> When I saw the Google/Facebook responses, it was obvious that the posts had a lot in common. Both used the phrase "direct access to our servers".
When you see a phrase repeated like that, one of two things has happened. Either one copied the other's phrasing, or someone told them what to say. In either case, the legal department would definitely weigh in on a huge issue like this.
I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said direct access verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published).
So, either:
(A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data.
(B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified.
(C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements.
I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data.
And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.
> (D) the slide doesn't actually say 'direct access', but says 'collection directly from the servers of', which is different. My browser pulled the comment I'm replying to right now 'directly from the servers of' HN, but I don't have 'direct access' to HN.
Since there's currently no way to "browse" private data on, say, my Google search history or my GMail inbox, the conclusion seems to be that they either have broad backdoor access, or a specific way of directly downloading from these companies.
In a traditional warrant situation, the data would be collected by the companies and sent to the requesting agency that provided a warrant. Police officers that request, say, HTTP access logs do not download those logs directly.
I kind of rambled around the point, but I was trying to say much the same thing.
It's also very possible that the slide traded some simplicity for accuracy because it was being presented to a group of people who didn't really care or understand the details and technicalities.
Also, (E), The companies didn't "give" the government direct access, but were quietly complicit in allowing them to collect data.
I totally agree that these organizations used the phrase "direct access" intentionally, surely with legal advice. My point, however, was that at the time that these companies released their responses, the slide that actually said direct access verbatim had not yet leaked. Although it's impossible to tell what actually happened, it looks to me like they decided to deny "direct access" in the hopes that there were no slides indicating that direct access did exist. After all, it's unlikely that these companies had the full slide deck (or anything other than what the media had published).
So, either:
(A) Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg actually didn't know that they provided "direct" access to data.
(B) NSA actually doesn't have "direct" access as indicated by this slide, meaning that the slide is incorrect or falsified.
(C) Page and Zuckerberg lied in their statements.
I don't see a fourth option regarding direct NSA access to these companies' data.
And you're right regarding Mayer not addressing the claim directly; I was a little bit off there. Still, by saying "well, we received between 12,000 and 13,000 FISA requests," Yahoo! is implying that there isn't any sort of "backdoor" access, which no longer seems to be the case.