Facebook, Google, Apple & Co. deny (of course) server access by the NSA




Facebook, Google, Apple & Co. deny (of course) server access by the NSA

Not surprisingly, the companies concerned hurry to contradict the documents published by the Washington Post, according to which the NSA would have direct access to their server.
Facebook, Google, Apple & Co. deny (of course) server access by the NSA

All these denials can of course always a little room. Also, you can ask the question, who from such a secret operation in the company – seem transparent as the public bickering by members of the Pirate Party against the normal intelligence operations – would have ever known, and whether the author of the denials would have been even informed when such backdoors in the company’s servers were real. Despite denials thus remains much room for speculation and new conspiracy theories. Let’s take a colored by conspiracy theories and a pinch of distrust view of the denials:


We do not Provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we examined carefully scrutinize any request for compliance with all applicable laws, and Provide information only to the extent required by law.

Well, there is no direct access to the Facebook server for government organizations would of course not have direct access to a private company to exclude that belongs at the end of the NSA. And since Facebook has of course to the laws, and the direct access would be granted if it prescribes a law – would be handy then, when this law, the company also committed to the same secrecy.


When Apple wants you have never heard of PRISM and Apple says not to grant government agencies direct server access. Well, see above how it looks with indirect access?

We have never heard of PRISM. We do not Provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency Requesting customer data must get a court order.


Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accor dance with the law, and we review all requests carefully examined. From time to time, people did allege government we have created a ‘back door’ into our system, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.

So Google has no backdoor for the government to access private user data. What data are they marked as “private”? All data that produces a user to Google, or just the content? Google may access granted “only” connection data, including who has sent a mail to whom, when, without the content of the email? Would that be better?


We provide customer dataonly When We receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with requests about orders for specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we do not participate To in it.

Microsoft and the NSA – Redmond has one experience with such stories, some will perhaps remember the alleged backdoors and spare key in Windows for the NSA. And at least Microsoft says very clearly that they – would not participate voluntarily in mind – if it were such a program. Whether the NSA would really depend on voluntary participation?


Yes, we have already read on Facebook, Apple and Google: No direct access to the government, which also expands the Yahoo and also have direct access to non-described “systems” (meaning probably desktops, routers, etc.) and the excludes network. At least one direct access to the government.

Yahoo! takes users’ privacy very seriously. We do not Provide the government with direct access to our servers, system, or network.


Dropbox also deny participation in a program such as PRISM – where they have been asked but not exclusive.

We’ve seen reports did Dropbox might be asked to participate To in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any search program and REMAIN committed to protecting our users’ privacy.

Whether you want to believe this does not have any denials or decide. After all, it would here be a program that would have been done even for extremely secret intelligence relationships. Remains undisputed that it is not excluded that PRISM is real, perhaps under a different name, perhaps even without the voluntary participation of the companies concerned, or without, that you would have an idea of ​​it in the company. Anything is possible and in the light of experience with how far not only the NSA is willing to go to protect security interests (whose security interests is a totally different discussion) I would also consider it likely that the history of the Washington Post, at least is not completely wrong.

Ah yes, the NSA has not commented on anything yet, of course, and also the European Commission does not comment on that. Where you have to let melt the reasoning of the Commission please be very slow and painful on the tongue:

We do not have any comments. This is matter of internal U.S..

An internal matter for the U.S.? Suppose there PRISM, then that would certainly be some, but certainly not the United States purely internal matter more. This also EU citizens would be affected, not just those it would affect virtually every Internet users in every corner of this planet! Let’s hope that this is is a rash statement and the EU quite lively start to make and calls for a quick and complete investigation, now what was really off and on PRISM and what data their job – not forgetting of EU tap and collect the NSA and other intelligence agencies – citizens. For against a program like PRISM data is self-acquisitiveness of Europeans with the retention almost harmless!


Tags: , ,

In: Technology & Gadgets Asked By: [15484 Red Star Level]

Answer this Question

You must be Logged In to post an Answer.

Not a member yet? Sign Up Now »