[Mystalic]

This is a lesson in the power of language. The companies involved and their denials of knowledge of PRISM were not lies, but clearly they were making it easier for the government to extract data for surveillance, under an unnamed program with specific point people in each company who were only allowed to talk to the government and not talk to their CEOs about the extent in which the government was extracting data. It may go even deeper. We just don't know.

The thing that upsets me most is that I suspect nobody except for the whistleblower will take any real heat. I hope more will come forward with more details in the coming weeks, before the government makes an example of the whisteblower.

Will this incident change user behavior? I doubt it. We're too dependent on these companies to cut them off en masse.

[ritchiea]

I dunno, it sounds to me like the companies in question were being hit with a lot of government requests and they did the natural thing to take them seriously and make it easy for their employees to deal with: make an API for it and automate the parts of the process that can be automated.

It is inevitable they are going to be hit with requests for information, they could dig their heels in on some things but ultimately they legally have to provide some of the information requested. They could have implemented APIs without any idea of how the NSA structured or code named the technology internally on the NSA's side. And I'm sure Google, Facebook, et al implemented whatever they implemented with little knowledge of how other companies were complying or not.

What I imagine happened is that any company that took compliance seriously, likely for their own staff's benefit, as a side effect became a stronger asset to the NSA than companies like Twitter who resisted.

And lastly, I'm not saying any of this is good. It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible.

[glenra]

> It just seems extremely plausible and not part of a massive conspiracy to give the NSA access to as much data as possible.

Wait, why can't it be both of those things? What could the phrase "massive conspiracy" mean if it doesn't apply to a situation like this?

"conspiracy" suggests a bunch of people were trying to accomplish a goal in secret, at odds with the interests of the general public. Yup!

"massive" implies significant scale - that it was a LOT of people sharing a LOT of information. Check!

I'm not seeing anything missing...

[ritchiea]

Some things happen in secret but are not part of a conspiracy. Conspiracies require secrecy because they are unlawful or unethical. It is codified into law (which is public) that the US gov will make classified information requests like the ones presented to the companies in question. Automating the exchange of information that the government has announced will by law be exchanged is not a conspiracy even if the specifics of what information is exchanged and the mechanics of the exchange are a secret.

[glenra]

This data exchange is arguably both unlawful and unethical. Unlawful in that it's an illegal search under the 4th amendment to the constitution. Unethical in that it makes liars out of these companies when they claim their customers have a reasonable level of privacy.

What conceivable "probable cause" could justify data collection on the scale being discussed? Practices being "codified into law" (largely secret laws, being interpreted in secret ways) doesn't really let anyone off the hook here. Or it shouldn't, at any rate. (Congresscritters and presidents still have an oath of office that promises to defend the constitution, right?)

[ritchiea]

That is not the case according to the article. I understand how you could believe this is happening but specifically with the SV companies we have no evidence of it and even the Washington Post is backing down from some of their boldest claims (e.g. NSA had direct access).

[pessimizer]

Sending everyone's information to US intelligence is not one of those things; as opposed to a trade secret which is one of those things. It isn't something that other people would copy if they knew about it, it's something that people would get very angry and upset if they heard about.

[ritchiea]

Are you talking about Verzion? I would consider that a different case than the SV companies.

[bpatrianakos]

Please, don't be that guy who plays word games and starts parsing words in ways that suit their agenda. It's pretty clear he meant conspiracy in the common way most people talk about conspiracies when it comes to this subject. As in conspiracy theories or any other kind of conspiracy with sinister motives. The "they're out to get us" kind of conspiracy. Please don't come back now and say "that's not the way I commonly use/see it used". We do this far too often on this site. We start nitpicking little things like the dictionary definitions of words when we don't agree with someone and it totally derails the discussion.

The OP makes a good point here. These companies aren't out to intentionally harm their own users. They are out to make money and that sometimes has some side effects we don't like. But it is also entirely possible that they really do care about their customers/users too. Sometimes I feel like most people somehow have this idea that all these big companies are evil and really are involved in some mass conspiracy to harm us somehow. I once ran a company. I think this is somewhat related to this sort of war between companies trying to extract as much money per customer and customers trying to extract as much value from companies at as little cost as possible. But that's a topic for another time.

All the OP was really getting at with the conspiracy remark, and OP please correct me if I'm wrong, is that whether or not they intentionally gave the government access to some or all of their data they didn't do so knowing or intending for it to be used the way it was. They were trying cover their ass by complying with certain laws and the authorities and this massive cluster fuck was an unexpected consequence of that.

[glenra]

This was a "they're out to get us" kind of conspiracy.

The NSA sought to expand its own power in secret though quasi-legal means with the help of a few powerful men in government and a lot of scared people in corporations. The conspiracy used leverage to force cooperation by companies. You don't have to be evil in order to do evil by cooperating with a conspiracy, even (especially!) one run by the government.

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men - or good companies - do nothing.

If for something to be "a conspiracy" you require that EVERYBODY who helps the effort be consciously furthering the actual goals of the conspiracy, you've defined conspiracy in such a way that it is unlikely one could ever exist. In any actual plausible conspiracy there will always be unwitting dupes. There will always be people who've managed to convince themselves that they personally are doing good or that the organization is good even if the effects it produces don't turn out that way.

[Mystalic]

I don't think there's a conspiracy here. Just bad decisions.

[startupfounder]

"This is a lesson in the power of language."

Yes!

What exactly is being said, but more importantly what is not being said? Zuck's post was 169 words on one of the most important stories to break about privacy and tech companies.