|
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
..please put the correction in the title.
korrecshun -> correction[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
| ..this is an NSA free zone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
..newspicks comments. Please add a linky to the story as the
news scrolls off the front page fairly quickly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
| ..you know the drill? ;o) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arnt on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
| ..since we can't go back in time and redo it. ;o) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
...can probably be put down to a non-tech person having put the slide and
document together. If I read it correctly, the companies claim they drop the
requested information (on request only) in a drop box, which is then picked up
by the NSA. That sounds to me like an FTP server with a password login the NSA
uses to pick up the ill gotten gains.
I deal with that all the time at work, we drop off a file on a server (our
server or the other party's server), and that's it. Either they pick it up, or
they have it hand delivered. So the slide maker heard 'we get it from their
drop box server' and put on the slide 'directly from Google's Server!' because
that sounds more impressive to the brass (who probably have no clue how tech
works either).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 19 2013 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
I don't know why there is a difference between the document and
what the Internet companies are saying.
The document says that
"The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems", while
the companies "denied knowledge of any such program" (and now Google wants to
somehow prove that by showing how many FISA orders it have received).
But
both parties can be telling the truth. If the NSA have bugged the servers at the
internet companies, either just by hacking them, bribing their way in or by
having agents infiltrate, it could be possible for the NSA to perform online
queries on the companies servers without their knowledge (and the NSA wouldn't
even need to store a copy of the data). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kozmcrae on Wednesday, June 19 2013 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
It seems the papers wish to slough off any accountability with that document
trick, but have no qualms taking the cash it generates.
If the document made the claim that the NSA had direct access to Google's
servers then it should be the document that reaps the benefit from its claim,
not the Guardian and the Washington Post.
If there's a problem with the fact that the document is not an entity that can
receive cash or otherwise interact with either the plaintiff or the defendant,
well then, it shouldn't be allowed to interact with the court by making claims.
This document business really struck a raw nerve with me. It looks like a way
for any smarmy lawyer to say whatever he wants without retribution.
---
It all started with Lynda Carter playing Wonder Woman in the '70s. Now I'm a
Heroine addict.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
