It's not the phrase "direct access" (which they could reasonably use given it was used in the original leak story), but rather the construction of the whole sentence.
There are millions of ways you could phrase the response
(Dropbox and Microsoft used completely different language), the chance that these five came up with the phrasing used independently seems fairly low. Especially as the statements weren't all given to a single reporter (who could have phrased the question in a particular way) but rather to a variety of different news sources.
It could still be completely innocent, they could all have cribbed off whoever did the first denial or they could have discussed it beforehand and co-ordinated messages without there having been any government involvement.
Here's an example of how a government agency could get indirect access to phone data...
Amdocs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs) provides billing services and customer support for most of the major phone companies so it has access to all of the transactional data on your billing statement. If a government agency had access to the Amdocs data, it would have access to the phone data through an indirect channel.
> they could have discussed it beforehand and co-ordinated messages without there having been any government involvement
These are after all companies several (all?) of whom have co-ordinated illegal no-hire compacts in the past: it's not far-fetched to think they'd work together on a PR response to this. Which isn't necessarily to rule out a more sinister explanation of course.
Commits massive domestic spying operation, people complain.
"Can't win with you guys."
I mean, not much more you can do than just laugh at shit like this. Yeah man, everyone here is so unreasonable with their standard of "I don't like when companies blatantly lie" how hypocritical of them?
I think lawdawg is saying there's no reasonable way they can deny participating in a massive spying program without somebody saying it sounds dodgy.
And it is kind of true: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers" is the clearest construction I can imagine for denying involvement, but they get called out for it anyway.
ig1|12 years ago
There are millions of ways you could phrase the response (Dropbox and Microsoft used completely different language), the chance that these five came up with the phrasing used independently seems fairly low. Especially as the statements weren't all given to a single reporter (who could have phrased the question in a particular way) but rather to a variety of different news sources.
It could still be completely innocent, they could all have cribbed off whoever did the first denial or they could have discussed it beforehand and co-ordinated messages without there having been any government involvement.
It is however something that needs explaining.
DannyBee|12 years ago
This is the most clear and direct way
I accused you of doing X
You could say "you know, my brother and I, we once, 30 years ago blah blah blah blah blah blah but X, X never happened".
Most people, however, will just say "No, i don't do X".
They were accused, point blank, of providing direct access to their servers. They said "we do not provide direct access to their servers".
But please, see a conspiracy here because people are trying to be as direct and clear.
twelvechairs|12 years ago
espeed|12 years ago
Amdocs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs) provides billing services and customer support for most of the major phone companies so it has access to all of the transactional data on your billing statement. If a government agency had access to the Amdocs data, it would have access to the phone data through an indirect channel.
leoc|12 years ago
These are after all companies several (all?) of whom have co-ordinated illegal no-hire compacts in the past: it's not far-fetched to think they'd work together on a PR response to this. Which isn't necessarily to rule out a more sinister explanation of course.
kahirsch|12 years ago
ryguytilidie|12 years ago
"Can't win with you guys."
I mean, not much more you can do than just laugh at shit like this. Yeah man, everyone here is so unreasonable with their standard of "I don't like when companies blatantly lie" how hypocritical of them?
mikeash|12 years ago
chc|12 years ago
And it is kind of true: "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers" is the clearest construction I can imagine for denying involvement, but they get called out for it anyway.