General Discussion

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)

22. My understanding is that the government has access to our data stored with these companies,

Sat Jun 8, 2013, 10:40 PM

Jun 2013

Probably they are getting the info using warrants similar to the one that was leaked re:Verizon.

Nothing I've seen here contradicts that, or changes my perception of that.

I think this is a little bit nitpicking about words. Is the government getting the data through the front door, or the back door?

Are they "tapping directly into the central servers".

Doesn't matter. Actually the phrase is meaningless.
Sounds like they are dancing around words. Like I did not have sexual relations with that central server system. I just sucked down the personal data of 100s of millions of Americans via an indirect connection to a different server.

What matters is they are doing downloads of innocent people's data. Whether they are "tapped directly in" is irrelevant.

We can guess what their court orders are - an order for mass amounts of data that they renew on a regular time interval. Similar to what we saw in the Verizon situation.

The important question is "are we ok with that?"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

151 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

WaPo Misread Powerpoint- Story on Feds tapping directly into internet companies was wrong & rushed [View all] kpete Jun 2013 OP

I could be wrong, but I bet this thread turns into crickets.... phleshdef Jun 2013 #1

Crickets? FarCenter Jun 2013 #3

Well, foot stomping and pout-ragin' is so much more fun, doncha know! MADem Jun 2013 #88

Ah, but Greenwald got his facts right. caseymoz Jun 2013 #95

No he did not get his facts right--he got most of them horribly WRONG. He created a kerfluffle MADem Jun 2013 #97

That was one hell of a read Number23 Jun 2013 #100

Then get a load of Maureen "Do you think I'm sexy" Dowd calling POTUS "Barry" in the NYT. MADem Jun 2013 #117

That article is full of doublespeak. caseymoz Jun 2013 #105

Thank you for putting in the time and effort to make such a salient rebuttal (nt) Babel_17 Jun 2013 #109

Sorry. Greenwald isn't just a putzy blogger, he is a lawyer. MADem Jun 2013 #116

He may be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean he isn't a putzy blogger n/t sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #122

Oh, is that where you're sticking? caseymoz Jun 2013 #139

Greenwald is a lawyer, and, FYI, I posted the link to the Guardian article on the source of his MADem Jun 2013 #140

I give up. caseymoz Jun 2013 #150

If you go, victory will be declared. zeemike Jun 2013 #125

Scream at Greenwald while the cockroaches scurry to hide their actions Generic Other Jun 2013 #134

What a rebuttal. Please consider posting this as a separate thread. snagglepuss Jun 2013 #147

looks like you are definitely wrong Skittles Jun 2013 #137

Mark Twain said it best: Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #2

The co-author of the WaPo story was Laura Poitras. She is getting ready to release the final install okaawhatever Jun 2013 #16

Precisely, There Was No Fall-Out For Jonathan Karl DallasNE Jun 2013 #47

So did the New York Times Iliyah Jun 2013 #40

Judith Miller published, in the NYT, whatever the Bush WH gave her to publish. xtraxritical Jun 2013 #83

Yup... Same technique as Nixon's ratfucking crew used. They've never stopped using it, either. freshwest Jun 2013 #59

Read this court order and then make excuses for Obama. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #69

This court order is for the phone records Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #142

I take it you have changed your opinion since the whistleblower JDPriestly Jun 2013 #144

Here is the court order. Read it for yourself if you think the JDPriestly Jun 2013 #70

I just now took your suggestion thucythucy Jun 2013 #148

This story is does not make Democrats look any worse thatn JDPriestly Jun 2013 #149

"If you really are a suspect thucythucy Jun 2013 #151

Kick n Rec! jazzimov Jun 2013 #4

DU rec... SidDithers Jun 2013 #5

or wapo got pressure to back down. who knows? it wouldn't be the first time, e.g. sf mercury & HiPointDem Jun 2013 #6

Where's your proof they were pressured to back down? Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #7

as i didn't make any claim to be offering anything but speculation ("who knows?"), i don't need to HiPointDem Jun 2013 #12

So you're just engaging in wild speculation with no evidence to back up your claim. Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #13

no more than the person who wrote the OP. HiPointDem Jun 2013 #14

isnt that what the entire OP is? sigmasix Jun 2013 #32

Read the documents that Greenwald attached to his JDPriestly Jun 2013 #67

Thank you. caseymoz Jun 2013 #90

I think Greenwald met Jane Hamsher one time. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #124

Thank You. Cheviteau Jun 2013 #146

I'll admit to speculating based on the fact that the companies were all getting heat GoneFishin Jun 2013 #50

If you have any doubt, here is the text of the court order. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #73

You know, that contradicts the OP's source. caseymoz Jun 2013 #98

Have you read the court papers that Greenwald published? JDPriestly Jun 2013 #66

Why on earth ProSense Jun 2013 #18

"Did the NYT back down when it exposed Bush's illegal wiretapping?" OnyxCollie Jun 2013 #31

What silliness. n/t ProSense Jun 2013 #35

Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #46

No, ProSense Jun 2013 #48

That poster should be shown the door for that post. That two jurors excused that is unreal Number23 Jun 2013 #102

Here is the court order in question: JDPriestly Jun 2013 #78

Read the court order. This isn't about a "story." Here are JDPriestly Jun 2013 #76

I don't know. Why are companies going after Julian Assange? caseymoz Jun 2013 #91

That was my first thought also. More will come out and we hopefully will see what is what. nt Mojorabbit Jun 2013 #26

+1000000 a2liberal Jun 2013 #34

There doesn't seem to be a compelling need cheapdate Jun 2013 #51

The original reporting was way too sensational to be believable. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #8

Beyond sad. madamesilverspurs Jun 2013 #9

One of the WaPo "reporters" is actually a film producer -- doesn't even work for the Washington Post FarCenter Jun 2013 #11

What does this have to do with Glen Greenwald? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #28

Major misdirection here. Marr Jun 2013 #75

^^This +1,000^^ caseymoz Jun 2013 #92

Amen....+1 n/t jaysunb Jun 2013 #52

If Glenn Greenwald mimi85 Jun 2013 #62

Oh? Which fact of his is bullshit? caseymoz Jun 2013 #93

Would you like to read the original court order? JDPriestly Jun 2013 #81

Apparently, nobody does! Mere facts. nt caseymoz Jun 2013 #96

For my part, I'm not denying Greenwald's story brett_jv Jun 2013 #129

+1000. I only wish DU gave us the ability to block certain names. GG would be my first. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #85

Here you go GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #108

No he's not. caseymoz Jun 2013 #94

Our M$M is never ever sloppy, half assed, rushed or lead by bright and shinning things so this uponit7771 Jun 2013 #10

And our government never lies, ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #54

You have a good point, with both of them being off or imcompetent I'd rather vote for a good congres uponit7771 Jun 2013 #65

That would be nice... ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #72

we could uponit7771 Jun 2013 #74

I admire your enthusiasm and ohheckyeah Jun 2013 #80

"Directly" is the weasel word here. woo me with science Jun 2013 #15

Maybe everyone should run with the bullshit story, right? ProSense Jun 2013 #19

Prosense: "There is...no spying program"! woo me with science Jun 2013 #24

You forgot ProSense Jun 2013 #25

No, no. I told you you need the picture woo me with science Jun 2013 #30

You ProSense Jun 2013 #37

Sweetie they are already doing it Iliyah Jun 2013 #44

"Weasel word" is itself "weasel words". phleshdef Jun 2013 #143

Our media is a joke. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #17

If you can't trust the WaPo who can you trust?! Cha Jun 2013 #20

Greenwald's recycled stories from 2006 Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #23

You don't think they're in financial distress, do you? freshwest Jun 2013 #58

Arianna and Andrew, sitting in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g. freshwest Jun 2013 #33

It's all for Profit.. they couldn't care less if they have any facts. Cha Jun 2013 #39

Just found these.. Yes, all about the money... freshwest Jun 2013 #53

Exactly, fresh! "Risk Free Ratfucking"! 'Cause Cha Jun 2013 #55

U.S., company officials: Internet surveillance does not indiscriminately mine data FarCenter Jun 2013 #21

My understanding is that the government has access to our data stored with these companies, limpyhobbler Jun 2013 #22

Here we go again. Somebody stirs up the crock and when it starts smelling... wandy Jun 2013 #27

Acquiring 97 billion pieces of info in one month doesn't seem like a limited and targeted program. dkf Jun 2013 #29

Of which 54 billion came from these 5 countries FarCenter Jun 2013 #36

Still that seems like its sucking in something. dkf Jun 2013 #38

It is reporting that foreign intelligence is being collected FarCenter Jun 2013 #41

Yes...probably the entire pool of data is larger. This is what is being culled? dkf Jun 2013 #43

Boundless Informant is a management reporting tool FarCenter Jun 2013 #45

Seems to be a pattern going on Andy823 Jun 2013 #42

Good post. n/t jaysunb Jun 2013 #56

They're always laying in Cha Jun 2013 #57

Media is in such a hurry to get the scoop first that they're willing to sacrifice their integrity. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #63

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2013 #68

Uh huh. So the vast, secretive spying on innocent Americans DirkGently Jun 2013 #49

Cnet - the web site that includes spyware in its sofware installer. MotherPetrie Jun 2013 #60

Might One Be Interested In Some Land In Florida - Government Agents Guarantee It Is Good cantbeserious Jun 2013 #61

Rachel Maddow was hinting that something was amiss on Friday shireen Jun 2013 #64

Let's link to the original court order. That leaves no doubt JDPriestly Jun 2013 #71

Dude, how many times are you going to post this? brett_jv Jun 2013 #131

I await the day SCVDem Jun 2013 #77

Hey Cheerleaders!! LovingA2andMI Jun 2013 #79

The NSA is much more upfront and detailed than Wired: mn9driver Jun 2013 #84

And.... LovingA2andMI Jun 2013 #86

Sounds like just that more spin to me. countmyvote4real Jun 2013 #82

Then why oh why is the Obama administration threatening legal action against the whistle-blower? Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #87

More than threatening... LovingA2andMI Jun 2013 #89

Because the 'WaPo story being inaccurate', and 'Prism being Real' are not mutually exclusive. brett_jv Jun 2013 #135

Because leaking those documents is illegal. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #110

Greenwald = Drudge. Tarheel_Dem Jun 2013 #99

kpete, they are not directly on the servers, BUT they have the ability to "TASK" the servers. Th1onein Jun 2013 #101

They are playing word games really. dkf Jun 2013 #103

So, Obama didn't LIE exactly. But he has misled us big time. Th1onein Jun 2013 #104

The prism part is the retrieval side of it which is under court supervision dkf Jun 2013 #106

Thanks - best posting in this thread here /nT temmer Jun 2013 #107

Thanks! So, we're now at the point of this story where selected facts can mask the truth (nt) Babel_17 Jun 2013 #111

They aren't saying the installed equipment are server mirrors! sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #119

If there is no direct access to the servers how would it know what to add to the drop box? dkf Jun 2013 #120

There could be a series of filters that the query has to go through sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #121

Programmed by who? The companies? dkf Jun 2013 #123

I'm sure it was all a BIG misunderstanding. ucrdem Jun 2013 #112

There is so much Obama hate here dennis4868 Jun 2013 #113

It's not "hate," it's "constructive criticism" ProSense Jun 2013 #114

Simon�s followup: he says the debate in the comments on his previous post changed his mind on a few kpete Jun 2013 #115

The Washington Post can be just a political tool, inflicting harm on the Obama administration Coyotl Jun 2013 #118

Kick and Rec. Apparently this falsehood is "conventional wisdom" at DU now. emulatorloo Jun 2013 #126

I'm saying: "I told you So" brett_jv Jun 2013 #127

Yes the 4th estate libodem Jun 2013 #128

CNN BREAKING: Leaked memo recounts encounter with 12 foot chicken. Rex Jun 2013 #130

. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #132

So there is no spying, cultivating, harvesting, meta-ing, none? Great! Safetykitten Jun 2013 #133

No, there is ... brett_jv Jun 2013 #136

Hmm ... - Ok, Is That Law Right? cantbeserious Jun 2013 #141

Looks like events have undercut this disinformation. caseymoz Jun 2013 #138

Where is Lou Grant when we need him... WCGreen Jun 2013 #145