A lesson in how to say something without really saying anything at all.

Jeff Chiu / AP

Read all the tech giants' denials regarding the NSA's PRISM program and you'll start to notice a pattern:

Google CEO Larry Page: We have not joined any program that would give the US government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.

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

Facebook Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan: Protecting the privacy of our users and their data is a top priority for Facebook. We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers.

Yahoo: We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.

Paltalk: Paltalk does not provide any government agency with direct access to its servers.

Apple: We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers

The Washington Post's initial report about PRISM, a massive NSA digital surveillance operation, alleged that it gave tech companies "direct access" to the servers of America's largest tech companies. This particular detail, it seems, is one that these companies feel they can respond to — indeed, the Washington Post has seemingly hedged its story a bit. But a lack of "direct access" does not preclude the type of sweeping surveillance described in the leaks. Marc Ambinder explains how that might work:

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 On the â€œno direct accessâ€ â€”ISPs push to a separate server the subset of accounts that the FISC order covers; NSA monitors them in real time

Let’s say court order says “all Yahoo accounts in Pakistan” Yahoo would push those accounts to the server; NSA could watch them in real time Marc Ambinder @marcambinder Letâ€™s say court order says â€œall Yahoo accounts in Pakistanâ€ Yahoo would push those accounts to the server; NSA could watch them in real time

They’d try & figure who & where the incoming emails were coming from. US persons data minimized automatically if possible (often it’s not). Marc Ambinder @marcambinder Theyâ€™d try & figure who & where the incoming emails were coming from. US persons data minimized automatically if possible (often itâ€™s not).

It's a significant difference in some ways, but not in ways that matter to the average user. In terms of privacy, it's a technicality. Another claim that keeps coming up is that these companies, or executives, haven't "heard of" PRISM. The WaPo story suggests that they had knowledge of the program, which these companies feel able to deny:

Mark Zuckerberg: We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday.

Google CEO Larry Page: We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday

Apple: We have never heard of PRISM.

Dropbox: We've seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM.

Paltalk: We have not heard of PRISM.

Aol: We do not have any knowledge of the Prism program