you may be whatever their
current rationalization is.

------
cik
Does anyone seriously believe that this is anything other than PR? While these
companies were prevented from disclosing details, they easily could have
announced that they're fighting for rights. And that's the problem.

Although I won't agree with it, I can understand that Google (and crew) were
prevented from DISCLOSING that they're being tapped. Fine, gun to the head and
all that. But what prevented them from saying "we receive requests, we fight
them", and even providing information on the process of fighting a request.

------
coldcode
There are better ways these companies could force the government to change:
refuse to do business with it. Of course that won't happen.

------
Bender22
Why are links to this letter going down? Even the link at venturebeat.com
linked to here is dead now.

------
mifreewil
Fuck the NSA

------
Buzaga
"hey guys, for the sake of the surveillance state, let's not ruin everyones's
businesses here, amirite? We're in this together"

