<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<h1 class="title">"You Should Use Both" - How America's Internet
Companies Are Handing Over Your Data To Uncle Sam</h1>
<div class="picture"> <a
href="http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden" title="View
user profile."><img src="cid:part1.02050502.03040508@gmail.com"
alt="Tyler Durden's picture" title="Tyler Durden's picture"></a></div>
<span class="submitted">Submitted by <a
href="http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden">Tyler Durden</a>
on 06/08/2013 13:58 -0400</span><br>
<span class="taxonomy"></span><br>
<br>
<div class="content">
<p>In the aftermath of the PRISM spying scandal, the first and
logical response was an expected one: <strong>lie</strong>. The
<a
href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-07/obama-lying-about-big-brother">president
did it</a>, and so did the various companies implicated in the
biggest US surveillance scandal ever exposed. To wit:</p>
<ul>
<li>Zuckerberg: "<strong>Facebook is not and has never been part
of any program to give the US or any other government direct
access to our servers</strong>."</li>
<li>Google CEO Larry Page: "<strong>We have not joined any
program that would give the US government – or any other
government – direct access to our servers."</strong></li>
<li>Yahoo: "<strong>We do not provide the government with direct
access to our servers, systems, or network</strong>."</li>
</ul>
<p>One small problem: <em><strong>they are all lying.</strong></em></p>
<p>The <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-concede-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html">NYT
explains </a>just how the explicit handover of private
customer data from Corporate Server X to NSA Server Y takes
place.</p>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_start">
</div>
<div class="quote_end">
</div>
<p>The companies that negotiated with the government include
Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and
Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to
one of the people briefed on the discussions. <strong>The
companies were legally required to share the data under the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the
discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they
are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA
requests or even acknowledging their existence.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of
the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals,
like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that
have long existed for classified information, in some
instances on company servers</strong>. Through these online
rooms, the government would request data, companies would
deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people
briefed on the discussions said. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>...</p>
<p> </p>
<p> Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a
government program providing officials with access to its
servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government
wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and
giving them specific data in response to individual court
orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full,
indiscriminate access to its servers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The companies said they do, however, comply with individual
court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the
technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in
that category because they involve access to data under
individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is
transmitted to the government electronically, using a
company’s servers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>“<strong>The U.S. government does not have direct access or a
‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers</strong>,”
Google’s chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal
officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. “We
provide user data to governments only in accordance with the
law.” Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL
and Paltalk made the same distinction.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But instead of adding a back door to their servers, <strong>the
companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox
and give the government the key, </strong>people briefed on
the negotiations said. <strong>Facebook, for instance, built
such a system for requesting and sharing the information,
they said.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared
after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according
to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk,
and the government does not have full access to company
servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient
way to hand over the data.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full
scope of cooperation with national security officials because
<strong>employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests
are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at
the company, </strong>and in some cases have national
security clearance, according to both a former senior
government official and a lawyer representing a technology
company. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>And there you have it: backdoors, locked (and not so locked
mailboxes), and internal corporate firewalls in which some
employees know everything that is going on and are used as a
Chinese Wall scapegoat by everyone else who was shocked there is
snooping going on here, SHOCKED.</p>
<p>Oh, and if that was not enough, here it is straight from the
horse's mouth. Via the <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-surveillance-prism-obama-live?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20full-width-1%20bento-box:Bento%20box:Position2#block-51b36893e4b0cc6424372292">Guardian</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<div class="quote_start">
</div>
<div class="quote_end">
</div>
<p>The slide, below, details different methods of data
collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was
renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism,
which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from
four different programs involving data collection from "fiber
cables and infrastructure as data flows past".</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a
href="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/PRISM%20use%20both.jpg"><img
src="cid:part7.01050002.01010404@gmail.com" width="460"
height="276"></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Essentially, the slide suggests that the NSA also collects
some information under FAA702 from cable intercepts, but that
process is distinct from Prism.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Analysts are encouraged to use both techniques of data
gathering.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>"You Should
Use Both</strong></span><strong>."</strong> You know: just
in case only one is insufficient to make a mocker of all
personal rights and civil liberties. </p>
<p><a
href="http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/06/NSA%20dark%20knight.jpg"><img
src="cid:part9.09030304.09060906@gmail.com" width="511"
height="287"></a></p>
<div class="fivestar-static-form-item">
<div class="form-item"> <label>Average: </label>
<div class="fivestar-widget-static fivestar-widget-static-vote
fivestar-widget-static-5 clear-block">
<div class="star star-1 star-odd star-first"><span
class="on">5</span></div>
<div class="star star-2 star-even"><span class="on"></span></div>
<div class="star star-3 star-odd"><span class="on"></span></div>
<div class="star star-4 star-even"><span class="on"></span></div>
<div class="star star-5 star-odd star-last"><span class="on"></span></div>
</div>
<div class="description">
<div class="fivestar-summary fivestar-summary-combo"><span
class="user-rating">Your rating: <span>None</span></span>
<span class="average-rating">Average: <span>5</span></span>
<span class="total-votes">(<span>12</span> votes)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>