Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? .......
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Calm down. Even if it's 9 - 10,000 accounts (and let's double that to get an annual number), Apple has 575,000,000 total accounts. Calculate the proportion: it's a trivial number. Also, Apple points out -- unless you refuse to believe them -- that most are for police matters. NSA requests are therefore infinitesimally small in Apple's case.
I am far more concerned about NSA's cell-phone and ISP metadata sweeps.
There is a world of difference between surveillance and criminal proceedings. It may be that warrants are requested where a crime is obviously being or is in the process of being investigated/committed and data that is being surveilled in case of a criminal or subversive suspicion.
And the concluding sentence of the article you pointed to was:
<span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">"The reality is that if NSA surveillance is indeed overstepping its bounds, those companies are victims, not willing participants."</span>
<span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">Neither the article nor that sentence undermines the direct unilateral data retrieval procedures the NSA are accused of </span> <span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">implementing to gather and store data.</span>
It was intended to show how the stories have changed since it was first reported, something you said you were unaware of. FWIW I think they'll change even more as days go by. No one here can claim to know for a fact who cooperated with who, or how data makes its way to the intelligence community. Even the public story is in daily flux.
Why is all the text in the story showing with a strike through? It only appears when you click view all comments and not on the main story link. I thought the story was being edited or changed.
What occurs to me is that all the Internet browsing and services we use from Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. come to us through a cell carrier or broadband provider anyway.
So I wonder what's the relevance of specifying participation by companies like Google or Apple or Facebook, when all the data for their customers has to pass through the same pipes owned by AT&T, Verizon, etc.? Is it because after scooping up all the data, the government then has to request specific permission from the companies that are serving up that data to actually open/analyze the data?
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
And you choose to believe that.
Some people believe in Creation. And that Obama is a Muslim Socialist. Or that Bush orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, but just sat reading a kids book because that was the most clever cover for his mastermind stroke of genius. Or that owning an AR-15 will prevent the US from turning into a police state, because individuals will be able to fend off tyranny with 10 rounds of ammo at a time.
The less informed you are, the easier it is to believe in scary sounding conspiracy theories.
There are very clearly lots of purely stupid things that appear on those powerpoint slides. I'd recommend you think about that before swallowing it.
If the NSA were copying ALL (rather than a narrow range) of our data and communications over an extended period of times across basically every popular service Americans and international customers use, wouldn't they need a server/storage facility that would be one of the largest storage facilities ever built? Roughly it would need to be the combined equivalent of the all the storage facilities those companies have built, right?
Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly when it had less than 90 percent of the PC market. In the US, Google has about 70 percent of the search market. Worldwide, Google has over 90 percent in many Countries, especially in Europe. I suspect that Google controls close to 90 percent of mobile advertising in the US.
Moreover, you do not have to sell something to have a monopoly. Google offers a search product. It uses this to sell ads. This product competes with products from Yahoo, Microsoft, along with a few other companies. These also wish to sell ads.
But one doesn't have to use Google. There are other search engines out there even before Google, being the most popular does not a monopoly make.
But one doesn't have to use Google. There are other search engines out there even before Google, being the most popular does not a monopoly make.
Here's a bit of Microsoft double-speak. MS and Oracle are the two big drivers behind the complaints to the EU about Google's supposed "Android monopoly" and their supposed "search monopoly". They discount the argument that there are other search engines or mobile operating systems. Doesn't matter in their view. Well in comes Cisco in the past few weeks complaining that the EU should never have approved MS's purchase of Skype. They want the deal looked at again and denied because of the market share Skype holds. As far as Cisco is concerned MS ownership effectively bars others from being successful in that market. What do you suppose Microsoft's counter argument is? Yup," there's other market options besides Skype". The fact they have such a huge share isn't their fault and shouldn't matter.
As to PRISM in general, I'm of two minds. In principle I'm totally, utterly against it. It seems obviously a hugely unconstitutional process, intruding on what little is left of the 4th Amendment.
OTOH, on a personal level I couldn't care less. If the NSA's really that interested in how many Sarah McLachlan albums I've purchased from iTunes, or what trashy b-movie horror flicks I've streamed from Netflix, go for it guys and gals. Me email is less interesting than reading an EULA -- WAY less. And my browsing history can't be interesting to anyone, except for people looking for good links to certain kinds of pr0n, I suppose.
As to Google, I can't understand how anyone considers them a tech company in the first place. They are an ad company, and they've always been an ad company. That they collect data on searches to help with selling ads shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. OTOH, again on a personal level, I don't really care. I haven't seen ads in years, and even when I do (iOS), I pretty much ignore all of them except for the funny ones. If Google's really that interseted in the fact that I looked up an episode of "Without a Trace" last night to see who the cute actress was, good for them.
It was intended to show how the stories have changed since it was first reported, something you said you were unaware of. FWIW I think they'll change even more as days go by. No one here can claim to know for a fact who cooperated with who, or how data makes its way to the intelligence community. Even the public story is in daily flux.
No it hasn't. It has drawn attention to some bad journalistic decisions, but not the crux of the problem; that data is drawn directly by NSA from tech companies' servers.
@ c4rlob - NSA do not need to have server systems as large and complex as cloud storage systems as they do not have hundreds of millions of people needing to access them. They just need a repository their agents can access, which may number a few million maximum.
One curious omission in this Prism debacle has been MOSSAD. It has been said by Governmental Israeli's that they run America.
No it hasn't. It has drawn attention to some bad journalistic decisions, but not the crux of the problem; that data is drawn directly by NSA from tech companies' servers.
NSA do not need to have server systems as large and complex as cloud storage systems as they do not have millions of people needing to access them. They just need a repository their agents can access, which may number a few million maximum.
One curious omission in this Prism debacle has been MOSSAD. It has been said by Governmental Israeli's that they run America.
This just HAD to be some weird sort of sarcasm that I don't get, right? Please?
If Apple really wanted to protect it's customers privacy, it would move it's servers out of the US. Or at least move the servers for non-US customers out of the US.
If you wanted to protect your privacy, in regards to Apple and this article, then don't commit crimes that an agency would request your information.
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access (such as to non-Apple backups of the data) to all the information described and more. Sure the messages might be encrypted but I don't believe for a second that Apple doesn't store and keep the messages and encryption keys, even if only for essential service delivery and stability, and if the US government could get access to a temporary site and build their own databases then I'm sure they would!
Of course even if Apple doesn't knowingly provide the information it's far easier to believe that the US government would take it if they could than not. And I don't think there's any doubt that they have the capability to do so. Being able to know what every person is thinking and doing is the holy grail of data that any Government would do anything they can to get their filthy perverse hands on. The problem is when they go to such lengths that they have to keep it secret in order to prevent a massive public backlash.
US diplomatic cables reveal the extent of secrecy and coercion in which the US government operates. What do you think the whole Echelon project is about. What amazes me is that people re-elect governments that spend huge amounts of our money to spy on us.
I genuinely believe Apple cares about our privacy and tried to resist it, hence them being one of the last big companies to join, but this reads like nothing more than a government scripted defence that Apple was forced to post. And of course with Apple's generous tax arrangements the Government has HUGE bargaining power to force Apple to do what it wants. The US government is a corporation after all and these are all private contracts negotiated in secret.
If PRISM is so innocuous then why is it secret? Because the Government doesn't want you to know what they have access to. Scary times.
I think if Apple was so prone to do the will of the Government, those $billions would be paying taxes right now. Yes, Apple probably could have said "any" access rather than "direct access", but I think they were just answering in context to the "direct access" requests.
I would find it hard to believe that Apple is keeping iMessages and encryption keys, but not that the Government cracks access to systems. A good reason to have your outer defense written in a language not known outside the company.
The whole PRISM scandal is about direct access to servers... Apple is completely denying that. Furthermore, they go on to say that they hand over data only when there's a court order ... this IS admitting they allow indirect access to some data.
I did and since you want to passive aggressively suggest otherwise might I suggest that you failed to grasp the potential enormity of what PRISM and Snowden's revelations mean. I don't for a second believe that PRISM is about appropriate requests for data with a court order as Apple (was forced) to imply with their highly scripted response. There is no need to keep such processes secret. In fact the whole point of a court is that it's an open and transparent process.
The enormity of the risk is that Apple was forced to allowed indirect access for NSA to take whatever it needs on the grounds of "national security" with no court order or "direct" Apple involvement at all. It is easy for the government to take or have access to data on servers that aren't owned by Apple or are bridging servers between the two organisations and such access would not be direct access so if at some point further evidence is provided that demonstrates this their statement that they don't allow direct access is still true.
If the NSA were copying ALL (rather than a narrow range) of our data and communications over an extended period of times across basically every popular service Americans and international customers use, wouldn't they need a server/storage facility that would be one of the largest storage facilities ever built? Roughly it would need to be the combined equivalent of the all the storage facilities those companies have built, right?
They are. Look up Bluffdale Utah NSA. This is the secret data centre that everyone knows about. :-)
There are some good links on Ars and The Guardian about it. Another good search is for William Binney. There are some great interview vids with him online.
Didn't we just have a terrorist attack in Boston and didn't the ones responsible have multiple red flags against them from multiple countries warning us of their intent? Where was Prism to avoid this clear and present danger? I don't think the government is looking for the best interest of the country. Like the IRS scandal, they are probably claiming need for data for criminal activities, but only interested in digging dirt on those they deem opponents to their civil liberty grab.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do those rights exist anymore? Any criminal investigation can move forward quickly with a court order. Sending thousands of requests without one shows the disregard of our privacy rights.
Apple *could* decrypt it if they wanted to. They have root access to the phone to be able to get to the keys on both ends. Assuming they are not doing so no they would just need an update to put that code into iOS to do so. They might not have programmed the phones to do so currenly (or did they?) but it is possible. Cannot should be 'will not'.
The best way to word that would be...
Apple has currently programmed iOS to not give Apple the ability to decrypt iMessages and facetime traffic. Since their code is closed and proprietary though you will just need to trust them on that (which I do).
I knew when Apple said "direct access" rather than just "access" they were being sneaky.
There's a brilliant thread on this running at CNET, which posted a similar scripted "article" posing as "news". One commentator writes: "Yeah... all of the companies had ominously similar statements about "direct access" and "back doors".
Almost all of the comments are calling the article bullshit.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isidore
Being of a suspicious turn of mind, my first question is, is this 4-5000 requests with 9-10000 accounts in total or 9-10000 accounts in each request? .......
All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Calm down. Even if it's 9 - 10,000 accounts (and let's double that to get an annual number), Apple has 575,000,000 total accounts. Calculate the proportion: it's a trivial number. Also, Apple points out -- unless you refuse to believe them -- that most are for police matters. NSA requests are therefore infinitesimally small in Apple's case.
I am far more concerned about NSA's cell-phone and ISP metadata sweeps.
It was intended to show how the stories have changed since it was first reported, something you said you were unaware of. FWIW I think they'll change even more as days go by. No one here can claim to know for a fact who cooperated with who, or how data makes its way to the intelligence community. Even the public story is in daily flux.
So I wonder what's the relevance of specifying participation by companies like Google or Apple or Facebook, when all the data for their customers has to pass through the same pipes owned by AT&T, Verizon, etc.? Is it because after scooping up all the data, the government then has to request specific permission from the companies that are serving up that data to actually open/analyze the data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
I don't believe these figures at all. Everyone is claiming the same number of requests for data. Yet Snowden states that NSA has direct access to data servers.
And you choose to believe that.
Some people believe in Creation. And that Obama is a Muslim Socialist. Or that Bush orchestrated the attacks of 9/11, but just sat reading a kids book because that was the most clever cover for his mastermind stroke of genius. Or that owning an AR-15 will prevent the US from turning into a police state, because individuals will be able to fend off tyranny with 10 rounds of ammo at a time.
The less informed you are, the easier it is to believe in scary sounding conspiracy theories.
There are very clearly lots of purely stupid things that appear on those powerpoint slides. I'd recommend you think about that before swallowing it.
But one doesn't have to use Google. There are other search engines out there even before Google, being the most popular does not a monopoly make.
Here's a bit of Microsoft double-speak. MS and Oracle are the two big drivers behind the complaints to the EU about Google's supposed "Android monopoly" and their supposed "search monopoly". They discount the argument that there are other search engines or mobile operating systems. Doesn't matter in their view. Well in comes Cisco in the past few weeks complaining that the EU should never have approved MS's purchase of Skype. They want the deal looked at again and denied because of the market share Skype holds. As far as Cisco is concerned MS ownership effectively bars others from being successful in that market. What do you suppose Microsoft's counter argument is? Yup," there's other market options besides Skype". The fact they have such a huge share isn't their fault and shouldn't matter.
As to PRISM in general, I'm of two minds. In principle I'm totally, utterly against it. It seems obviously a hugely unconstitutional process, intruding on what little is left of the 4th Amendment.
OTOH, on a personal level I couldn't care less. If the NSA's really that interested in how many Sarah McLachlan albums I've purchased from iTunes, or what trashy b-movie horror flicks I've streamed from Netflix, go for it guys and gals. Me email is less interesting than reading an EULA -- WAY less. And my browsing history can't be interesting to anyone, except for people looking for good links to certain kinds of pr0n, I suppose.
As to Google, I can't understand how anyone considers them a tech company in the first place. They are an ad company, and they've always been an ad company. That they collect data on searches to help with selling ads shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. OTOH, again on a personal level, I don't really care. I haven't seen ads in years, and even when I do (iOS), I pretty much ignore all of them except for the funny ones. If Google's really that interseted in the fact that I looked up an episode of "Without a Trace" last night to see who the cute actress was, good for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
It was intended to show how the stories have changed since it was first reported, something you said you were unaware of. FWIW I think they'll change even more as days go by. No one here can claim to know for a fact who cooperated with who, or how data makes its way to the intelligence community. Even the public story is in daily flux.
No it hasn't. It has drawn attention to some bad journalistic decisions, but not the crux of the problem; that data is drawn directly by NSA from tech companies' servers.
@ c4rlob - NSA do not need to have server systems as large and complex as cloud storage systems as they do not have hundreds of millions of people needing to access them. They just need a repository their agents can access, which may number a few million maximum.
One curious omission in this Prism debacle has been MOSSAD. It has been said by Governmental Israeli's that they run America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red
No it hasn't. It has drawn attention to some bad journalistic decisions, but not the crux of the problem; that data is drawn directly by NSA from tech companies' servers.
NSA do not need to have server systems as large and complex as cloud storage systems as they do not have millions of people needing to access them. They just need a repository their agents can access, which may number a few million maximum.
One curious omission in this Prism debacle has been MOSSAD. It has been said by Governmental Israeli's that they run America.
This just HAD to be some weird sort of sarcasm that I don't get, right? Please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
This just HAD to be some weird sort of sarcasm that I don't get, right? Please?
No sarcasm, it has been often stated by Israeli ministers. Look up the quotes if you don't believe it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisgoingon
If Apple really wanted to protect it's customers privacy, it would move it's servers out of the US. Or at least move the servers for non-US customers out of the US.
If you wanted to protect your privacy, in regards to Apple and this article, then don't commit crimes that an agency would request your information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf
They still used the qualification "direct access" which is as good as admitting that they allow indirect access (such as to non-Apple backups of the data) to all the information described and more. Sure the messages might be encrypted but I don't believe for a second that Apple doesn't store and keep the messages and encryption keys, even if only for essential service delivery and stability, and if the US government could get access to a temporary site and build their own databases then I'm sure they would!
Of course even if Apple doesn't knowingly provide the information it's far easier to believe that the US government would take it if they could than not. And I don't think there's any doubt that they have the capability to do so. Being able to know what every person is thinking and doing is the holy grail of data that any Government would do anything they can to get their filthy perverse hands on. The problem is when they go to such lengths that they have to keep it secret in order to prevent a massive public backlash.
US diplomatic cables reveal the extent of secrecy and coercion in which the US government operates. What do you think the whole Echelon project is about. What amazes me is that people re-elect governments that spend huge amounts of our money to spy on us.
I genuinely believe Apple cares about our privacy and tried to resist it, hence them being one of the last big companies to join, but this reads like nothing more than a government scripted defence that Apple was forced to post. And of course with Apple's generous tax arrangements the Government has HUGE bargaining power to force Apple to do what it wants. The US government is a corporation after all and these are all private contracts negotiated in secret.
If PRISM is so innocuous then why is it secret? Because the Government doesn't want you to know what they have access to. Scary times.
I think if Apple was so prone to do the will of the Government, those $billions would be paying taxes right now. Yes, Apple probably could have said "any" access rather than "direct access", but I think they were just answering in context to the "direct access" requests.
I would find it hard to believe that Apple is keeping iMessages and encryption keys, but not that the Government cracks access to systems. A good reason to have your outer defense written in a language not known outside the company.
I did and since you want to passive aggressively suggest otherwise might I suggest that you failed to grasp the potential enormity of what PRISM and Snowden's revelations mean. I don't for a second believe that PRISM is about appropriate requests for data with a court order as Apple (was forced) to imply with their highly scripted response. There is no need to keep such processes secret. In fact the whole point of a court is that it's an open and transparent process.
The enormity of the risk is that Apple was forced to allowed indirect access for NSA to take whatever it needs on the grounds of "national security" with no court order or "direct" Apple involvement at all. It is easy for the government to take or have access to data on servers that aren't owned by Apple or are bridging servers between the two organisations and such access would not be direct access so if at some point further evidence is provided that demonstrates this their statement that they don't allow direct access is still true.
There are some good links on Ars and The Guardian about it. Another good search is for William Binney. There are some great interview vids with him online.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Do those rights exist anymore? Any criminal investigation can move forward quickly with a court order. Sending thousands of requests without one shows the disregard of our privacy rights.
Be afraid America. Be very afraid.
Apple *could* decrypt it if they wanted to. They have root access to the phone to be able to get to the keys on both ends. Assuming they are not doing so no they would just need an update to put that code into iOS to do so. They might not have programmed the phones to do so currenly (or did they?) but it is possible. Cannot should be 'will not'.
The best way to word that would be...
Apple has currently programmed iOS to not give Apple the ability to decrypt iMessages and facetime traffic. Since their code is closed and proprietary though you will just need to trust them on that (which I do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aappleinside-forum
I knew when Apple said "direct access" rather than just "access" they were being sneaky.
There's a brilliant thread on this running at CNET, which posted a similar scripted "article" posing as "news". One commentator writes: "Yeah... all of the companies had ominously similar statements about "direct access" and "back doors".
Almost all of the comments are calling the article bullshit.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of-nsas-direct-access-to-tech-companies/