
Facebook Denies Giving NSA Direct Access To Its Servers - _pius
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/06/06/facebook-denies-giving-nsa-direct-access-to-its-servers/?utm_campaign=forbestwittersf&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
======
rosser
Facebook's response is the quintessential non-denial denial. Deny doing
something you weren't actually accused of doing, but that sounds enough like
it, so that you don't have to deny doing the thing you actually did.

~~~
foobarqux
The statements released by the companies (especially Apple and Facebook) are
similar enough that they may be crafted talking points supplied by the
government.

~~~
kvb
And this one [http://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/Press/2013/Jun13/06-06st...](http://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/news/Press/2013/Jun13/06-06statement.aspx)?

~~~
foobarqux
You're right that one is distinct and specifically says that they only release
individual customer data.

Since weasel wording is pretty prevalent on this topic I would note that they
could still run NSA algorithms on the dataset and return the individuals that
are "hits".

------
coldcode
They have to. The first rule of NSL is you don't talk about NSL. Until someone
decides to be a Bradley and show and tell.

~~~
kvb
Are they required to deny it, or just not to divulge it?

~~~
Andrenid
Considering the punishment by admitting it, and the "silence means you're
guilty" thing that happens most of the time, I'd say they're pretty much left
with no option other than to deny it even if it's a lie.

------
adventured
Like everybody else, I'm amused by the direct access phrasing.

Obviously the NSA doesn't have direct access. They don't need it, and wouldn't
want it. If they had it, they couldn't have put together these nice convenient
PR packets for times like this.

What the NSA most likely has, is signed assurances of data integrity, and
unlimited API access.

The most important aspect to lying, is the intent to deceive, it binds all
forms of lying together. What matters in the blanket denials being issued by
all the companies, is their intent to deceive. Is it a lie when they say they
don't give direct access to the NSA? Perhaps not, but their intent is
deception, and that's what matters.

~~~
junto
I'm wondering if the name of the project is a clue. Maybe they don't need
access to the structured data. Maybe they just split the fiber optical stream
using a 'prism' and pipe the output to Fort Meade.

In which case, Facebook are not lying when they say that the NSA don't have
access to their servers, but they do have access to their network traffic.

------
t0dd
"Protecting the privacy of our users and their data is a top priority for
Facebook." -- and here comes the cue for the sitcom audience to start
laughing.

------
jjoe
No direct access to servers is needed when you can sniff it all up at the wire
on premises. Nice play on words...

~~~
skcin7
"no direct access" Of course the gov't didn't have raw dumps to the SQL
databases, they have their own neat little front end web application that
Facebook provides to them.

------
codezero
But did Facebook have direct access to a NSA data dump, to which they were
required by law to send data?

------
rhizome
Why would FB give the NSA direct access? FB employs plenty of people with
sufficient skills to send the desired information over when needed.

~~~
bane
Because the NSA may not want FB to know who exactly they're interested in.

~~~
rhizome
"Just give us everything." "OK"

------
mgiampapa
How do you prove a negative?

