LONDON (Reuters) - The ex-wife of a Nigerian oil tycoon won a landmark divorce settlement battle in the UK's Supreme Court on Wednesday in a closely watched case that had raised concerns about the accessibility of corporate assets in wealthy divorces.

Family law practitioners and wealth managers were watching to see how the court could issue a fair judgment without piercing the legal "corporate veil" which treats companies and their shareholders as separate entities.

In a decision that will affect anyone seeking to protect personal assets by putting them into a corporate structure, Britain's most senior judges upheld a ruling which awards Yasmin Prest a share in seven properties controlled by her husband's company Petrodel Resources Ltd.

The court ruled the property, initially represented as assets of the offshore company, was actually held in trust for her oil trading ex-husband Michael Prest from whom she was seeking the balance of a 17.5 million pound divorce settlement.

"I'm delighted and relieved that the Supreme Court has ruled as it did," Britain's Press Association reported Yasmin Prest as saying after the judgment in the case Petrodel Resources.

"None of this would have been necessary if Michael had been sensible and played fair."

Sandra Davies, head of Family Law at top British law firm Mishcon de Reya, told Reuters that although the court ruled the assets be transferred to Yasmin Prest, it did not set a legal precedent on access to corporate assets because the property was actually held in trust for Michael Prest.

"There has to be a situation where the husband has done something to evade, frustrate, put the company beyond his control with deliberate intention," she said. "There has to be some element of unfairness, illegality about it."

Despite the careful ruling, family law partner Sam Longworth at Stewarts Law firm said Wednesday's decision would have a significant weakening effect on court powers when dealing with sophisticated wealth structuring in a divorce setting.

"This will encourage wealthy spouses to consider 'divorce planning' before and during marriage, which risks further undermining the institution of marriage," he told Reuters in an email.

Solicitors for Yasmin Prest said that the court's ruling left legitimate companies with little to fear, while restoring an element of fairness in the area of family law.

"This is a great result for Mrs Prest and for others who might find themselves in a similar position," said Farrer & Co Partner Jeremy Posnansky.

"The Supreme Court's decision will ensure that dishonest husbands can't cheat their wives and flout court orders by hiding behind a web of deceit and a corporate faade."

CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - Anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela was responding better to treatment in hospital on Wednesday morning after a "difficult last few days", South Africa's President Jacob Zuma said.

Mandela, South Africa's first black president, was rushed to a Pretoria hospital on Saturday in a "serious but stable" condition suffering from a recurring lung infection. He was spending a fifth day under the care of its doctors.

"We are very happy with the progress that he is now making," Zuma said in a speech to parliament.

"We urge South Africans and the international community to continue to keep President Mandela and the medical team in their thoughts and prayers," he told parliamentarians who burst into applause.

Mandela's condition has reinforced a creeping realization among South Africa's 53 million people that they will one day have to say goodbye to the father of the "Rainbow Nation" that he tried to forge from the ashes of apartheid.

The 94-year-old has received visits from family members including his wife Graca Machel and former wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.

His family issued a statement saying they were happy with the care he was receiving and hopeful he would recover.

"We are particularly honored to have received the many prayers and messages from South Africans at large as well as the global community," grandson Mandla said outside the family home in Johannesburg.

It was 49 years to the day since Mandela was sentenced for sabotage and conspiring to overthrow the white-minority government.

Mandela has a history of lung problems dating back to his time on the wind-swept Robben Island prison camp near Cape Town.

He was released in 1990 and went on to serve as president from 1994 to 1999.

(Additional reporting by David Dolan and Peroshni Govender; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

The justice reported Friday that she's received more than $3 million in advance payments for her best-selling memoir, "My Beloved World."

Her annual financial disclosure forms show that Knopf Doubleday Group paid Sotomayor $1.925 million in 2012 in anticipation of her book. This comes in addition to the $1.2 million in advance payments she received from the publisher in 2010.

The book was first released in January and has been on the New York Times' nonfiction best-seller list, including four weeks in the No. 1 spot.

The 58-year-old justice, who was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court and President Barack Obama's first high court nominee, has traveled the country this year promoting her memoir, but any royalties and speaker fees won't show up until future disclosure forms.

Her newfound wealth contrasted with her more austere lifestyle before joining the Supreme Court. In her first financial disclosure form, Sotomayor reported she was making payments on thousands of dollars in dental bills and credit cards bills with bank accounts worth no more than $65,000.

But in just the past year or so, following the publication of her book, Sotomayor has palled around with Hollywood stars like Oprah Winfrey, bought a new home in Washington's fashionable U Street district and received gifts of books, art, jewelry and "trinkets" from fans, more than two years after her confirmation in front of the Senate. She also reported having more than $1 million in a bank account and credit card debt of as much as $60,000 last year.

Sotomayor isn't the only justice to have book-related finances reported in their disclosure forms. Justice Antonin Scalia reported $63,991 in book royalties following the June 2012 publication of his "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," which was co-authored with Bryan A. Garner. Justice Stephen Breyer also reported that he made more than $30,000 in royalties in 2012 for his previous books.

Justice Clarence Thomas reported on his disclosure form that his wife, Virginia, worked for The Daily Caller and Liberty Consulting Inc., and got salaries from both. Thomas neglected to include his wife's employment, as required, on the report of his personal finances for 13 years, requiring him to submit corrected ones in 2011. The annual report asks only for the source, not the amount, of money earned by a spouse.

Breyer reported his wife, Joanna, got a salary for working at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where he serves as an honorary trustee, and Chief Justice John Roberts reported his wife, Jane, got a salary from legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in addition to picking up the honor of being one of Glamour magazine's women of the year, also scored what the magazine called "the best goody bag of the year," filled with things that the justice estimated at about $2,500: a MZ Wallace tote, a Vince Camuto watch, oversize Marc Jacobs sunglasses, a silk Theodora & Callum wrap, an Autumn Cashmere sweater and other makeup and jewelry pieces, including an $80 statement necklace that Ginsburg wore to court at least once over her black robe.

And several justices reported salaries from teaching at colleges and universities. Roberts got $20,000 for teaching a Supreme Court history course at the New England School of Law in Malta last summer. Thomas received $10,000 for teaching at George Washington University. Scalia got more than $26,000 for teaching at St. John's University, St. Mary's University, Wesleyan University, the University of Southern California and John Marshall Law School.

Scalia also reported receiving a $1,000 shotgun from the National Wild Turkey Federation as a gift.

Justice Samuel Alito received an extension until August to file his disclosure form.

NEW YORK (AP) -- TiVo settled patent disputes with Cisco, Motorola Mobility and Time Warner Cable, averting a trial that was to begin next week and bringing to a close a string of long-running legal squabbles over its pioneering digital video recorder technology.

The terms fell well short of what most TiVo investors had expected, however, and shares of TiVo plunged 19 percent Friday.

Under the agreement, TiVo will get a lump-sum payment of $490 million from Google Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. Cisco will be responsible for $294 million of that, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

TiVo will also enter into patent licensing deals with Google, Cisco and Arris Group Inc. Google bought Motorola Mobility in 2012 and sold its set-top making unit to Arris this year.

TiVo Inc., based in Alviso, Calif., spent the past several years going after pay-TV companies, saying that they were using its patented technology in DVRs. It previously negotiated settlements in similar cases against companies including Dish Network Corp., AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. Counting this week's settlement, TiVo's awards from patent lawsuits now total about $1.6 billion. TiVo has still struggled to make money, however, posting annual losses in eight of the past 10 years.

"We are pleased to reach an agreement that brings our pending litigation to an end and further underscores the significant value our distribution partners derive from TiVo's technological innovations," TiVo CEO Tom Rogers said. Motorola Mobility, Cisco and Time Warner Cable said they were satisfied with the deal. Officials for Arris deferred comment to Motorola Mobility.

Piper Jaffray analyst Michael Olson said that while the amount of the settlement was "disappointing," it removes some of the uncertainty surrounding TiVo and its legal expenses. Olson said he had expected a combined settlement of about $550 million, but acknowledged that many other analysts had predicted a higher overall number.

"I think they felt strongly about the merits of their case but ultimately didn't want to leave the decision in the hands of a jury," Olson said, adding that certainty was probably of more value to the company than the possibility of a higher settlement.

Olson, who backed his "Overweight" rating for the stock, noting that TiVo is having more success in licensing its technology and he expects the company's subscriber base to continue to continue to grow.

Tony Wible of Janney Capital Markets was less optimistic and cut his rating for TiVo stock to "Neutral" from "Buy." Wible said that while TiVo will continue to strike new licensing deals and add subscribers, the pace of those agreements will be unpredictable and they'll probably be much smaller than those of the past, noting that the company already has deals with most of the top pay-TV providers.

Following the announcement, TiVo said it would double its stock buyback program to up to $200 million and extended the plan for an additional two years.

Shares of TiVo fell $2.61 to close at $11.10 Friday. Over the past 52 weeks, the shares have traded between $7.75 and $14.10.

The legislation has been decades in the making, and is currently being considered by the House of Representatives, where it will likely face some opposition.

Nonetheless, many states are hoping it will pass, saying an Internet sales tax will allow them to bring in much-needed revenue.

The total estimates of how much money states can make by taxing purchases from outside their borders remains to be seen, and S&P said it "believes revenues would be unlikely to boost tax revenues significantly in the near term compared with the size of total state budgets."

S&P also said there will be no near-term credit implications.

But if the bill is delayed for several years and states do not pursue other revenue sources, there is a possibility state revenues will erode. That, in turn, would hurt their credit, the agency said.

(Reporting by Caryn Trokie, additional reporting by Lisa Lambert in Washington)

Inspiring the new activism is a Senate bill that the hostages, their families, their advocates, and many members of Congress see as the best chance in 32 years to finally hold Iran accountable for the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the hostage crisis that followed, and to compensate the victims for their sacrifices.

The 1979 attack, depicted in frightening detail in the opening scenes of Argo, winner of the best-picture Oscar in February, is seen now as the first of many terrorist acts in the name of Islam since then. With the failure of the host government to protect foreign diplomats, the incident also foreshadowed last year's deadly attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Other terrorism victims have won lawsuits against nations that sponsored terrorism, and have been awarded damages from frozen assets. But that route has been unavailable to the 1979 hostages because of a ban on lawsuits against Iran in the Algiers Accords signed by then-President Jimmy Carter to secure their release.

Courts have knocked down congressional attempts to override or strike down the ban. Now, with the ex-hostages aging and 13 already dead, Sens. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., are sponsoring a bill to compensate them and their families through a temporary 30-percent surcharge on the fines paid by companies that violate U.S. sanctions by doing business with Iran.

The former hostages and their families will likely never get one of the things they really want, which is an apology from Iran. But the Isakson bill would sting Tehran a bit by making it more expensive to conduct business with the country, while providing each former hostage up to $4.4 million (based on a maximum $10,000 for each day of captivity). For hostages who have died, the money would go to their families.

The State Department fought for years to uphold the Algiers Accords, concerned about the future credibility of agreements signed by U.S. presidents. But the Isakson bill does not undercut or reverse the agreement, and the department has signaled it is open to the new legislative approach. "They've been very cooperative and helpful so far," Isakson told National Journal.

The bill avoids other controversial issues -- using taxpayer money and increasing the federal deficit -- by financing the hostage reparations with a temporary surcharge. It would last until the hostages and families had received the money they were due, likely after two to three years.

Secretary of State John Kerry was receptive to the proposal last year when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it has support from current Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., as well as ranking member Bob Corker, R-Tenn., according to Isakson. In fact, when asked if anyone in the Senate had expressed opposition, Isakson replied, "Not to me."

He said it would be hard to overestimate the impact of Argo. "Seeing is believing," he said, adding it also helps that the hostage families are getting involved. "I never predict anything, but I feel very good about ... the odds of getting it done this year," he said.

NEVER CAME HOME

Though the 50 men and two women seized at the U.S. Embassy were released the day Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981, "many never truly came home," more than 80 hostage relatives from 27 states and the District of Columbia said in the Father's Day letter, which was shared with National Journal. They were shells of the people that left for Iran to represent our nation.

They said the trauma of the captivity has reverberated throughout their lives and those of the former hostages.

"Help us find some measure of closure," they wrote. "Grant us reparations so that, in what is for many of us our old age, sickness and infirmity, we can know the peace that will come from the support of our country."

Several wives and daughters who signed the letter told National Journal that this is the first time they have ever lobbied for action as a group. Unlike the 9/11 widows or Newtown families, they are not concentrated in a geographical location, but are scattered all over the country. Also, as foreign service and military families, they have not had the resources to make regular trips to Washington. That is even harder now "as we are all aging," said Anita Schaefer, adding that her husband -- retired Air Force Col. Tom Schaefer -- is 83 and "coming to the end of his life."

Furthermore, some people had worked at the U.S. Embassy for only a few days when it came under attack and they were taken hostage. There were "no big friendships" among the hostages or their families, said Schaefer, whose husband was the defense and air attach.

"No tight bonds," added Barbara Rosen, wife of former hostage Barry Rosen, the press attach. She said her husband has been on medication for 30 years and that she herself was shaking as she recounted the family's ordeal to National Journal this week. Her fingers are crossed that Congress will finally bring closure, she said, but her experience over the years is that she sits down with a lawmaker or aide, relives the pain and trauma as she tells her story, "and then nothing happens."

The promise of the Isakson-Blumenthal bill, the urgency of old age, and in some cases death have inspired some relatives to enter or return to the public arena. "Dick is dead, so obviously I can't say, 'Well, you take care of all this,'" said Dorothea Morefield, whose husband, Richard, the consul general at the embassy, . "It's long overdue that Congress understands what was done to us. It's high time they came forward and said, 'We appreciate what you all went through and we are willing now to make some kind of restitution.' "

Barbara Feth, daughter of , who was the military attach at the embassy, said the symbolism would be significant. She called it a chance for Congress to "acknowledge that this horrible thing happened" and send a message to the ex-hostages and their families that "you represented us well."

The letter to senators is by necessity generic, but the specifics of haunted lives are very much present and not past for former hostages and their families. Morefield said that her husband, confused and pulling out his IVs on his deathbed, went into hysterics when his hands were restrained and shouted for her to escape. "He thought he was back in Iran," she said. "Those days and hours of being tied -- the minute he was restrained in his movements, it took him right back into that situation. It certainly did not contribute to a peaceful death."

Jennifer Knight, daughter of former hostage Donald Sharer, a naval air attach at the embassy, recalled coming home alone at age 8 to field multiple calls from reporters asking about her father being taken hostage. She gave her mother all the messages and later asked, "Mom, what is a hostage?" She cried as she talked about her loss of innocence -- "8 years old, sitting in front of the TV wondering, is tonight the night they're going to execute my dad?" When he came home, "he was totally different," she said. "A functioning alcoholic. He drank himself to sleep every night. It was horrible."

Allyssa Keough Stevens, another hostage's daughter, also cried as she heard Knight's story for the first time on the conference call with National Journal. "I'm sorry you had to go through it," she said through tears. Her father, William Keough, headed an American school in Islamabad and happened to be visiting the embassy the day of the attack. A year after his release, he was diagnosed with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease.  -- Nov. 27 -- in 1985.

After years on a roller coaster along with the other families, Knight said she is "very optimistic" that this time will be different. How can members of Congress look at the situation, she said, and not ask themselves: "How can we let these man and women die without letting them know that their efforts were not in vain?"

Stevens said she hesitates to use the word optimism in any context involving the hostages, since nothing has led to success in the past. "I would like to feel like this is the best effort ever," she said. "I believe this is a very good effort, a very fair effort." So good and so fair, she added, that "anybody on the Hill who is not behind this needs to say why. I want to know why. Face some family members and say why."

Video courtesy of Cooper Lankford.

The space station's original treadmill has not yet run its course.

The "Treadmill Vibration Isolation System" (TVIS), which was used by both astronauts and cosmonauts to exercise aboard the International Space Station for more than 12 years was not jettisoned on Tuesday (June 11) onboard a spent Russian cargo freighter, as earlier reported.

A NASA spokesperson confirmed Tuesday afternoon that the information earlier provided toby the space agency was in error.

The device, which is no longer in use, will instead leave the station and be discarded with the next Russian unmanned resupply vehicle, Progress M-18M (50P), which as of Tuesday was scheduled to undock on July 26. After its departure, the cargo craft and its contents including the TVIS treadmill will be destroyed during its descent back into Earth's atmosphere.

The TVIS was replaced aboard the station by a Russian-built unit that was first put into use recently and by a more advanced U.S. treadmill named after television comedian Stephen Colbert.

The original article, unedited, follows below:

----------------

A space apparatus that for more than a dozen years enabled both astronauts and cosmonauts to literally run around the Earth bid farewell to its home on orbit Tuesday (June 11). The International Space Station's original treadmill is now on its way to its fiery destruction aboard a spent Russian cargo freighter.

The now-discarded exercise device, called the(pronounced "tee-viss"), was used by the orbiting outpost's first 34 resident crews from November 2000 until March of this year, when it was replaced by a new Russian-built unit. The 12-year-old running machine (and sometimes marathon track) was previously succeeded by a more advanced U.S.after the television comedian Stephen Colbert.

"There has been a history of treadmills, trying to get them to work pretty well in space, and it is no easy feat," said NASA astronaut , who ran on the TVIS, and later the(Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill), to stay in shape during her two long-duration in 2006 and 2012. []

Astronauts and cosmonauts use treadmills and other types of exercise devices as a countermeasure to the debilitating effects that extended exposure to microgravity has on the human body, including the loss of muscle mass and bone density.

Williams made history on the TVIS by becoming the first person to . On April 16, 2007, as thousands on the ground ran in the Boston Marathon, Williams completed the same distance on the stationary-but-still-circling-the-Earth treadmill.

"It made it through the [marathon's] 26.2 miles without a fault," Williams recalled in an interview with collectSPACE about the TVIS's legacy.

Last month, Russian cosmonauts who had been using the TVIS since it was replaced in the U.S. segment of the space station uninstalled the treadmill and packed it inside the Progress M-19M (51P) unmanned resupply craft to discard with other no-longer-needed hardware and trash. The cosmonauts now use the BD-2 treadmill, Russia's first new space exercise machine since the space station Mir.

Progress M-19M undocked from the station Tuesday at 9:58 a.m. EDT (1358 GMT). The spacecraft is scheduled to perform a deorbit burn on June 19, which will begin its destructive descent back into the Earth's atmosphere.

Balancing act

Designing a treadmill to work in space presents a unique set of challenges. Not only must the machine keep the person running on it from floating away, but it also needs to prevent each and every pounding step from vibrating the entire spacecraft to the detriment of the structure's health.

"It has taken us a little while to figure out a really good type of treadmill because , whenever you're running on a treadmill and you have any type of loading, you are putting that load into the spacecraft and that's not so good," explained Williams.

"TVIS sat on a gyro and that in itself was a little bit more of a monster than even the treadmill you see when you look at someone who was jogging on it," she added.

The spinning gyroscope counteracted the vibrations that were generated by running from then propagating across the station. It was up to bungees to keep the astronaut on the treadmill.

"On Earth, of course, gravity is holding you down. You don't have to wear any type of equipment that will hold you down," Williams said. "On TVIS, you had a harness that went over your shoulders and around your waist and then had two connecting points on either side of your hips that connected it to the structure, the frame of the treadmill. That way, every time you pushed up, it pulled you back down."

"The amount it was pulling you back down dictated how much you 'weighed.' It put a force back into the treadmill and so if the force was higher, you weighed more," she said. "You can think of it simply as a bungee that had to be stretched further and further and the more that it was stretched, the bigger the force."

A better compromise

A similar bungee , but on the newer treadmill, brackets and pins replace the gyro, leading to a more stabile running surface.

"TVIS sat on a gyro, so when it started, it was a little bit wobbly," Williams recalled. "The gyro spun up, it had to get up to a certain [rotation per minute] to be stabilized, and then TVIS could move in all six degrees of freedom."

"With the ability for [TVIS] to move around quite a bit, this is subjective, but I did find that it was a good exercise for neural-vestibular stimulation as well," Williams stated. "I would run with my eyes closed and you'd have to be able to figure out how to keep your balance while [running]. I think that helped a little bit with the neural-vestibular re-adaptation when I came back to Earth."

Other differences between the TVIS and its successors included its user interface TVIS had a dedicated control panel while T2 uses a laptop for control and its running surface. TVIS was much more narrow than the newer T2 treadmill, or those back on Earth.

"TVIS was skinnier, so you always had that feeling you're having to watch where you are stepping so you were not inadvertently stepping [off]," Williams said.

"So if you can imagine, if you're at a gym and on a normal treadmill, you are not really feeling like you have to watch where you are stepping. You're just doing your normal step and you're not thinking about that," she continued. "[On TVIS] you had to sort of watch where your feet were going, which caused people to run a little bit different, not quite like their normal stride."

The house has been shown three times, and one of the times another neighbor was in the backyard sitting on the deck. Another time, a neighbor walked into the house during a private showing. We have been as polite as possible in requesting them to please not do this. We finally told them plainly to stay off the property. But it continues.

We would hate to post "No Trespassing" signs for fear that a prospective buyer may think there are problems with the neighborhood, and I don't think a sign would deter these perpetrators. Any ideas on how to get them to stay in their own homes? My sisters and I are starting to think the neighbors don't want the house to sell so they can enjoy it themselves. -- FED UP IN TENNESSEE

DEAR FED UP: Because of the long relationship your parents may have had with these neighbors, ask them once more, firmly and politely, to stop using the property as an extension of theirs. If the request is ignored, it will be time to involve your lawyer, who will have to write these nervy people a strong letter on your behalf. Not only is what they are doing illegal, but if an accident should happen while they are on your property, your family would be liable.

DEAR ABBY: Living in New York City, public transport is the way to travel. After picking up my 5-year-old from school, we took the train home as usual. During the ride, my son fell asleep and his head happened to rest on the arm of another passenger -- a middle-aged man who was sitting next to us.

As my son's head rested on the man's arm, he reacted by pushing my son's head up violently, waking him from his sleep. Disgusted by the man's reaction, I lost my cool and yelled at him, almost forgetting my screaming 5-year-old. Other passengers expressed their feelings, too, and the man left the train earlier than he wanted.

After my boy calmed down, I had time to reflect and concluded I didn't handle the situation correctly. The other passengers suggested I hadn't been assertive enough. What should I have done? -- COMMUTER MOMMY IN BROOKLYN

DEAR COMMUTER MOMMY: Your seat partner clearly overreacted to having his space invaded. But by screaming at him, you escalated the situation. So your little boy wasn't caught in the crossfire, it would have been better to have moved your seats. If that wasn't possible, you should have switched seats with your son so he wouldn't be near that volatile individual.

DEAR ABBY: If a doctor is present at a party and another guest takes ill, would it be appropriate to ask the doctor to treat the person? -- CURIOUS IN DAYTON

DEAR CURIOUS: If the problem is not life-threatening, it would be advisable that the guest contact his or her own doctor, who is already familiar with the person's medical history. However, in an acute emergency such as a stroke or a heart attack, help should be summoned by calling 911 immediately.

Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Write Dear Abby ator P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

For everything you need to know about wedding planning, order "How to Have a Lovely Wedding." Send your name and mailing address, plus check or money order for $7 (U.S. funds) to: Dear Abby, Wedding Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, IL 61054-0447. (Shipping and handling are included in the price.)

RELATED:

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. Bothandhave 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," , who went on to say it's "a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do."

RELATED:

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.

RELATED:

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. 

RELATED:

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. 

RELATED:

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. 

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel won the Canadian Grand Prix on Sunday and made amends for an uncharacteristic mistake that cost the Formula One world champion victory two years ago.

The 25-year-old German cruised to his first triumph in North America with a dominant performance to erase the disappointment of his last lap error in the 2011 race in Montreal.

Two years ago, Vettel seemingly had the race at his mercy. He had snatched pole position and led for almost all of the race.

He was still in front when the race resumed after a long rain delay when, under pressure from McLaren's Jenson Button, he slid wide and allowed the Briton to overtake him for the chequered flag.

His disappointment was tempered when he went on that year to win the second of his three successive championships, but he resolved to make up for the mistake by one day winning in Canada.

That day arrived on Sunday and the 25-year-old's relief was unmistakable.

"Yes! At last we have won in Canada," he screamed into the team radio after crossing the finish line.

Later, interviewed on the winners' podium, he told the crowd: "Two years ago we came very close but I lost it on the last lap and that was my mistake - but I made up for that today."

CLOSE CALL

It was a case of third time lucky for Vettel. He also had a chance to win last year after starting on pole position but lost pace over the final laps and was lucky to finish fourth after skimming the wall near the end.

He had another brush with the wall on Sunday, running wide on a corner and clipping the concrete but there was no damage to his car and he continued on.

In fact, he did not even know he had touched it.

"I knew it was close but the next time around I thought 'Oh, somebody brushed the wall there' because I saw some marks. I didn't know until the end that they were mine," laughed the German.

Vettel also ran wide on another corner near the end of the race, losing a little bit of time, but he was so far ahead it made no difference to the result.

"He had a couple of wake-up calls today," said a relieved Red Bull team boss Christian Horner.

"This makes up for two years ago. We came pretty close but it's been a bit of a bogey circuit for us. To lap all the field up to the last four cars is a really dominant display today."

Vettel's win extended his lead over Ferrari's Fernando Alonso in the title race to 36 points after seven of this season's 19 rounds but neither he nor his team were taking anything for granted.

"I don't think you can afford to write off anyone's chances at this stage," said Horner.

"There's still a long way to go so no-one can afford to be complacent."

While Vettel was all smiles after his 29th career win, his Australian team mate Mark Webber was left to rue his bad luck after finishing fourth.

Webber was running third and closing in on second place when he collided with Giedo van der Garde's Caterham at a hairpin, damaging the front wing on his car.

The Dutchman was given a 10-second penalty for ignoring a blue flag and cutting in front of Webber when the Australian was about to overtake him, but it was Webber who suffered the biggest penalty when he missed out on a podium finish.

"Obviously it was his fault," Webber said. "The stewards see it like that, he gets a time penalty and so do I obviously because I have a damaged front wing."

(Reporting by Julian Linden, editing by Alan Baldwin)