

Twitter refused to join PRISM - ig1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22824379

======
mvkel
Twitter _refused_ PRISM, yet Facebook and Google had never heard of it?
Doesn't sound very plausible.

I'm actually assuming this is just bad reporting; someone's source saying
"refused" instead of "never heard of."

Zuck's response sounded pretty genuine in terms of his knowledge (or lack
thereof) of PRISM. He would have zero incentive to say what he said if he
_did_ know something.

~~~
room271
This is the BBC; they are usually very careful about what they print.

Having said that, it does seem odd. They present a (if true) very newsworthy
note about Twitter in a two-liner at the bottom of the article.

Would be good to hear more on this.

------
ig1
The key takeaways:

1) There's at least one tech company that was approached about joining Prism.
Presumably similar approaches were made to other companies.

2) The participation was at least in this case voluntary

3) Without that participation Prism was unable to access Twitter data (based
upon the slides).

~~~
evgen
4) Twitter has no non-public data stored of any significance (or such a small
amount that it is easy to get a dump once and then just delta from taps) and
the realtime data is coming from Gnip or an optical tap.

------
mcintyre1994
"Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that Twitter was invited to join the Prism
programme last year, but rejected the approach from US authorities."

According to the NYTimes article, Twitter chose not to build extra systems to
help the NSA collect data more easily for FISA requests. Obviously we need to
be careful here, but if that's the wording that was used, PRISM could be just
that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA requested data.

~~~
hannibal5
"Obviously we need to be careful here, but if that's the wording that was
used, PRISM could be just that voluntary system to give easier access to NSA
requested data."

Isn't that exactly what the leaked PowerPoints and original Washington Post
article suggested? They had time-line when companies joined. And specific
Special Source Operations seal for the operation and companies.

>The technology companies, whose cooperation is essential to PRISM operations,
include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley, according to
the document. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of
entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL,
Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted traffic of
substantial intelligence interest during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing
Syrian civil war.

>PRISM is an heir, in one sense, to a history of intelligence alliances with
as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s. The NSA calls these
Special Source Operations, and PRISM falls under that rubric.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-
intelligence...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-
mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-
program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html)

~~~
mcintyre1994
The Guardian leak claimed direct access, which is the wording being used in
denials also. It doesn't seem like a system for easier FISA requests, in the
form suggested, would qualify as direct access. I said we should be careful,
because if there really was direct access under PRISM this wouldn't fit.

Also interesting is that Twitter claim to have been approached about "PRISM"
while all the other companies claim not to have known about that program.
Would the NSA approach a company using the operation's actual codename? I
suspect Twitter are jumping on the good PR after not appearing on the slides.

~~~
hannibal5
Considering that PRISM is secret government intelligence operation, it should
be clear that those who participate can't reveal that they are part of it. I
mean, if for example Google is participating, would anybody expect Larry Page
just admit it: "Damn. You caught us."

~~~
mcintyre1994
Right, and if Twitter were approached would they be allowed to go tell the
press about it? I'm finding it hard to believe they were the same program.

~~~
hannibal5
You can't forbid people or companies from revealing contact attempts if they
have not signed any NDA's.

