The reason they didn't deny "access to user information" is because it was common knowledge before the PRISM leak that they would send user information to the government on request. The only new accusation against these tech companies with the initial PRISM leak is that they were knowingly allowing the government to directly access their servers. That is why they denied direct access, because they were accused of supplying direct access. Just because Google and Facebook didn't deny these new accusation before they were ever levied against them doesn't mean they are automatically guilty of them. Let's wait to see how things play out before we starting making judgements.

FBI equipment ON COMPANY PROPERTY to transmit realtime information on whomever from a blanket approval order is pretty damning, and not at all consistent with the harsh language of the denials of google et al and their desire to share a specific (presumably small) number of warrants with us

They denied any hardware on their property as well:

> We refuse to participate in any program — for national security or other reasons — that requires us to provide governments with access to our systems or to install their equipment on our networks,” he said.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-...

I don't disagree with how damning these new accusations might be. However, some people are taking the fact that these companies didn't deny FBI equipment being or their premise as admission that there is FBI equipment on their premise.

Looking at these slides, I see no proof that companies have FBI equipment on their property. That seems to be a claim made by the WaPo that is supported by other slides or sources. I am just suggesting we wait until more information comes forward before we start taking these accusations as fact.

I'm unaware of where "facts" will come from though. So far it seems as if the gov't says one thing, the companies say another, and the leaks say yet another. I don't see any companies rushing forward to clarify what exactly is going on, and the government isn't really a neutral arbiter of truth here. I would say we prioritize the information from the leaks, given their restricted nature and their intended audience, but that doesn't mean there might not be over-generalizations or mis-interpretations there either.

I really hope that tech company CEOs get their feet held to the fire for misleading statements though and journalists keep (or start) asking them direct and difficult questions to get answers on record before more leaks come out.

getspopcorn