TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

U.S., companies: Internet surveillance does not indiscriminately mine data

85 点作者 ennuihenry将近 12 年前

12 条评论

btilly将近 12 年前
If I were a Chinese official reading this, my #1 priority would be to try to get access to PRISM.<p>No matter what checks and balances the US may employ to make sure legitimate access stays within bounds, any time you have an automated system, you&#x27;re open to the possibility that someone can get access and automate it in ways you don&#x27;t like.
评论 #5847675 未加载
评论 #5847745 未加载
dclowd9901将近 12 年前
They simply don&#x27;t get it: I DO NOT BELIEVE THE US GOVERNMENT HAS ANY RIGHT TO VIEW MY DATA THAT I ENTRIST TO PRIVATE COMPANIES. In the event they somehow have stumbled upon the right, I should be notified that my data has been examined.
评论 #5847633 未加载
评论 #5847648 未加载
评论 #5847688 未加载
OldSchool将近 12 年前
The best thing the government could do to legitimately appease citizens is pass a statute that nothing gathered through these means will be used to prosecute anything but terrorism or threats to national security. If that&#x27;s the real purpose, then they should have no problem putting it in writing.
评论 #5847761 未加载
评论 #5847731 未加载
jtchang将近 12 年前
Two ways I could see this being set up:<p>1. NSA goes to Facebook and tells them to install a server&#x2F;rack in their data center. The server needs to be on a port that can &quot;see&quot; all traffic unencrypted. The servers then transparently record data and analysts on the backend parse it into something useful.<p>2. NSA puts servers on premises but instead they are pushed formatted feeds of data. This would require them to work more closely with the company to make sure they provide a feed that is workable. They would store the data and as requests for data came in the server would feed it back.
评论 #5847632 未加载
评论 #5847951 未加载
评论 #5848770 未加载
OldSchool将近 12 年前
Gotta love a headline that&#x27;s worded in such a way that it looks like a fact. Thirty straight days of these on every major outlet and most people who were not already concerned won&#x27;t be doing anything differently, if they ever did. As a bonus, no need to worry about breaking the story anymore.
fiatmoney将近 12 年前
Seems to indicate the NSA is performing some sort of MITM, or running intercepts from inside the datacenter after the traffic has been decrypted:<p>&quot;PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises&quot;<p>&quot;From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff.&quot;
评论 #5847636 未加载
danso将近 12 年前
Two things about the submission title, which is currently: &quot;WaPo: Execs From Internet Companies Acknowledge PRISM&quot;<p>1. The original title for the article is &quot;U.S., company officials: Internet surveillance does not indiscriminately mine data&quot;<p>2. The excerpt that the submitted title refers to is this: &quot;Executives at some of the participating companies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged the system’s existence and said it was used to share information about foreign customers with the NSA and other parts of the nation’s intelligence community.&quot;<p>Some, not <i>all</i> of the companies involved. So too soon to conclude that the public statements were lies...but Zuckerberg and Page, at the least, could be said to have lied if the companies referred to in the OP are them (both Page and Zuckerberg said that they (they as in &quot;we&quot;) had no prior knowledge of PRISM at all)
评论 #5847645 未加载
评论 #5847566 未加载
评论 #5847753 未加载
l33tbro将近 12 年前
One question: Where is Anonymous in all this? I was expecting all kinds of DDOSing going down in the last 48 hours, but they have been unusually quiet.
评论 #5847687 未加载
waterphone将近 12 年前
&gt; “The server is controlled by the FBI,” an official with one of the companies said. “We do not offer a download feature from our server.”<p>Now we know why they phrased their statements so specifically.
评论 #5849727 未加载
detcader将近 12 年前
Some guy on Tumblr picked apart Yahoo&#x27;s carefully worded denial, actually [1] turns out it&#x27;s totally bunk<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;peterhassett.tumblr.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;52499296411&#x2F;exclamation-setting-the-record-straight" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;peterhassett.tumblr.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;52499296411&#x2F;exclamation-...</a>
评论 #5847718 未加载
joe_the_user将近 12 年前
Can anyone say exactly what this paragraph is supposed to mean (or really mean, if there&#x27;s a difference):<p><i>Intelligence community sources said that this description</i>[direct access]<i>, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s staff.</i><p>So they get data from an ad-hoc query without interaction with the company&#x27;s staff. And yet it is not direct access? I&#x27;ve read the other back-and-forths but I&#x27;m still not sure what this could even trying to imply.<p>Edit: and read - <i>According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.</i><p>But that the meaning is no more clear. Or the meaning is, we buy an &quot;indirect access cable at Best Buy and so everything is OK&quot;, ie, the distinction is nothing but word games.
评论 #5847939 未加载
efsavage将近 12 年前
yet