[joshstrange]

No, it appears this is only talking about the FISA court orders

>> “All 702 collection is pursuant to court directives, so they have to know,” De reiterated to the Guardian.

So, yes, companies knew they were being served with FISA warrants (that they complied with) but AFAICT they were unaware that the NSA was tapping their data lines like the example where they tapped data lines between Google's (and others) data centers. [1]

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...

[newman314]

It would be nice if these were illustrated. It's hard to keep track if who said what in context to particular directives/warrants etc.

[Zigurd]

> Section 702 is not the only legal authority the US government possesses to harvest data transiting the internet.

[mpyne]

The existence of other legal authorities does not imply that tech firms are voluntarily working with NSA to help NSA harvest their data transiting the Internet.

It doesn't even make sense anyways; what does Facebook have to do with surreptitiously tapping into a router in Belgrade or Quito?

[Zigurd]

Whether cooperation is voluntary, or not, is not the issue. Nor is tapping the carriers, with or without their cooperation. The article says that cooperation can be compelled.

The issue is that some of the participants in PRISM denied providing "direct access" to their data. Some people here are saying those denials are meaningful when we do not have a complete picture of how cooperation is compelled.