>Cloudflare can be compelled to secretly share anything the NSA want.

This is true given some possible interpretations, false given other possible interpretations. Cloudflare can be secretly compelled to share specific things, there's no legal mechanism to compel Cloudflare to share everything.

▲

morkalork a day ago | parent [-]

Wasn't the whole thing that the secret courts were too liberal in access they were granting?

▲

monerozcash a day ago | parent [-]

Not in the sense that they were ordering companies to facilitate full take collection of content by the NSA, no.

Hence the famous "SSL added and removed here ;-)" slide

▲

doobiedowner a day ago | parent [-]

Wasn’t room 641A just the NSA strong arming At&T to facilitate full take collection?

▲

monerozcash a day ago | parent [-]

Getting AT&T to do that is not the same as getting Google to do that.

AT&T does not have much to lose by doing that, Google does.

▲

doobiedowner a day ago | parent [-]

How do they not have much to lose? They are the ones that have their users on a subscription basis.

▲

monerozcash a day ago | parent [-]

AT&T customers will not (and did not!) leave because of NSA surveillance, and generally don't have that many options anyway.

▲

morkalork a day ago | parent [-]

Were the alternatives any better? I don't recall any telecom companies committing to warrant canaries or the like. And speaking of, whatever happened to those?

	▲	monerozcash a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Were the alternatives any better? I don't recall any telecom companies committing to warrant canaries or the like. Well, no. But Google does significant business in foreign countries and doesn't really want to give an excuse for foreign governments to start aggressively pursuing their own alternatives. > And speaking of, whatever happened to those? Cloudflare still has a warrant canary on their transparency report page, Reddit deleted theirs in 2016. They were never very common.