Yahoo Offers Non-Denial Denial of Bombshell Spy Report (theintercept.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo Offers Non-Denial Denial of Bombshell Spy Report (theintercept.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday October 5, 2016 @03:50AM from the caught-off-guard dept.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that Yahoo last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials. When The Intercept reached out to Yahoo for an official comment and explanation, the company offered a non-denial response after 20 hours since Reuters's report, a report said. (If a report is inaccurate, the company says so explicitly. Non-denial is something you give when you are caught off guard and things reported are true.) From the report: From Yahoo's PR firm, "The article is misleading. We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure. The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems." This is an extremely carefully worded statement, arriving roughly 20 hours after the Reuters story first broke. That's a long time to craft 29 words. It's unclear as well why Yahoo wouldn't have put this statement out on Tuesday, rather than responding, cryptically, that they are "a law abiding company, [that] complies with the laws of the United States." But this day-after denial isn't even really a denial: The statement says only that the article is misleading, not false. It denies only that such an email scanning program "does not" exist -- perhaps it did exist at some point between its reported inception in 2015 and today. It also pins quite a bit on the word "described" -- perhaps the Reuters report was overall accurate, but missed a few details. And it would mean a lot more for this denial to come straight from the keyboard of a named executive at Yahoo -- perhaps Ron Bell, the company's general counsel -- rather than a "strategic communications firm."Reuters reported that Yahoo's decision has prompted questions in Europe whether EU citizens' data had been compromised, and this could result in derailing a new trans-Atlantic data sharing deal.

72 of 103 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yahoo? lol by bazmail · 2016-10-05 03:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

They should just take that miserable shit-heel of a company out back and put it out of its misery. What a joke. Take a bow Marissa, well done girlfriend.
1. Re:Yahoo? lol by danbuter · 2016-10-05 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The sad part is, Yahoo used to be good. They had cool cooking shows, a fantastic sports section, and the email was actually one of the best available. Almost all of that is gone, taken away by this cost-cutting CEO who trashed what was left of the company.
2. Re:Yahoo? lol by darkain · 2016-10-05 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  AGREED! And Yahoo owned Flickr also used to be the absolute best image archive on the internet too, until they tried to rebrand Flickr as a social network instead of an image host.
3. Re:Yahoo? lol by bfpierce · 2016-10-05 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  If you're somehow convinced that only Marissa Mayer was bound by Federal Law to implement this type of 'service' for the government, there's something seriously wrong with your brain.
4. Re:Yahoo? lol by sinij · 2016-10-05 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  Pfft, and they said the geek community was sexist.
  They probably said that the geek community was sexy and you simply overheard.
  
  Don't get trolled by obvious trolls.
5. Re:Yahoo? lol by unixisc · 2016-10-05 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  The sad part is, Yahoo used to be good. They had cool cooking shows, a fantastic sports section, and the email was actually one of the best available. Almost all of that is gone, taken away by this cost-cutting CEO who trashed what was left of the company.
  My favorite site of theirs was geocities
6. Re:Yahoo? lol by danbuter · 2016-10-05 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was pissed when that shut that down.
7. Re:Yahoo? lol by david_thornley · 2016-10-06 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's degrees of compliance, and I doubt Mayer is off the spectrum. Other CEOs have done essentially the same thing.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
8. Re:Yahoo? lol by RockDoctor · 2016-10-06 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  And Yahoo owned Flickr
  
  I believe they still DO OWN Flickr. Certainly, I need to be signed into Yahoo to get onto my Flickr account.
  Did they try making it into a social network? I didn't notice. Why would I want to do that?
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Weasel Words by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-05 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the more weaselly part of the statement is that they system does not exist "on our systems." So it could exist, but maybe it's on a computer technically owner by the US government.
1. Re:Weasel Words by HBI · 2016-10-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Data taps leading to USG systems, you mean.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:Weasel Words by Anubis+IV · 2016-10-05 04:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Precisely what I was thinking. For all we know, they have a black box from a three-letter agency that filters every piece of mail before it hits their system. It's not theirs, so they can hold up their hands and go, "not on our systems!"
  Hell, just toss some emphasis into different parts of that last sentence alone and you can see how weaselly it really is and what it could really mean:
  
  The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.
  ...but we definitely filter stuff and send it to the government. We just don't like to say that we're scanning it.
  
  The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.
  ...but something remarkably close is definitely on our systems.
  
  The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.
  ...but it did up until a few minutes ago when we finished the 20-hour process of removing it, which explains why our response was delayed. Also, we plan to restore it again in just a minute here.
  
  The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.
  ...but we suspect it does on the government's black box attached to our system.
3. Re:Weasel Words by bigwheel · 2016-10-05 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  We were assured that the "NSA is not rifling through ordinary people's emails". https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
4. Re:Weasel Words by swillden · 2016-10-05 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think the more weaselly part of the statement is that they system does not exist "on our systems." So it could exist, but maybe it's on a computer technically owner by the US government.
  I'm not making any statements about what Yahoo has or has not done, but I want to point out that writing a statement that can't be interpreted as "weaselly" by someone who wants to see it that way is really, really hard. Seriously, try it yourself. Assume that you work for Yahoo and you have asked all the relevant people and assured yourself that nothing at all like this is going on and that the story is completely bogus. Now try to write a statement that expresses that, without accidentally claiming that the company doesn't respond to proper, legal requests -- and then let others try to pick apart your statement.
  I saw this back when the PRISM stuff came out and David Drummond, Google's chief legal counsel, made a statement that clearly tried to be as comprehensive a denial as possible that Google had any knowledge or involvement at any level... and still people managed to find holes in it.
  I'm not sure it's even possible to write denial language that is accurate and yet can't be interpreted as carefully skirting some issue.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
5. Re:Weasel Words by sjames · 2016-10-05 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  >p>Right, Yahoo does the rifling. The NSA just reads the results.
6. Re: Weasel Words by magarity · 2016-10-05 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming there is some legal threat over their heads to admit it, just paraphrase the main character in Apocolypse Now and be done with it: "We would be indisposed to discuss such a program if such a program did in fact exist."
7. Re:Weasel Words by swillden · 2016-10-05 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. But now try writing something that can't be construed as weaselly.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by JoeyRox · 2016-10-05 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Her legacy of declining revenue, disgruntled employees, negative ROI, executive departures, strategic blunders, and oh, designer short-skirts.
1. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by Luthair · 2016-10-05 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Lets be honest here, Yahoo was already dead prior to hiring Marissa.
2. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by Reason58 · 2016-10-05 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  And yet Yahoo stock was unphased by this news. In fact, it is up today.
3. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by rudy_wayne · 2016-10-05 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Man or woman... who in their right mind would've looked at a company like Yahoo (especially with mega corporations like microgoogleface running the show) and think "yeah I can compete with them!"
  It was more like:
  Yahoo: Hey, come work for us and we'll pay you $120 Million
  Marissa: Sure, why not. It will go nicely with my $300 Million in Google stock.
4. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by HBI · 2016-10-05 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  She was hired because she was a woman. That was the statement. It's irrefutably true. You're an asshole.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
5. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by radarskiy · 2016-10-05 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  "negative ROI"
  During Marissa Mayer's tenure, she has increased the value of the company by $10-20 million per day, roughly a 100:1 ratio with her compensation. She is employed by the shareholders to increase the value of their holdings.
  When is the last time *you* provided a 100x return to your employers?
6. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by rdurell · 2016-10-05 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  The comment said nothing of why she was hired-- the comment was in regard to her legacy. Calling out her legacy included designer skirts was undeniably sexist.
  But I would agree the commentator is an asshole for pointing out someone's evident bias.
7. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by HBI · 2016-10-05 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I read more into the comment than you did. The skirt reference was clearly acknowledging her raison d'etre was that she was a woman and therefore improving Yahoo's appearance to a certain demographic.
  Besides, her skirts were never particularly short. Her dresses were sometimes very nice, though. The purple one was very attractive.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
8. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by HBI · 2016-10-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, your 'bias' reference is a bunch of bullshit. No bias involved in pointing out that someone is a shitty CEO, regardless of their gender.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
9. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by poofmeisterp · 2016-10-05 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  And yet Yahoo stock was unphased by this news. In fact, it is up today.
  Interesting observation! I wonder who wants to increase their investment to essentially own it when the next big announcement comes out.
  I can see yahoo.com getting turned in to a YouTube equivalent or a certain beverage company's new focused domain name. Heh.
10. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by ADRA · 2016-10-05 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, her only legacy will be how much money she makes for shareholders. If the money doesn't come, she probably won't get the big seat again. Quite frankly, Yahoo was already a heaping pile of crap before Mayer took over. She did 'little' to improve things, but without a welcome external change, its hard to steer such a big ship away from that Iceberg. IBM pivoted from hardware/software into services rather dramatically, but that's a very rosy example.
  
  --
  Bye!
11. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by PCM2 · 2016-10-05 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  The word is "unfazed," having nothing whatsoever to do with the guns in Star Trek.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
12. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by Reason58 · 2016-10-05 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Set phasers on pedantic.
13. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by JoeyRox · 2016-10-05 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  She lost of the company billions of dollars in shareholder value during her tenure, mostly through ill-conceived acquisitions. The only reason the stock price went up was due to the company's stake in Alibaba, a stake she inherited when she became CEO.
14. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-05 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  In the past I have compared her to a captain that took command while the Titanic was scraping the iceberg. I thought that even if she didn't do well, it should really be blamed more on what she had to work with than her own failings. Things like the purchase of Tumblr were desperation moves that could change the fate of the company if they turned out well, and have no effect if they turned out badly (since they were on their way out of business anyway).
  But the revelations about their security emphasis (active neglect) managed to make her look truly bad. She's failing in ways that are significantly worse than the company would have managed if they had kept coasting downhill.
15. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by uvajed_ekil · 2016-10-05 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  And yet Yahoo stock was unphased by this news. In fact, it is up today.
  Already hit bottom? lol
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
16. Re:Marissa Mayer's legacy is at stake by uvajed_ekil · 2016-10-05 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous rants about "liberal media" live on, yes! FAIL.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
National Security Letter? by Luthair · 2016-10-05 04:00 · Score: 2

If they were subject to an NSL they wouldn't really be able to talk about it no?
1. Re:National Security Letter? by HBI · 2016-10-05 05:00 · Score: 2
  
  True statement. However, their statement now needs to be true because otherwise they can be sued for it. So their statement now is precisely true. Parse each word carefully.
  If anyone is idiot enough to think NSA would have their own processing system located in someone else's data center...think again. Imagine how you could structure a NSL to permit access to data...perhaps you would put in fiber taps and have the traffic redirected to your own data center? Yahoo would be unable to talk about that due to the terms of the NSL probably issued close to 15 years ago. And that would make their statement now indisputably true.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
2. Re:National Security Letter? by sl3xd · 2016-10-05 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't blame the employees of Yahoo at any level. It's easy to armchair quarterback a decision when you're not the one facing certain prison time and possibly execution for treason.
  You don't blame the people who follow the law - you blame the people who made them, and you change the laws.
  
  --
  -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
3. Re:National Security Letter? by AHuxley · 2016-10-05 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just have the other domestic federal agencies doing a few decades of "ongoing" investigations as cover.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That's a lot more words than necessary by Opportunist · 2016-10-05 04:00 · Score: 1

It's much easier to say "You caught us red handed and now we gotta weasel out by shoveling manure on it 'til you get dizzy".
See? It is actually THAT easy.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Recent account leak by otomoton · 2016-10-05 04:05 · Score: 1

Mayhaps this is how Yahoo allowed practically all the accounts info to get hacked...
Surprising? by jenningsthecat · 2016-10-05 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is anyone surprised? Nope, not a bit. Except maybe by the fact that it took so many hours to get a PR firm to put together a few weasel-words and slimy phrases. I'd have thought they already had lots of in-house expertise in that area, by way of spinning the bad news they've repeatedly delivered to their shareholders.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
1. Re:Surprising? by Nidi62 · 2016-10-05 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  Is anyone surprised? Nope, not a bit. Except maybe by the fact that it took so many hours to get a PR firm to put together a few weasel-words and slimy phrases. I'd have thought they already had lots of in-house expertise in that area, by way of spinning the bad news they've repeatedly delivered to their shareholders.
  It probably took so long because they had to have lawyers keep going over proposed statements to make sure that they weren't running afoul of any agreements made with the government regarding exposure or release a statement that would imply an admission of guilt and open them up to possible lawsuits.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
translation by JustNiz · 2016-10-05 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

>> "The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems"
Translation:
Its actually running on a box that is physically located in our server farm and hardwired right into our backbone, but the NSA owns the hardware.
1. Re:translation by poofmeisterp · 2016-10-05 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  >> "The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems"
  Translation:
  Its actually running on a box that is physically located in our server farm and hardwired right into our backbone, but the NSA owns the hardware.
  *Bill Clinton voice* Could you please define what the word "on" means?
  Heh
2. Re: translation by poofmeisterp · 2016-10-05 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Could you define what the word "maybe" means IN context?
3. Re:translation by whoever57 · 2016-10-05 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Alternate translation: "We have a system, but it is not exactly like the description in some unimportant manner"
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
4. Re:translation by JustNiz · 2016-10-05 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I actually thought of that right after my first post. I strongly suspect this is actually the truth.
IOW: Yahoo out-hacks Russians by hacking itself! by denis-The-menace · 2016-10-05 04:08 · Score: 1

If this isn't an illegal search I don't know what is.
I bet even the USPS steams envelops when it can for the NSA.

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
technical person shouldn't be surprised by globaljustin · 2016-10-05 04:15 · Score: 1

built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information
So basically they wrote a function to search for certain words. A text search.
This is not news, we've known for awhile now that the Feds can search our email.
The fact that they wrote "a custom software program" is not some new revelation. It's always software that searches.
While we're on this topic, let's remember that in Snowden's info was released in 2006:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Terrorists! by Archangel+Michael · 2016-10-05 04:16 · Score: 1

All of this crap is because of idiot politicians pedaling fear in the form of "Terrorists!".
This is how tyranny triumphs. Fear.
"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate.. to suffering" - Yoda
If you are voting for Either Clinton or Trump, you're most likely voting based on Fear.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Not Accurate: Re:Weasel Words by ripvlan · 2016-10-05 04:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

You missed part of the statement. it states in part "scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems"
Which could mean - a scanning system does exist - but as described does not.
Wait for it. There will be more... by sjbe · 2016-10-05 04:23 · Score: 1

While Yahoo is on the coals right now we'd be foolish to assume that the other major tech companies providing emails are not doing something similar. I find it hard to believe that Yahoo is working with the feds on the down low and nobody else is. I have no evidence of it but it would be truly shocking if Yahoo was alone in this behavior.
translation by Gravis+Zero · 2016-10-05 04:27 · Score: 1

We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure
translation: we give them exactly what they ask for, so if they ask for everything, we give it to them.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
nice work if ya can get it by Thud457 · 2016-10-05 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wouldn't mind being a failure for a $219 million dollar retirement.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:nice work if ya can get it by Quirkz · 2016-10-05 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Heck, I'd be a scapegoat failure for a tenth of that.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
2. Re:nice work if ya can get it by uvajed_ekil · 2016-10-05 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't mind being a failure for a $219 million dollar retirement.
  This is a ringing success, by Trump's definition. She made out so she was highly successful at the job, her company be damned. Of course they were already screwed and she did nothing to reverse the screwing, so who cares about the employees, shareholders, customers, etc. Them losing money means it was dumb on their part, following Trump logic, I'll tell ya, believe me!
  
  My cover letter when I apply to be Yahoo's CEO will be simply this (and no stealing!):
  I will MAKE YAHOO! GREAT AGAIN, believe me. She screwed up some things, she screwed up with the email server, screwed up really huge, and if you ask me, I won't say say she's working for someone else, but maybe she is, she could be, who knows, and now I'm the outsider you want because I have limited experience with these things, and have never been a CEO or an IT insider, I'm an outsider, and my plan is to make Yahoo! profitable again and end the bad times, by you know, bringing us back to the good, with more profit, not losses, losses are bad, and we don't want those, trust me!
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
3. Re:nice work if ya can get it by i.kazmi · 2016-10-06 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Kudos mate, that made me smile...wish I had mod points
been there, seen that by thunderclees · 2016-10-05 04:52 · Score: 1

Citizen 4 already showed us that through PRISM Yahoo, M$, Apple, Facebook and others had already been bribed to allow back doors and expose their clients data.
1. Re:been there, seen that by AHuxley · 2016-10-05 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  The working with the private sector goes way back to efforts like Project SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:been there, seen that by thunderclees · 2016-10-11 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, because of the Keith decision. "Where can you go. Where can you hide. When the Man Dressed in Blue is on the Inside?" - Doctors for "Bob"
Re:Wait for it. There will be more... by The-Ixian · 2016-10-05 05:07 · Score: 1

I am sure that this is the case.
We do love our scapegoats though....

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
it says "does not exist on our systems" by jovetoo · 2016-10-05 05:46 · Score: 1

The denial says it does not exist on their systems. It does not deny that the software exists or even that it is actually running, just that it is running on the systems they own.
It is an entirely accurate statement if their systems forward all emails to NSA owned systems in or directly connected to their network.
1. Re:it says "does not exist on our systems" by WillAffleckUW · 2016-10-05 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  The denial says it does not exist on their systems. It does not deny that the software exists or even that it is actually running, just that it is running on the systems they own.
  It is an entirely accurate statement if their systems forward all emails to NSA owned systems in or directly connected to their network.
  It's a feeder system, technically, so it technically isn't Yahoo's systems, just inside it.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
it depends on what the meaning of "is" is by raymorris · 2016-10-05 05:50 · Score: 1

nm
Re:IOW: Yahoo out-hacks Russians by hacking itself by Gilgaron · 2016-10-05 05:51 · Score: 1

But I bought the security envelopes! You can hold them up to a lamp and everything!
20 Hours by tsqr · 2016-10-05 06:33 · Score: 1

Yahoo probably spent the first 18 of those hours trying to figure out who/what is The Intercept.
First, be Evil by WillAffleckUW · 2016-10-05 07:09 · Score: 1

oh wait, that's Google.
At yahoo, it's the second thing.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-10-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obama's Administration would never do it by mi · 2016-10-05 07:54 · Score: 1

So it could exist, but maybe it's on a computer technically owner by the US government.
No way. Obama assured the world back in 2013, NSA does not spy on ordinary citizens either:

"I was a critic of the previous administration for those occasions in which I felt they had violated our values and I came in [to office] with a healthy scepticism about how our various programmes were structured," Obama told the press conference in Berlin's chancellery. But, he added, having examined how the US intelligence services were operating: "I'm confident that at this point we have struck the appropriate balance".

And he never told a lie...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Not Accurate: Re:Weasel Words by whoever57 · 2016-10-05 09:27 · Score: 1

Or, given the delay in issuing this non-denial, it could mean that it existed yesterday but not today.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Re:Not Accurate: Re:Weasel Words by alexo · 2016-10-05 09:49 · Score: 1

The mail scanning described in the article did not have sexual relations with that woman.
What if the statement is correct, just incomplete? by Cyberia · 2016-10-05 10:48 · Score: 1

This is just conjecture... but what if they left out a sentence intentionally?
"The article is misleading. We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure. The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems."
meant:
"The article is misleading. We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure. The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems. *COUGH* *COUGH* It DOES however run on systems provided by the NSA."