Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Jun 2013 22:33 UTC
Apple Official Apple statement on PRISM and privacy: "Regardless of the circumstances, our Legal team conducts an evaluation of each request and, only if appropriate, we retrieve and deliver the narrowest possible set of information to the authorities. In fact, from time to time when we see inconsistencies or inaccuracies in a request, we will refuse to fulfill it." This is basically Apple re-publishing their earlier statement in a more official manner. You either believe it, or you don't.
Permalink for comment 564982
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

If it is so obvious then why a couple years ago people talking about mass surveillance were called conspiracy theorists? Why the person revealing such well known facts is labeled a traitor? Why other governments are either demanding explanations or using the fact as an excuse to tighten their own surveillance? What differs NSA from Stasi?

It is not normal that the government is indiscriminately spying on citizens. Every single country that implemented such a system became a tyranny. If not immediately, then after several elections.

Back to the article - these disclaimers are *not* about PRISM. They are about a well known legal process of collecting information. Google has been disclosing information about such requests for years now. The whole point of PRISM was that it did not need such a process and it was (still is?) classified - the companies are not allowed to mention it, just like they were not allowed to do it before.

Reply Parent Score: 4