Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1034

It Took Jay-Z This Long to Build a Sports Agency Empire

Since April 2, the day Jay-Z decided to start Roc Nation Sports, when he put every sports agents on blast when he signed the New York Yankees' Robinson Cano away from sports superagent Scott Boras, he has slowly assembled a strong roster of clients. But Jay-Z's latest prize is the crown jewel in the collection so far. 

Late Friday night, Sports Business Journal's Liz Mullen reported Jay-Z's Roc Nation Sports will poach Oklahoma City Thunder forward Kevin Durant from Landmark Sports' Rob Pelinka, who confirmed Durant has left his sports agency. "We are honored and blessed to have worked on behalf of Kevin, for a brief period of time," Pelinka said in a statement. Durant has not yet signed with Roc Nation, but it's widely expected he will when the time comes. He doesn't immediately need a new agent. He's signed with Oklahoma through 2015-16. 

Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski has more insight into Durant's looming Roc Nation deal: 

"KD doesn't want a traditional NBA agent anymore," a league source with knowledge of his thinking told Yahoo! Sports on Friday night. "He wants Jay-Z to handle his branding. …He had a chance to be with his idol and couldn't say no."

Durant is easily the biggest (soon-to-be) signee in Jay-Z's ever growing stable of athletes. He launched with Cano and, in the ensuing two months and change, signed New York Giants receiver Victor Cruz, and buzzed-about newcomers like WNBA player Skylar Diggins and the (soon-to-be) starting rookie quarterback for the New York Jets, Geno Smith. But none of those athletes are as prominent or well-regarded within their respective sports as Durant. 

Few people in the NBA enjoyed as much commercial presence as Durant while he was with Pelinka. He had deals with Nike, Sprint, Gatorade, Degree, and 2K Sports and could be constantly seen on television screens and billboards. He's widely seen as the best NBA player not-named Lebron James. Bill Simmons put him just behind James in his annual value column. It's a position Durant knows all too well, living in the shadow of the best player since Jordan, and he's sick of it. His struggle with always being second-fiddle to James made for a brilliant Sports Illustrated cover in April: 

“I’ve been second my whole life,” Durant tells SI‘s Lee Jenkins in a profile that will hit newsstands on Thursday. “I was the second-best player in high school. I was the second pick in the draft. I’ve been second in the MVP voting three times. I came in second in the Finals. I’m tired of being second. I’m not going to settle for that. I’m done with it.”

So he was well-represented, but under achieving on the court. Something about Jay-Z attracted him, apparently, and now he's off in a weird limbo stage until the i's and t's are dotted and cross. This all speaks to the power of the God MC and the draw he has with the modern pro athlete. It should be noted that Durant, 24, was seven years old when Jay-Z's Reasonable Doubt was released. 

A few things have to be sorted out before this marriage becomes official. Jay-Z still has to sell his ownership stake in the Brooklyn Nets before Durant can officially join his roster, lest he break conflict of interest rules with the NBA. ESPN's Darren Rovell suspects Durant won't officially sign his life over to Jay-Z until that deal is done, which would make a lot of sense considering both sides would want to avoid scandal as much as possible. Roc Nation Sports is already drawing questions for the way Geno Smith's hiring was handled. After announcing himself as a major player in the market, Jay will want to limit questions from league officials and competing agents until his Brooklyn deal is finalized. It's all politics as usual. 

       

This Is Pakistan's Answer to U.S. Drone Defiance

Pakistan's newly-elect prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, announced the country would no longer permit U.S. drone strikes on his country's soil during his first speech earlier this week. So when the U.S. openly defied him with another drone strike late Friday, he called the U.S. envoy in Pakistan for a little chat. What happened behind those closed doors, or what was said during the ensuing conversation, is unknown at this time. We know Sharif was "protesting" the drone strike that     

Nelson Mandela Hospitalized (Again) for a Lung Infection

The 94-year-old former South African president Nelson Mandela is in "serious but stable" condition after being admitted to the hospital for a recurrence of a lingering lung infection for the third time in eight months on Saturday. Mandela is suffering from pneumonia, presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj told reporters.  It's the second time in four months Mandela's come down with pneumonia.  Graca Machel, his wife, cancelled a planned trip to London to stay with Mandela in the hospital.

The South African government said Mandela was sent to the hospital early Saturday morning after his condition deteriorated over the last few days. "He remains in a serious but stable condition," the government statement said. Maharaj said Mandela was breathing on his own once again, and that was a "positive side."

Mandela's latest trip to the hospital is raising concern both at home and abroad for very obvious reasons. It's troubling anytime a 94-year-old is admitted to the hospital with pneumonia, but, also, Mandela's lung infections have become increasingly common over the last few months. In December, Mandela spent 18 days in the hospital -- the longest time he'd been hospitalized since he was a prisoner under minority rule in 1990 -- for gallstones surgery. In March, Mandela stayed for ten days when he had to get fluids drained from his chest. Mandela was diagnosed with tuberculosis, a disease that causes long term lung problems, in 1988 while working in a quarry as a political prisoner. 

Mandela is supposed to turn 95 next month. 

       

How Google and Facebook May Help with the NSA and PRISM

An update and slight correction, 7:59 p.m.: A spokesperson forwarded us this message from Google's chief legal counsel David Drummond: 

"We cannot say this more clearly -- the government does not have access to Google servers--not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box.  Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media.  It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise.  We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.  And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for use information."

They also wanted to clarify that Google and Facebook have not yet incorporated any sort of drop-box system for the NSA to extract files from. That plan was simply being negotiated, the Times reported. This report was originally said they were already in place. We regret the error. 

Original: Ever since Thursday's blockbuster reports from the Washington Post and the Guardian revealing the existence of the National Security Agency's PRISM — the government program that allegedly works with major Internet companies to collect (some) U.S. citizen data — tech companies have been fighting to distance themselves from the potentially privacy-violating government programs. The Post and the Guardian allege tech companies that participate in the PRISM program — Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple —offered the government "direct access" to their servers full of user information. "From inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes," the Post's Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras reported. Facebook and Google were two of the most aggressive deniers. But similarities in their statements raised eyebrows. Both Google CEO Larry Page and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg denied giving the government "direct access," per se, to their servers. That Page and Zuckerberg's statements were, when boiled down, almost identical didn't help matters. 

New reports released Saturday morning reveal Facebook and Google were telling something resembling the truth when they denied the NSA has "direct access" to their servers, and that the government doesn't, in fact, have direct access to these massive personal information treasures storing most of our modern day-to-day communications. Both The New York Times' Claire Cain Miller and CNET's Declan McCullagh have reports debunking some the previous myths about the way PRISM and the NSA interact with the tech companies who cooperate with their surveillance work. "It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," a source told McCullagh, who went on to say it's "a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

First, it turns out Facebook and Google weren't lying. The government does not have "direct access" to their servers. But they are negotiating something special for the NSA to make obtaining the specially requested information as easy as a ransom hand-off. Per Miller: 

In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said.

So the government doesn't have "direct access" to Facebook and Google servers, but there is a process in place so the NSA can request the information, and there's a special, secure place for them to retrieve that information. The NSA wants information on person X so they send a request to Google or Facebook. The tech company gathers all the information it has on person X and deposits that information onto the secure server set up for the NSA. Once the information is in place, the NSA accesses the secure server and retrieves the requested information. So the government doesn't have "direct access," or even "backdoor access," as has been implied.

The servers are, in effect, the tech equivalent of a safety deposit box that only the NSA and the corresponding tech company can access. Miller calls it "a locked mailbox," that the government has a key to open. Or we much prefer this visual, if you want to be brutish about it: a locked briefcase full of intel left in a digital garbage can with the NSA swinging in to pick it up at a prescribed time. Just like in the movies. 

How other tech companies linked to PRISM ended up cooperating is unclear at this time. Twitter is only one who bristled at the government's request to make the handing-over of information easier. How Microsoft, Yahoo, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple all operate with the NSA is still unknown. In some instances NSA agents would be stationed at a tech companies' office and would remain "at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop," Miller writes. Occasionally the government would request data in real time, "which companies send digitally," she reports. But this brings us to an important legal point. 

These tech companies have no choice but to fork over the information when the NSA came calling. "The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," Miller reminds us. But building the special secure server used for dumping information for the NSA was going above and beyond the legal call of duty. Still, it's important to remember these companies had no choice but to hand over the requested information once the government went through the proper channels, as McCullugh explains: 

The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement request information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

The tech companies also do their due diligence before handing over all of the requested information, too. Lawyers look over the government document before anything is handed over. "It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers," Miller reports.

Miller also offers a new reason why the initial denials proved to be false. The PRISM and the FISA request system is a lot like Fight Club. The first rule is you're not allowed to talk about your PRISM and FISA work, even with your own coworkers, who have no idea you fork information to the government at their beck and call, lest you break federal laws (emphasis ours): 

Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company.

So, yes, some people at Facebook and Google probably have national security clearance. That's coming from both sides of this scandal. On any other day, we would crack wise about how scary Eric Schmidt (possibly) having level seven security clearance is, but it still seems too soon for that. 

       

How Google and Facebook Cooperated with the NSA and PRISM

Ever since Thursday's blockbuster reports from the Washington Post and the Guardian revealing the existence of the National Security Agency's PRISM — the government program that allegedly works with major Internet companies to collect (some) U.S. citizen data — tech companies have been fighting to distance themselves from the potentially privacy-violating government programs. The Post and the Guardian allege tech companies that participate in the PRISM program — Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple —offered the government "direct access" to their servers full of user information. "From inside a company's data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes," the Post's Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras reported. Facebook and Google were two of the most aggressive deniers. But similarities in their statements raised eyebrows. Both Google CEO Larry Page and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg denied giving the government "direct access," per se, to their servers. That Page and Zuckerberg's statements were, when boiled down, almost identical to the point they seemed rehearsed with government lawyers guiding the pen didn't help matters. 

New reports released Saturday morning reveal Facebook and Google were telling something resembling the truth when they denied the NSA has "direct access" to their servers, and that the government doesn't, in fact, have direct access to these massive personal information treasures storing most of our modern day-to-day communications. Both The New York Times' Claire Cain Miller and CNET's Declan McCullagh have reports debunking some the previous myths about the way PRISM and the NSA interact with the tech companies who cooperate with their surveillance work. "It's not as described in the histrionics in the Washington Post or the Guardian," a source told McCullagh, who went on to say it's "a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

First, it turns out Facebook and Google weren't lying. The government does not have "direct access" to their servers. But they did make something special for the NSA to make obtaining the specially requested information as easy as a ransom hand-off: 

In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said.

So the government doesn't have "direct access" to Facebook and Google servers, but there is a process in place so the NSA can request the information, and there's a special, secure place for them to retrieve that information. The NSA wants information on person X so they send a request to Google or Facebook. The tech company gathers all the information it has on person X and deposits that information onto the secure server set up for the NSA. Once the information is in place, the NSA accesses the secure server and retrieves the requested information. So the government doesn't have "direct access," or even "backdoor access," as has been implied.

The servers are, in effect, the tech equivalent of a safety deposit box that only the NSA and the corresponding tech company can access. Miller calls it "a locked mailbox," that the government has a key to open. Or we much prefer this visual, if you want to be brutish about it: a locked briefcase full of intel left in a digital garbage can with the NSA swinging in to pick it up at a prescribed time. Just like in the movies. 

How other tech companies linked to PRISM ended up cooperating is unclear at this time. Twitter is only one who bristled at the government's request to make the handing-over of information easier. How Microsoft, Yahoo, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple all operate with the NSA is still unknown. In some instances NSA agents would be stationed at a tech companies' office and would remain "at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop," Miller writes. Occasionally the government would request data in real time, "which companies send digitally," she reports. But this brings us to an important legal point. 

These tech companies have no choice but to fork over the information when the NSA came calling. "The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," Miller reminds us. But building the special secure server used for dumping information for the NSA was going above and beyond the legal call of duty. Still, it's important to remember these companies had no choice but to hand over the requested information once the government went through the proper channels, as McCullugh explains: 

The legal process, the person said, is akin to how law enforcement request information in criminal investigations: the government delivers an order to obtain account details about someone who's specifically identified as a non-U.S. individual, with a specific finding that they're involved in an activity related to international terrorism. Both the contents of communications and metadata, such as information about who's talking to whom, can be requested.

The tech companies also do their due diligence before handing over all of the requested information, too. Lawyers look over the government document before anything is handed over. "It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers," Miller reports.

Miller also offers a new reason why the initial denials proved to be false. The PRISM and the FISA request system is a lot like Fight Club. The first rule is you're not allowed to talk about your PRISM and FISA work, even with your own coworkers, who have no idea you fork information to the government at their beck and call, lest you break federal laws (emphasis ours): 

Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company.

So, yes, some people at Facebook and Google probably have national security clearance. That's coming from both sides of this scandal. On any other day, we would crack wise about how Eric Schmidt having level seven security clearance is, but it still seems too soon for that. 

       

Obama and Xi Shake Hands, Sleep Under Different Roofs

That possibly-awkward summit between Presidents Obama and the recently-elected Xi Jinping began today, with the two leaders shaking hands before heading in to the Sunnylands estate for "informal talks." 

Though the leaders are smiling in the above photo, there's reason to believe that there's plenty of tension between them. While Obama is staying at Sunnylands during the summit ("presumably in the canary yellow master bedroom where speakers pipe in the songs of the birds outdoors," The New York Times says), Xi decided to stay at a nearby Hyatt, where he was met by protestors and supporters. While housing the Chinese delegation of over 200 people is great for the hotel, it seems a bit odd that Xi is giving Sunnylands the cold shoulder. Surely there's plenty of room for him in the 25,000 square foot home with 22 guest bedrooms? 

Or maybe he's afraid of being spied on:

President Xi wont be staying at luxurious Sunnylands retreat because of eavesdropping worries instead he and his wife at nearby Hyatt

— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) June 7, 2013

After the last three days, I can't really blame him.

       

Another Mass Shooting: Santa Monica College Gunman Kills 'At Least ' Four

Santa Monica is the latest scene of a mass shooting resulting in multiple fatalities. At least six four people are dead after a man reportedly wielding an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle ran through the Los Angeles suburb, firing indiscriminately at passing vehicles and people as he made his way to Santa Monica College, where he was killed by police.

Update, 11:38 p.m. Eastern -- The AP reports the police have lowered the death toll to four (five including the shooter) and now believe he acted alone. The person of interest has been released.

Update, 10:04 p.m. Eastern -- Los Angeles Times, citing law enforcement sources, is saying that the first two victims were the gunman's father and brother.  

It's unknown at this time what the man's name is or why he allegedly did this. Right now, it looks like the spree began sometime around noon Pacific time at a house fire, where two men were found dead, apparently from gunshot wounds. From ABC7:

The gunman then attempted to carjack a woman. When she hesitated, the suspect shot the woman in the arm and fled. The female victim was transported to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and is listed in good condition.

Police believe the suspect then participated in a series of shootings along the areas of 28th Street and Pico Boulevard, Cloverfield Boulevard and Pico Boulevard and 19th and Pearl streets.

A person was fatally shot at Cloverfield and Pico Boulevard and two others were confirmed dead near 19th and Pearl streets.

The suspect then reached the Santa Monica College campus and shot three more women. One died at the hospital. Another is said to be in "very critical condition." Three more victims were said to be suffering from "minor injuries," though two of those were "not related to gunfire," according to the AP.

Police then shot and killed the suspect in the school's library.

Students at SMC (and surrounding high and middle schools) went into lock down. One SMC student tweeted photos of his classmates:

@_sampat and there is another one twitter.com/aizoz/status/3…

— Abdulaziz F AlSaeed (@aizoz) June 7, 2013

And another dramatic photo of the SWAT team arriving to give them the all-clear:

#smc #swat twitter.com/aizoz/status/3…

— Abdulaziz F AlSaeed (@aizoz) June 7, 2013

The Los Angeles Times created a map of the scene and the shooting's path:

View Santa Monica College shooting in a larger map

A second "person of interest" has been taken into custody, though it's not yet known if or how he is involved.

A woman who lives in the area (a DJ whose stage name is "Reid Speed") Vined the scene where it all began. In six seconds, we can see the burning house, a bullet-riddled car parked across the street from it, and what appears to be one woman tending to the car's driver, who has been wounded:

Fuuuuccckk vine.co/v/bLJ6IOm19Wr

— reid speed (@reidspeed) June 7, 2013

Here are a few photos from the scene, all via Reuters. Warning: the third photo, of the suspected gunman's body, is a bit graphic.

A now-familiar image of police officers responding en masse to another spree killing:

[image error]

The suspected shooter wore a ballistic vest, seen here by the spot where he died:

[image error]

The body of the suspected shooter:

[image error]

 

       

Cleveland Kidnapper Faces 329 Charges ... So Far

Ariel Castro, who allegedly kidnapped three women and held them captive in his home for the last decade, was indicted today on a whopping 329 charges, including two counts of aggravated murder of a fetus. As those only cover through February 2007, it's very likely even more will be added.   

These will take the place of the seven counts he was charged with at his May arraignment. Here's the rundown:

177 counts of kidnapping 139 counts of rape 7 counts of gross sexual imposition 3 counts of felonious assault 2 counts of aggravated murder of a fetus 1 count of possession of criminal tools

The 142-page indictment contains even more horrifying details about what Castro's alleged victims were forced to endure that were previously unknown. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer: 

One of the women, identified as Jane Doe 2, tried to escape from the home in 2003, and was later chained to a pole in the basement with motorcycle helmet on her head, according to the charge. She also had her legs and mouth taped, she was chained to a heater in a bathroom, and assaulted with a vacuum cleaner cord around her neck, the indictments said.

The murder charges will allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty, though Cuyahoga County prosecutor Timothy J. McGinty told the Plain Dealer that he will not decide whether or not to do so until the indictment process is complete. 

Castro still plans to plead not guilty, according to his lawyers. He is currently being held on $8 million bail. According to the AP, he is not accepting media interview requests.

       

How Much Money Do We Pay the NSA to Spy on Us?

This week's revelations about the National Security Agency's hyperactive interest in seeing what's happening online probably inspired you to wonder how much that privilege is costing you.

The very short answer is: We have no idea. The NSA, being a secret agency, doesn't share details about how much money it spends. Basic details about the government organization (like budget and staff size) are classified.

But we can guess. Each month, the Treasury Department releases a statement outlining how much various government divisions and organizations have spent. Over the past six months, here's what spending in the Department of Defense, the NSA's umbrella agency, has looked like.

The Monthly Treasury Statement allows us to dive a little deeper. It breaks out several of the categories above into (very, very large) subcategories: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense Agencies. That last category apparently includes the NSA.

So far this year, here's how much each of those divisions has spent this year. The Armed Services branches are responsible for well over 90 percent of the department's personnel spending. But the agencies — which also includes other organizations, like the Defense Intelligence Agency — are responsible for nearly a third of spending on construction. (See also.)

In these five categories, the agencies comprise 17 percent of the spending. If that ratio applies to Defense spending on the whole, those agencies cost $7,907,380,000 in April — nearly eight billion.

In that first graph, you'll notice that April spending is lower than at the end of last year. The Defense Department spent about five percent less this April than it did in April 2012. That's likely due, in part, to the sequestration. While the Office of Management and Budget's detailed list of expected sequestration cuts doesn't mention the NSA, last December an agency representative indicated that he expected to see an effect, as Federal Times reported.

“It will affect all of us — absolutely all of us,” said Chris Inglis, deputy director of the National Security Agency, a part of the Defense Department responsible for electronic eavesdropping abroad on would-be adversaries. While agency officials are working through their options, Inglis said, “it’s too soon to tell” what the potential impact would be.

And in March, Fox News detailed how intelligence agencies planned to respond to the need to temporarily furlough employees.

Intelligence officials are arguing that a certain number of workers are needed in order to adequately monitor and protect the U.S. from national security threats. Officials will not say, however, how many intelligence workers across the Defense Department or government-wide will be exempt.

The U.S. intelligence community is made up of 16 different organizations, ranging from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency to the highly secretive National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. Altogether the agencies have about 100,000 workers.

(That month, Congress also approved an additional $10 billion in spending, which reduced the need for furloughs and may help account for the blip on the first graph.)

So here's what we know: The NSA probably costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a month. It probably lost some funding in the sequestration. Anything beyond that is hard to tell. After all, it's not like we get to monitor their credit card transactions.

Photo: NSA headquarters, via Wikipedia.

       

Very Similar Statements from Facebook and Google on PRISM Still Have Holes

After denying involvement in PRISM — the government program that allegedly works with major Internet companies to collect (some) U.S. citizen data — Google and Facebook have both again, more clearly and vehemently denied involvement in the program. This time, instead of a "spokesperson" relaying the news, the CEOs themselves, Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg, went on record giving nearly the exact same denials of involvement with the NSA — one of the many questionable aspects of their remarks. "We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday," said Zuckerberg, echoing Page's line: "We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday." It's pretty curious that these two men happened to have the exact same talking points — and those aren't the only similarities between the two statements. 

Facebook (emphasis ours):

Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. 

Google (emphasis ours): 

First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.

That "direct access" alibi is new to the Google statement, which yesterday only 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 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'backdoor' for the government to access private user data.

That statement with the "backdoor" reference could have implied that something other than a "backdoor" let the government in. (Perhaps for that very reason Zuckerberg doesn't even mention a backdoor, going straight to the direct access explanation.)

So, Page not only reiterated that same point with a little more vehemence and a clarification, but also added the new "direct access" clause Facebook has above hoping to further clarify it didn't cooperate with the NSA. "Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers," he said. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period." 

That's a stronger denial than yesterday, which some took as the company using vague technology terms to skirt the issue. But it still doesn't exonerate either of the companies because the NSA neither needs a "backdoor" or "direct access" to collect the data. Google didn't need to give the government a backdoor, as the ACLU's Christopher Soghoian notes:

Google: We haven't given the government direct access to our servers. // That doesn't rule out an API.googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.h…

— Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) June 7, 2013

Nor did either Facebook or Google need to provide "direct access" As The Week's Marc Ambinder explains:

On the “no direct access”—ISPs push to a separate server the subset of accounts that the FISC order covers; NSA monitors them in real time

— Marc Ambinder (@marcambinder) June 7, 2013

In addition, Page's disavowal that he has never heard of the program doesn't have Soghoian convinced either. The timing of when Google supposedly joined the PRISM coalition, per The Washington Post's slides, is too convenient:

Unnamed company loses FISA challenge in August 2008, Google joined PRISM 5 months later.

— Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) June 7, 2013