It's good, but it's not US Constitution good. None of the companies involved should obey the law in this matter, and they should adhere to their moral responsibilities and reveal everything they know.<p>Plus, I doubt locking up the CEO's of the worlds largest tech companies would work out well for any government.
> "The Government shall conduct a declassification review of this Court's Memorandum Opinion of [Yahoo's case] and the legal briefs submitted by the parties to this Court," the ruling read.<p>What I don't get here: it was told many times that FISA court only hears one side, namely government. Here though Yahoo seems to be named a party in the Court. Has rules change? o_O
At least they stopped getting Chinese dissidents locked up
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Yahoo</a>!
Working link: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57593871-93/yahoo-wins-motion-to-declassify-court-documents-in-prism-case/" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57593871-93/yahoo-wins-moti...</a>
Hmm, it doesn't say they get to declassify, only that the classification must be reviewed, and then the document published with any properly classified information redacted.<p>Expect a letter of all black lines.
Question:<p>><i>Yahoo has previously denied the allegations regarding participation in the program, calling them "categorically false."</i><p>That's what they say, but doesn't this just show that while they fought it, they <i>did</i> participate because they lost the fight?[1]<p>I'm not aiming to say "liar, liar, pants on fire" since they were probably required to say that (if my reading is accurate). I'm just wondering if they <i>were</i> required to say that, as this is <i>nearly</i> evidence of it, which would cast even more doubt on the other companies' denials.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-earns-company-special-recognition" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/yahoo-fight-for-users-...</a> (thanks, cmwelsh!) in particular this quote:<p>><i>Ultimately, the Court of Review ruled against Yahoo, upholding the constitutionality of the Protect America Act and ordering Yahoo to turn over the user data the government requested.</i><p>Though they can't say what was turned over.
Wow. First they lie and deny, now this.<p>What does this mean for Google and the others participating in the program? I'd love to read some explanations from Page, Yonatan Zunger, Matt Cutts and friends. These guys were swearing up and down that Google had no involvement.
So wait, if PRISM is merely the process by which NSA et al request data on individual suspects which are then reviewed and fulfilled with human involvement (as the denials by Google etc purport)... why did Yahoo see fit to challenge their involvement?
.. "redacts any properly classified information" ..<p>Who gets to decide what is property classified information? They can redact the document in such a way that it carry only vacuous material and thus passively aggressively refuse even if they are compelled.
I'd love to switch to ymail, if it didn't suck so bad. I just read, that Y! will be /reassigning/ email adresses that have not been used (no login) for a year.
yay!<p>yahoo, the internet giant whose products gather data from evuhreybaddy, is on our side!<p>now all our problems are solved and we can sleep at night<p>oh wait...