| Ok, let's read this closely. It doesn't seem to me like Larry and David are really denying much of anything. "Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers." Sure, that's fine. But the fact that the initial PPT gives a specific date on which Google cooperation began already suggests that Google may be handing over data, not that the gov't is sucking it all down automatically. Also, they say "data centers" in particular. Data travels over lots of other pipes. "We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday." Not surprising the NSA wouldn't tell them the secret code name of the project in their discussions. "we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process." This is an enormous loophole. "in accordance to the law" could mean anything, and with automated review systems the volume of data passing through could be massive. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." Not providing "open-ended acces" does not mean not providing any access. "We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist." But not surprised to learn that other not-so-broad orders exist. How broad is too broad? "Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." Not "on such a scale", but on a slightly smaller scale, sure. "there needs to be a more transparent approach" In other words, we wish we could tell you about everything we're doing with the NSA, but we aren't allowed to. Really this doesn't read like any sort of denial at all. |