I don't really care what Larry Page says. The government says they have to hand over the data and make a way for the government to store it in real time. Of course Google is cooperating with them. Just like everyone else.

If you don't care what anyone at google says, what would make you believe otherwise?

Why would I believe a company that is bound by law to (a) hand over my data and (b) tell me they're not doing that.

I can't be convinced it isn't happening at this point because we have evidence that it is from the government.

They aren't bound to tell you they are not doing that. Again, i'm not sure where people get this idea. They may be compelled to be silent about it, but not compelled to lie.

Evidence, probably. People say stuff all the time and it's mostly marketing and drivel.

Evidence to prove a negative?

Larry Page says nothing of the kind.

Much has been made of the carefully-worded "direct access to servers."

I really do doubt that Google gives the NSA a shell login. It's also completely truthful that Larry Page never heard of Prism (it was a TS/SCI program, of course he wouldn't know what it's called.)

But giving the NSA a special "Spy-only portal" which allows the NSA to type in "Show me everything in Mr. X's Google+ profile" is not direct access, and could be given within 5 minutes of getting the legal request.

The Telegraaf may suck but that does not say anything about this particular news item and it would be good to look at the content and to address that instead of just looking at the reputation of the paper.

It wouldn't be the first time that the 'trashy' newspaper broke a story.

Focus on the message, not the messenger.

The Telegraaf has had a pretty public beef with the intelligence agencies over source protection and phone taps.

They're actually quite decent when it comes to investigative news into the police, justice and the AIVD.

Unreliable maybe, but they definitely embellish stores and the wording of stories and headlines to draw in more readers.