Have you read the full WashPo article (all four pages)[1] ? - it goes into extensive detail of how it's used including "live surveillance of [Google] search terms" and access to Skype audio streams. It's obviously far more extensive than a request uploader.
Google have also specifically stated that they don't provide a "drop box" facility for FISA requests.
Further more the fact that slide 2 of the deck is about network traffic routing implies that it isn't just about FISA requests for which such information would be irrelevant.
The WashPo has backed away [1] from the key claim of tech companies "knowingly" participating in PRISM. In addition, there's this paragraph that was added to the article after publication on page 2:
It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company
spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author.
In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement
is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content
tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-
controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers.
I don't think slide 2 is relevant, though. The whole deck sounds like a presentation to senior govt officials who are not tech savvy at all, and is just introductory slide that reminds the audience, "The Internet is big and lots of the data flows through the US where we have legal powers." However, there are likely many more slides that were not been disclosed.
Google have also specifically stated that they don't provide a "drop box" facility for FISA requests.
Further more the fact that slide 2 of the deck is about network traffic routing implies that it isn't just about FISA requests for which such information would be irrelevant.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence...