[rasterizer]

Obviously there is plenty of room for speculation but what seems to emerge, at least as I see it, is that even the worst case scenario doesn't entail actual "direct access".

In the case of activity timestamps (which I'm sure legally don't get the same protection as content) they would be sent by the companies to the FBI/NSA not have their actual servers monitored by them.

[Spearchucker]

There's a line between the provider and the FBI. That linesis explained as pull, rather than push. That nuance notwithstanding, how is this not direct access?

[rasterizer]

You want me to speculate about arrow direction?! alright, generally speaking the access is not "direct" because the "boxes" act as buffers. I can't say if they "pull" the boxes or they just serve subpoenas to them and get the data pushed back.

[Spearchucker]

Quite the opposite - no speculation is required. The NSA has direct access. Any discussion that focuses on how is a discussion of semantics, and as such is of anecdotal interest.