decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The PRISM Details Matter | 55 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
John Adams letter to Abigail Adams, 26 April 1777
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT
And it took the post office all this time to deliver it. ;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Rackspace response to PRISM
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:21 AM EDT

Rackspace response to PRISM

My immediate thought is that there's one big loophole here: National Security Letters. They aren't warrants or anything close to them. And if Rackspace had received one, the usual terms are that they can't disclose that they'd received one so of course they can't say they've received any. I'm afraid my attitude remains that if the government had never issued blanket requests and had no intention of doing so, they wouldn't need to fight so hard to a) retain the ability to issue them and b) block any inquiry into whether or not they had been issuing them. I still remember the arguments that amounted to "The plaintiff can't already prove the charges, therefore the plaintiff isn't even allowed to get into court.". If only that were true, because if it was SCO would've been out of luck from day 1, IV would be shut down and far too many other annoying lawsuits wouldn't even have made it past filing before being dismissed for lack of standing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The PRISM Details Matter
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:47 AM EDT
Newspick

Indeed the details matter, so why do they give us a lot of tedious nitpicking over the meaning and location of "servers" when the ppt slide they quoted has as its top item (You should use both)
Upstream * Collection of communications on fiber cables as data flows past,
aka Room 641 and all its as yet undisclosed brethren, there are four direct line slurping operations identified on that slide, only two named.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )