US spying scandal 'threatens Silicon Valley dominance' In the long-term there is going to be a negative impact on US-based technology companies. There could be regional players that grow stronger, based on users in those regions deciding that they would prefer to trust the local equivalent of Google or Facebook. For users, it is a case of pick your poison. It is deal with the devil you know or deal with the devil you sort of know," he said. Analysts also drew a distinction between the prospects for Amazon and the majority of Americaﾒs technology titans. The information Amazon holds on its servers may not be as interesting to security services as those held by Facebook, Apple and Google, but the company appears to be more trustworthy at this stage, and stands to benefit in the long term. However, all of America's technology chiefs were quick to distance themselves from the PRISM operation when it was leaked last week. Apple said it had "never heard of" the surveillance project whilst Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Google chief executive Larry Page issued statements denying any wrongdoing. Mr Page said on Google's blog that it had not given any government open access to information stored in their data centres, either directly or through a "back door." It responds to individual requests for data about users, as it is sometimes required to under US law, but Mr Page insisted that it was careful to ensure it does not give out more than it has to. The company, whose chairman Eric Schmidt is an advisor to President Obama, has fought government attempts to access user information before now, famously resisting blanket requests for information by the US Department of Justice in 2006. Meanwhile, Mr Zuckerberg branded the reports "outrageous" and vowed to fight any blanket requests for information about its users. It was subsequently claimed that the social network agreed to set up a digital "safe room," allowing US officials to automatically retrieve documents it requested under the law. People close to the situation compared the arrangement to setting up a locked mailbox and handing the US government the key. Analysts and commentators have questioned why those companies that resisted handing over customer information did not go a step further and raise the alarm over just how intrusive the US government was becoming.