From Larry Page to Mark Zuckerberg: Who said what on PRISM leaks? - Firstpost

On Friday, the Washington Post reported about a secret US government programme, called PRISM, which the US government was reportedly using to keep a tab on the central servers of US-based Internet companies. The report alleged that nine of the major Internet companies were working in collusion with the US government to provide data access. The companies included Facebook, Microsoft (parent company for Skype), Google, Apple and Yahoo. Most of the companies named have denied involvement in any such US government program. Here's a quick look at what these companies and their top executives had to say in the response to the charges. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg: Zuckerberg wrote a short post on his Facebook wall, stating that while the company did give out data in response to legal requests and court orders, he denied that Facebook. had been part of PRISM. He wrote: Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday.  Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg in these file photos. AFP When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure. Zuckerberg also called for more transparency on part of governments across the world and said that, We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term. Google CEO Larry Page: He also denied the charges and said that Google had never part of PRISM and they didn't know what PRISM was. In a blog post co-written with David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer for Google, he said, we have not joined any program that would give the US government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the US government does not have direct access or a "back door" to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday. Page added that Google only provides data to government in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don't follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users' data are false, period, he wrote. He too called for a broader approach to transparency. Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens' safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish. Yahoo!: Ron Bell, who is the General Counsel for the company also denied the charges in a company blog post. Yahoo! has not joined any program in which we volunteer to share user data with the US government. We do not voluntarily disclose user information. The only disclosures that occur are in response to specific demands. And, when the government does request user data from Yahoo!, we protect our users. We demand that such requests be made through lawful means and for lawful purposes. The notion that Yahoo! gives any federal agency vast or unfettered access to our users' records is categorically false…Where a request for data is received, we require the government to identify in each instance specific users and a specific lawful purpose for which their information is requested. Then, and only then, do our employees evaluate the request and legal requirements in order to respond—or deny—the request. Microsoft issued this public denying the charges. We provide customer data only 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 orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don't participate in it. via Technology - Google News http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNGNoKjFcVIBoBivk0y1IX2ULbEr-A&url=http://www.firstpost.com/tech/from-larry-page-to-mark-zuckerberg-who-said-what-on-prism-leaks-854849.html

Put the internet to work for you. via Personal Recipe 2598265