Where exactly did the Guardian or Greenwald claim the NSA has root access on servers? I haven't seen that anywhere? Please supply a quote of the part of an article you're referring to so we can make up our own minds about what was said.

It's quite possible Guardian journalists and editors summarised some points in a sloppy way due to lack of understanding (in particular using direct access instead of directly from), but the broad thrust of everything I've read from them has been surprisingly accurate (as journalism goes), and Snowden's claim to have access to any account at will (given enough clearance) is now sounding far more plausible after these recent revelations that calls recorded and can be accessed without a warrant by any agent with the clearance to do so, and according to cnet, perhaps emails too. To an analyst asking for calls/emails, this would seem very much like 'direct and unilateral access', even if from google's end they only respond to lawful orders and don't allow universal tapping as the phone companies do.

I'm surprised that people are talking up minor quibbles over the interpretation of one slide as if all debate hinges on them given the scale of the surveillance which has been exposed. We don't know for sure exactly how the PRISM process works, and what matters is not the process but the legal safegaurds in place (or lack of them), and the extent of surveillance. Why not debate facts we do know and have confirmed?

What Greenwald/Guardian said about "direct and unilateral access" is what is meant by the paraphrase of "root access".

The story made it sound like an NSA analyst could just open an xterm and copy any data about any Google/Facebook/Hotmail/Skype/etc. user, whether the company agreed or not. That is the part that is not only false, but which Greenwald has refused to back down on by just pounding the slides over and over.

I don't know why I'm so surprised that a writer reporting on tech-heavy privacy issues would be so clueless about technology but it just gives me even more reason to be jaded about activists in general.

Oh well, at least we still have the EFF and ACLU.

Also note the Google statement from the story:

> In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."

A backdoor pretty much implies unfettered (as well as clandestine) access - a limited-privileges backdoor is conceivable, but unlikely. Note that the Guardian didn't say 'here's a weaselly statement that doesn't deny what we're alleging' - it said 'here's a denial of what we are alleging'.

If we're to criticise journalists, we should hold ourselves to the standards we expect of the them. The article said:

'In a statement, Google said'

You paraphrase this as the article saying:

'Here's a denial of what we are alleging'

The article said or implied no such thing, as your direct quote shows, it merely attributed the quote, without comment. It didn't talk about back doors or denials, Google did, probably in response to more fantastic speculation around the Internet prior to this.

> If we're to criticise journalists, we should hold ourselves to the standards we expect of the them.

In the interests of precision, let me first amend the Guardian non-paraphrase and paraphrase above to 'here's a weaselly statement that doesn't deny what the NSA document claims' and 'here's a denial of what the NSA document claims'. This matters because the article deliberately sets out to report the NSA slides instead of setting out to explicitly report the NSA slides as accurate, and Greenwald later made much of this.

> The article said or implied no such thing, as your direct quote shows, it merely attributed the quote, without comment.

The immediately preceding paragraph is:

> Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

This makes it clear that the next paragraph is, to the Guardian's understanding, Google denying knowledge of any such program.

I see what you mean now from this context, thanks for the clarification, however it is just restating that they are denying that they knew of prism, not all allegations. Part of the confusion here is that the slides say one thing, the article summarises it (perhaps loosely) and google denied something else altogether (back door etc). I would note though that the article did not say they had unfettered access via a back door, or root access or any such detail, those are things implied in the google statement, which curiously denied things the article did not allege.

Personally I thought the article did an OK (though far from perfect) job of summarising the puzzling gaps between the slides and the company statements, and didn't imply all the things people have read between the lines, but wish it had gone into more detail, however I don't feel that's a hugely important part of this story. It sounds like we might hear a bit more detail over the coming weeks.

That phrase says nothing about root or xterm and I think you're being misleading by attempting to paraphrase it that way though I think I see how you got there. That's one possible interpretation of it (though not one Greenwald has backed), but it's equally possible, given the assertions of Snowden in the video with the article (which we now know to be true at least for phone calls), that it was an attempt to describe the experience of an analyst using such a system, requesting full access to a user's account, and getting it without interacting with google staff (after what delay we don't know), possibly without any legal paperwork other than making the request. We simply don't know enough details to be able to describe the process any better, we don't even know all the possible sources of intel for it.

Since Greenwald provided the sources for his statement and the article clearly indicates which quotes are attribution and which bits are commentary I didn't interpret it the way you did, and do think it's highly misleading to characterise this as a fundamental flaw in the article, or as something the guardian has 'walked back' - the guardian is not a monolithic entity and features content from all sorts of contradictory viewpoints. The writer wasn't clueless about technology necessarily - remember this sort of writing goes through many hands on the way to publication, and attempts to synthesise knowledge from various sources for a non-technical audience, while not revealing damaging details which could leave them open to prosecution. That process is going to result in text which is not as precise or illuminating as we or the writer would like.

So I'm all for correcting reporters like Greenwald where they over-reach or imply too much, and I do think he should have clarified this particular detail which has been left very vague, but we should clarify or correct, not attack and patronise, reporters who don't specify technical details, and bear in mind that technical questions of mechanism are not the only story here; there are far more important legal and ethical questions.

>What the NSA means by this is that it has root access on Google, Facebook and friends.

This just simply isn't true. The article doesn't say that. Your support for this claim below is that this is what they meant by "direct and unilateral," which you cannot know to be true.

If Google et. al. setup dedicated servers which aggregate the relevant user data the NSA wants, and gave the NSA FTP access, then this would be--by definition--direct and unilateral access. FTP falls under any reasonable definiton of direct, and Google would not have to be involved in any data transmission, thereby making it unilateral.

And can't we all just agree that the idea of giving root access is so outright ridiculous that nobody would intend that as a meaning? Maybe read only access, but root access? Ridiculous.