As we've been discussing, a lot of the carefully-worded denials crafted by the companies allegedly participating in the NSA's "PRISM" surveillance program focused on denying that the NSA had "direct access" to their servers. These denials obviously didn't preclude things like NSA hardware on network that split streams and stores data on NSA hardware, something AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein claimed was common practice (pdf). Journalists needed to ask specific questions about what NSA hardware companies are allowing on their networks, and it appears some thankfully have.

Google has expanded their set of carefully worded denials to include denying that the NSA has placed any hardware on their network. The company tells Wired they use good-old secure FTP to transfer information requested by the government:

quote:

---

"When required to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the US government — generally through secure FTP transfers and in person," Google spokesman Chris Gaither told Wired. "The US government does not have the ability to pull that data directly from our servers or network."..."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.

---

Granted it's not entirely clear this matters given the amount of NSA gear on the network further upstream. It's rather important to note that Google was asked to take things a good deal further by the government:

quote:

---

Asked if Google had had discussions with the Feds in the past about creating or installing a system for obtaining court-ordered data more easily, he replied, "We have been asked to do things in the past and we have declined."

---

So Google, who has actually been fighting for more transparency and against NSLs has denied government requests to install more significant monitoring hardware on its network, making you wonder how many of the supposedly involved PRISM companies (not to mention carriers) didn't have such qualms, especially in exchange for say, regulatory favors. Surely the other Internet companies exposed as PRISM participants will be willing to make the same statement?