5 ms·

>> Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports" PRISM isn't just some negligible thing to be brus

by kakarot 10y ago

>> Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports" PRISM isn't just some negligible thing to be brushed off. And of course it isn't the only thing they're doing over in Utah. It's one of many sources that all come together at places like this for data analysis. But it's the "big deal" everyone is talking about so it is very relevant to the discussion. Remember, if there is one there is more. We don't need a comprehensive list of every data center and chokepoint that is under surveillance to understand how prevalent it is based on known data. Example of mass surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Confirmation_of_ECHELON_.282015.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Confirmation_of_ECHELO... Example of mass surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISHFIRE#Scope_of_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DISHFIRE#Scope_of_surveillance Example of mass surveillance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYSTIC_(surveillance_program)#Scope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MYSTIC_(surveillance_program)#... Do I need to give you more or can you take it from here? Do you need more proof than the wiretapping of half a dozen countries' ENTIRE phone calls? Please do not chalk this up to "conspiracy theory". That is damaging and misleading. You are attempting to group this together with more fringe theories in order to discredit it. Logical fallacy. If you want to continue this discussion I ask that you play fairly and not revert to rhetoric and distraction.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
> Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports" That's because it contains wiretapping data of specific highly valuable targets. Nowhere in this sentence does it say that it contains mass surveillance because Snowden's documents and the government have shown it does not. I never said that the NSA doesn't engage in mass surveillance, only that it doesn't do mass wiretapping through Verizon and AT&T or through the Internet companies, as you wrongly believed PRISM did. The reason that distinction matters is that the NSA absolutely should gobble up all communications in a war zone or other foreign area threatening national security. That's what it's there for. Gobbling up and processing domestic communications as your claimed mass wiretapping on Verizon or Google would do is outside the scope of the intelligence agencies, and there remains no evidence that they do that despite multiple leaks. Any claim otherwise is conspiracy theory by definition.
- kakarot 10y ago
  I never said PRISM was the same program that engaged in mass surveillance. I also never mentioned Google. Your arguments keep starting off by strawmanning my own. But sure let's talk about Google. You really think Schmidt and friends are clean on this? He is a globalist authoritarian lap dog. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ And you're also fundamentally confused about something. See, the NSA does not need direct access to all of this data. They allow/encourage/force various companies to comply with certain data collection and retention practices, and tap into this data when necessary. Why? So that people like you can claim they are not directly surveying their citizens. All of the data still exists, and is accessed when needed. It's like if my friend spied on you and reported back to me whenever I asked, but then I come out and say, "Hey mister, I'm not spying on you. I only ask my friend about things necessary to my investigation. If you're being a good dog then this shouldn't even bother you."
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    > I never said PRISM was the same program that engaged in mass surveillance. You started off by saying you knew about PRISM because the NSA is building a large datacenter in Utah just to hold PRISM's data. > I also never mentioned Google. I never claimed you did. You claimed that PRISM ingested mass wiretapping data. That data would come from Google and other Internet companies according to the documents. My point was that your belief that it is illegally gobbling up all the communications done on Google's and other Internet companies' communications products is baseless.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      I'm going to ignore your warping of my words and focus on the interesting bit here: again, Google. You don't remember when news broke in 2014 that the NSA was snooping on Google's Gmail traffic that was flying around unencrypted within their own network? Google, rightfully embarrassed, subsequently enabled internal end-to-end encryption after the news broke. Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of-email-security.html https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of... So... yeah. Not baseless at all. Meanwhile you have yet to provide a single citation throughout all of this.

by kakarot 10y ago

lern_too_spel 10y ago

> Documents indicate that PRISM is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports" That's because it contains wiretapping data of specific highly valuable targets. Nowhere in this sentence does it say that it contains mass surveillance because Snowden's documents and the government have shown it does not. I never said that the NSA doesn't engage in mass surveillance, only that it doesn't do mass wiretapping through Verizon and AT&T or through the Internet companies, as you wrongly believed PRISM did. The reason that distinction matters is that the NSA absolutely should gobble up all communications in a war zone or other foreign area threatening national security. That's what it's there for. Gobbling up and processing domestic communications as your claimed mass wiretapping on Verizon or Google would do is outside the scope of the intelligence agencies, and there remains no evidence that they do that despite multiple leaks. Any claim otherwise is conspiracy theory by definition.

kakarot 10y ago
I never said PRISM was the same program that engaged in mass surveillance. I also never mentioned Google. Your arguments keep starting off by strawmanning my own. But sure let's talk about Google. You really think Schmidt and friends are clean on this? He is a globalist authoritarian lap dog. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ And you're also fundamentally confused about something. See, the NSA does not need direct access to all of this data. They allow/encourage/force various companies to comply with certain data collection and retention practices, and tap into this data when necessary. Why? So that people like you can claim they are not directly surveying their citizens. All of the data still exists, and is accessed when needed. It's like if my friend spied on you and reported back to me whenever I asked, but then I come out and say, "Hey mister, I'm not spying on you. I only ask my friend about things necessary to my investigation. If you're being a good dog then this shouldn't even bother you."
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  > I never said PRISM was the same program that engaged in mass surveillance. You started off by saying you knew about PRISM because the NSA is building a large datacenter in Utah just to hold PRISM's data. > I also never mentioned Google. I never claimed you did. You claimed that PRISM ingested mass wiretapping data. That data would come from Google and other Internet companies according to the documents. My point was that your belief that it is illegally gobbling up all the communications done on Google's and other Internet companies' communications products is baseless.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    I'm going to ignore your warping of my words and focus on the interesting bit here: again, Google. You don't remember when news broke in 2014 that the NSA was snooping on Google's Gmail traffic that was flying around unencrypted within their own network? Google, rightfully embarrassed, subsequently enabled internal end-to-end encryption after the news broke. Here it is straight from the horse's mouth: https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of-email-security.html https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of... So... yeah. Not baseless at all. Meanwhile you have yet to provide a single citation throughout all of this.