Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'? [View all]
Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
Rick Perlstein
<...>
The NSA slide that tech experts say Glenn Greenwald misinterpreted. (The Guardian/NSA, US Federal Government.)
Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwalds world-shaking scoop about the NSAs PRISM storyan aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an epic botch by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though Im no expert, Im sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.
The crucial question, as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data, as Greenwald says they are, without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers? This is what the companies have been denyingin statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: 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. So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining customer data? Etc.)
Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called Cowards from the blogg UncrunchedWhat has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?is mostly wrong. He says, It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they dont have the technical background to know that servers is a generic word and doesnt necessarily mean the same thing as the main servers on which a companys customer-facing services run. The servers mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply withtheyre just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so....this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: What the hell are the companies supposed to do? Fogel jokes. Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?
The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSAs PRISM program worksthe difference, as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.
- more -
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W9DN9MQV
Rick Perlstein
<...>
The NSA slide that tech experts say Glenn Greenwald misinterpreted. (The Guardian/NSA, US Federal Government.)
Bloggers and experts in the tech world have been raising an important caveat to a key aspect of Glenn Greenwalds world-shaking scoop about the NSAs PRISM storyan aspect my friend Karl Fogel, an open-source software guru, blogger and the proprietor of QuestionCopyright.org, calls an epic botch by Greenwald. People outside of the tech world absolutely need to know about this debate too, which is why, though Im no expert, Im sharing it with this wider audience. I deeply admire what Greenwald and his team at The Guardian are doing. I write in the interest of helping them do it better.
The crucial question, as Fogel frames it in a blog post, is this: Are online service companies giving the government fully automated access to their data, as Greenwald says they are, without any opportunity for review or intervention by company lawyers? This is what the companies have been denyingin statements that critics have been interpreting as non-denial denials. (Apple: 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. So what if Apple et al. knew the formal name of the program? And what about indirect access? Or government contractors? And how are they defining customer data? Etc.)
Fogel points out that a widely read post to this effect called Cowards from the blogg UncrunchedWhat has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth?is mostly wrong. He says, It looks like Greenwald and company simply misunderstood an NSA slide [see image at the top of this post for the slide] because they dont have the technical background to know that servers is a generic word and doesnt necessarily mean the same thing as the main servers on which a companys customer-facing services run. The servers mentioned in the slide are just lockboxes used for secure data transfer. They have nothing to do with the process of deciding which requests to comply withtheyre just means of securely and efficiently delivering information once a company has decided to do so....this slide describes how to move data from once place to another without it getting intercepted in transit: What the hell are the companies supposed to do? Fogel jokes. Put the data on a CD-ROM and mail it to Fort Meade?
The implications of this interpretation, if correct, completely shift the grounds for the discussion of how the NSAs PRISM program worksthe difference, as Mark Jaquith of WordPress writes, between a bombshell and a yawn of a story.
- more -
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174783/glenn-greenwalds-epic-botch#axzz2W9DN9MQV
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You're so boring. Please point out where i was factually incorrect in my original post?
NOVA_Dem
Jun 2013
#24
The slide doesn't mean what Greenwald says it means. It's a reading comprehension thing.
pnwmom
Jun 2013
#30
The Washington Post believes that there is some merit to the direct access theory:
Maedhros
Jun 2013
#51
Do you have any PROOF that he just reported what the slide said? I haven't seen any copy of the slid
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#45
In that case FTP servers aren't "direct access", I don't see an open B2B direct or VPN connection
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#47
Perhaps the person who drafted the slide doesn't fully understand the how the data is exchanged.
NOVA_Dem
Jun 2013
#48
Greenwald is in big trouble. The experts at the NSA think Snowden is going to defect to China.
Major Hogwash
Jun 2013
#5
I've just doubled checked the Book of Revelations in my copy of the Electronic Bible...
MrScorpio
Jun 2013
#40
That's an amazing trick - copying data to a datacenter that isn't even built yet! (nt)
jeff47
Jun 2013
#31
Since we haven't heard from Greenwald for a while, I'm betting he's coming to this conclusion on his
rpannier
Jun 2013
#32