You are correct that parent is wrong (and horribly wrong, to the point of downright fabrication beyond anything Snowden has ever said), but actually you are also wrong. Under PRISM, data cannot be taken without participation. The simple reason for that is that “participation in PRISM” more or less means you respond to court orders.
You are confusing it with other programs. The one you are referring to was reported as a joint operation with GCHQ called MUSCULAR.
Google and Apple’s denials of PRISM participation are kind of semantic. One, they do not refer to it by any NSA codename, so they can truthfully say they don’t participate in something called PRISM, whatever PRISM supposedly is. Second, PRISM was incorrectly described as direct server access without approval. Both companies can truthfully claim that they do not participate in such a program, whether that program is PRISM or not. The truth is that they do “participate”, but that isn’t what PRISM actually enables.
That’s the best denial they can give due to the nature of the gag order.
From trumancenter.org:
If the NSA’s descriptions are accurate, the NSA’s PRISM program allows them to seek electronic data on non-U.S. Persons under FISA warrants applied to foreign electronic traffic travelling through U.S. servers with filters and controls to prohibit use of data of U.S. Persons that may get caught up in the dragnet. The expressly prohibits the use of FISA warrants toward U.S. Persons, but it is not as clear as to what happens to data on U.S. Persons that get picked up in large dragnets aimed at non-U.S. Persons. Much of the accuracy of claims depend on the certified disclosures to Congress by the Attorney General that such safeguards exist and are in place.
So, “participation” means you respond to FISA warrants, which isn’t optional.
We know they respond to fisa warrants. Nobody claims otherwise.
But - also know from Snowden we know that that PRISM is not just an aggregation of responses to fisa warrants.
PRISM also involved intercepting Google’s bulk traffic from their fiber without Google’s knowledge, and various other kind of interception.
If you equate PRISM with aggregating fisa warrants responses, then what you say is true.
However it is not actually accurate to make that equation.
And even if court ordered data was aggregated as part of PRISM, that doesn’t constitute ‘participating’ in PRISM in any by the most semantically stretched way, since they didn’t know about it.
If you are going to argue like this, you may as well say that the end users ‘participated’ in prism, by giving their data to these companies. In a way that’s true.
But it’s not true in the common understanding of what it means to participate.
This is what I meant by quasi-voluntary. They were not oblivious and hacked without their knowledge (under PRISM, that is - they were other ways), but they didn’t exactly have a choice.
Replying to the person stating I provided "false" info, which is all supported by links and sources!:
It’s always “conspiracy theory”...until it becomes “conspiracy fact” years later.
Read Google’s (or Apple’s, or Yahoo’s) denial of participation in PRISM. The statements are examples of “Lying by Omission.” Verizon actually shared documents/orders it received from NSA, astonishingly. If one understand the basics of law, the omissions and doublespeak deniability are the most revealing and damning:[1] [2]
* “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”: The NSA is not “the U.S. government”; neither are the contract intel companies that have access to data as middleman for NSA.
* “...does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers.”: But Google does not deny “indirect” access or a ‘door’ – otherwise its crafty attorney would have stated “neither direct nor indirect” and certainly would not have narrowed the access point to only a “back door.” Doublespeak.
* Regarding giving data to the government upon request: “Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.” ‘Frequently pushes back’ – that’s laughable.
* “Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period.” Perhaps the press stated ‘open-ended’ but that’s not what Edward Snowden stated or leaked in documents. The prism program is not about “open-ended” access.[2]
The similarity of statements by the legal teams of Google, Apple, and Yahoo leads one to believe they are adhering to NDAs and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) restrictions about what they may say about PRISM or whether they ever heard of the program. So Apple, Yahoo, and Google all used doublespeak deniability in the carefully crafted legal pressers.
[6] A money paper trail: NSA paid the companies for compliance! (but these companies and their legal teams denied – and continue to deny – either having known about the PRISM program or making data accessible to the NSA and related contractors via said program): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...
___
When in doubt, check your assumptions...because your assumptions are likely invalid.
The NSA is a component of the US government, and if the NSA has something the US government also has it, so in the context of the sentence at issue, yes, if access was given to the NSA it was given to the US government.
You are confusing it with other programs. The one you are referring to was reported as a joint operation with GCHQ called MUSCULAR.
Google and Apple’s denials of PRISM participation are kind of semantic. One, they do not refer to it by any NSA codename, so they can truthfully say they don’t participate in something called PRISM, whatever PRISM supposedly is. Second, PRISM was incorrectly described as direct server access without approval. Both companies can truthfully claim that they do not participate in such a program, whether that program is PRISM or not. The truth is that they do “participate”, but that isn’t what PRISM actually enables.
That’s the best denial they can give due to the nature of the gag order.
From trumancenter.org:
If the NSA’s descriptions are accurate, the NSA’s PRISM program allows them to seek electronic data on non-U.S. Persons under FISA warrants applied to foreign electronic traffic travelling through U.S. servers with filters and controls to prohibit use of data of U.S. Persons that may get caught up in the dragnet. The expressly prohibits the use of FISA warrants toward U.S. Persons, but it is not as clear as to what happens to data on U.S. Persons that get picked up in large dragnets aimed at non-U.S. Persons. Much of the accuracy of claims depend on the certified disclosures to Congress by the Attorney General that such safeguards exist and are in place.
So, “participation” means you respond to FISA warrants, which isn’t optional.