They have responded along with all the other companies mentioned. They deny they ever had direct access to their mainframe. Apple, Google, And Facebook Deny Involvement In Massive Government Spying Program - Business Insider
If PRISM is as big as they say, I find it hard to believe that the NSA has been doing this without their knowledge. This is a huge amount of data to be taking from their servers.
I have no doubt that all of these denials are false, but it doesn't mean they won't try to deny it. If we all believe that all of our data is protected and that none of our personal information is shared without our knowledge, we are just as much in denial. If you want privacy, this is the wrong century to live in.
I have little doubt that if the program has been as secret as it is supposed to be, then the spokespeople making the denials really don't have any knowledge of it. And the very very very few individuals who do, are forbidden under penalty of law from confirming it to the spokespeople. So in that sense, the denials are not really false, just ignorant.
Don't overlook that corporate "marketing research" (i.e. corporate spying) is probably a larger operation the domestic spying. The big difference is simply the government would be one of the better paying customers for "market research" data.
But I know about the private 'market research', or at least some of it. They must comply with Privacy Act requirements, though it is clear that huge amounts of data leak around its protections. I've taken active steps to opt out or block what I can, and monkeywrench the rest. The NSA interpretation of these laws is vastly different from how we read them, and even its legal interpretation is a secret. Obama said "... you can complain about Big Brother or how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details [emphasis added], then I think we've struck the right balance." So, Obama, when are you going to allow me to actually look at the details? I've seen far too many previous programs run amok to blindly accept Big Brother's assurance.
It's truly sad how many folks think that privacy cannot be maintained in the digital age. It can with simple rules and straightforward enforcement. One of the things that drives me nuts is the idiots that state if you have nothing to hide, then what can go wrong. They seem to be clueless that a great many individuals and companies want to use your personnel information to shake as much money out of you as possible. They must be even more clueless to not realize that a government that has a powerful tool to track and profile their political opponents will eventually be used for that purpose. Would Nixon have left something like this unused for his purposes?
Once you have opened that door, it is so difficult to go back. So, it is difficult to maintain your privacy. Not to mention that others can compromise it for you. There are far too many variables to consider with that. I wish it was a reality that you could protect your privacy 100%, but it isn't. I think that we all can control it a bit, and I do not agree with those that feel that opening up all your information somehow protects you. Although a lot of misconceptions are made regarding market research, the largest one relates to invasion of privacy. It is absolutely false. I am certain that some research firms have been unethical in their methods, but most are more interested in the data and demographics, not the individual. I have data about demographics, not John Doe. We create people based on research. Whether they truly exist based on that is pure coincidental. But, people need to be aware of what information they do put out in the open. Surveys are one thing, but Facebook and other social platforms are only going to gain more attention for what is sacrificed the older and wiser its demographic gets.
Absolutely true that there would be difficulties, but being difficult should prevent the right policies and regulations from being put in place. We cannot let high standards and principles be dictated by special interest bitching. A few concrete examples may help understand my point: 1) My credit history and information should not be routinely used for credit card company marketing. Those data bases are used for both credit history and marketing. The business regulations should be explicit on the original purpose being the only purpose. 2) My automobile buying and repair information should not be sold to every car dealer. 3) All database compromises should inform the victims of the compromise. 4) There are many more along the same lines of privacy data being private. 5) My point will be understood really well once banks start selling bank account information to data buyers. None of these really affects true market research.
True. Definitely not market research but more data mining. The only people that can stop it are consumers. But, far too many are too lazy to take a stand...until it is too late.
A lot of people in the debate are speaking from the viewpoint that because so many other people are leaving their doors wide open, I thus have given up my rights to privacy. This is a point that I strongly fight. But Facebook and its many ilk are working hard to slice and dice and categorize every individual, to the point of even keeping track of which specific advertisements have been served up to every individual user, and tracking all purchases said individual makes through FB-linked businesses in order to gauge what ads work on that particular individual. And to even gauge what price points that individual will pay so advertisers don't serve up lower prices than necessary to entice said customer. If this is not called market research or a logical extension of it, then someone should help clarify the terms of this discussion. From the FB invites I used to receive (particularly the 'you may also know' section at the bottom), it is obvious that FB knows far more about me than I voluntarily disclosed to anyone, despite me never having signed up or agreed to their terms and conditions.
They are trying to do that purely to make revenue. Especially now that most of them are public and have shareholders to please. What other people do doesn't affect what you do. We all individually control what happens to our own information. But, for our friends and family, we need to be protective of sharing their information and vice versa. Most invasions of privacy or unintentional. One could truly drive themselves crazy trying to make sure that their information wasn't out there.
That is actually the most worrisome of all motives possible. The ONLY limitation to how most corporations exploit personnel information is where the legal boundaries fall, nothing else. So where we set those boundaries is mighty critical. Once they figure out how much money is in our investments and bank accounts, that will determine how aggressive to pursue each individual to claw as much money as possible out of them. That's the situation we should be striving for. I can assure you that if the "other people" are parents, spouses, and children, they greatly affect what I do. I can fully attest that a teenage daughter can use the internet to infest the home computer with more viruses and malware than a team of IT specialists being paid to do so. Meet one of the crazy crew. It may sound strange, but the biggest benefit to more privacy on my end is: 1) Less paper trash being sent to the recycle bins 2) Less time answering the phone for political adds, "surveys", and other useless business "opportunities". 3) Fewer trips to the recycle center dumping paper 4) Fewer calls from the Bank making sure I know about their latest "investments". (Connect the dots here.)
Like FL_P_D, I also find this very worrisome. The art and science of extracting revenue from consumers is becoming highly advanced, and much of that has a negative benefit to the consumers. You don't see the contradiction here?
Obama, a few days ago: "I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy. I think it's a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate." Senators Udall and Wyden, in a letter to AG Holder last year: "As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows," the senators wrote. "This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says." If this debate is healthy, why has your administration kept us out of it? And will you now let us join it by allowing us to, in your very own words, "actually look at the details"?
^ No Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones Government likely to open criminal probe into NSA leaks: officials
There is no contradiction. Rather, it is clear that we can control what is out there now, but paying attention now and trying to get all the mistakes you made in the past with not protecting your information is nearly impossible. Can you imagine how many dumb teenagers/college age individuals have put out so much inappropriate information on facebook that will be paying for that in ten years, if not less than that? Kind of like the Girls Gone Wild cases.
While I have partial control, I have also detected considerable 'leakage' that did not come from me or any relatives. E.g. phone company failing to pass along my listing preferences when they turned over their online directory to a third party. Junk snailmailers buying address lists that illegally snarfed up the county's real estate tax records (containing a unique error) for commercial purposes. Fraudulent credit card charges for airline tickets that, when tracked down through a cooperative airline agent, even had my correct home address listed as the address of the issuing travel agency. (Other fraudulent charge tracking attempts ran into brick walls protecting the privacy of the fraudsters.) Repeated notifications from multiple database holders about security breaches. Collection agency calls trying to locate a certain deadbeat relative who is still a child in grade school. Facebook invites showing that it has knowledge of my organization memberships. Don't put all the blame Facebook or Girls Gone Wild or teenage relatives. I started detecting these leaks before any of them were invented or procreated. The illegally leaked stuff is quickly mixed with something legal, gets detached from any source labeling, and is never purged. There is a huge gray data market out there.
That is your experience. I have not had the same experience therefore, maybe I protect and track my information a lot better...there is no need to overreact. Frankly, I don't give a crap about anyone else's information except my own. That is how it should be. I do most things myself and don't involve third parties which I am sure helps save me from that. I have alerts and freezes for my credit report, and the moment anything is inquired, I know. I haven't had a land line in at least 20 years. You are false in your assumption that you had nothing to do with those leakages. You did. You used those agencies, you used those services and allowed them to take control of your information the way they did and as far as I see it, did not hold them accountable for any errors on their part until it was far too late. Perhaps you need to meet with your representatives to ensure that this is something they are putting on their priority list. But, you accomplish nothing raising your blood pressure and arguing on an online forum for Prius owners about it. I am not sure why I have had better luck with this than you have, but I am grateful for that and hope that your luck turns around and you don't have to deal with the hassles you are experiencing.
