3 ms·

Here you are again, twisting my words! Amazing. No, I did not say anything like that about PRISM. I said exactly what I said-- that I was not clear enough in my

by kakarot 10y ago

Here you are again, twisting my words! Amazing. No, I did not say anything like that about PRISM. I said exactly what I said-- that I was not clear enough in my original post, but I clarified myself immediately after in response to you. I wrote that original post in a hurry and did not take the time to read over it like I usually do. And I've already elaborated on how the NSA uses other agencies and businesses as tools for its surveillance, to avoid direct ownership of the information that they can request at any time. Again, STOP twisting my words to serve your narrative. I gave you links, but I will humor you with another: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying > . . . recently published FISA court order demanding Verizon turn over all customer phone records including who is talking to whom, when and for how long—to the NSA . . . Oh look! FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM. If you do not consider this to be a dragnet surveillance order, you are just lying to yourself. So there is yet another verifiable source highlighting the scope of PRISM. here is the relevant court case: https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles-v-nsa https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles... Do I need to physically take you to Titanpointe to see it for yourself? Here is a link explaining what that is, I already posted it once but clearly you have not been following through and reading these links. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...

lern_too_spel 10y ago
> FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM This explicitly isn't PRISM, and this isn't ongoing. Moreover, Snowden's documents showed that this data wasn't used for surveillance. The data was anonymized and a system (not PRISM) was built on top of it that could only perform a limited set of graph queries to find associates of known threats to national security. To deanonymize a node, the government would have to request another court order. You have once again demonstrated that you don't know what PRISM is, so is it any wonder that I keep calling you out on it?
- kakarot 10y ago
  What isn't PRISM? FISA? No shit. I said it feeds into PRISM. And I did not say it is ongoing. And I think you have a warped view of what surveillance is because a system used to query networks and other identifying information is a dragnet surveillance tool. You just refuse to be wrong here. And a lot of the hooplah about these immoral dragnet tools is not only the fact that they partially target American citizens (after NSA executives said under oath, in very particular terms, that they do not collect files on American citizens) is that it was being accessed by employees without court orders. Pre 9/11, maybe you could have made a case about this "anonymization" being legitimate. There were certainly programs in the work that attempted to incorporate homomorphic encryption into their design. But these have been gutted and reformed into what we have today. You have to wonder, what are these tools being used for? They certainly haven't been publicly attributed to stopping any terrorist activities. If you don't think these systems, put in place by spy agencies with the legal ability to lie about their internal operations, are being used to spy on their targets (which is the general public) then what the hell do you think they are for?
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    > I said it feeds into PRISM. It doesn't. That's my point. How many more times are you going to show that you don't know what PRISM is while claiming that you do? Also, surveillance is, by definition, close observation. Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance any more than having access to Google Maps satellite imagery without any other data sources to join to. More specifically, it isn't mass wiretapping, which as you recall was your original claim that you have yet to substantiate, instead pointing to this metadata program that I had earlier used to show you that no evidence exists for mass wiretapping of Americans.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      > PRISM is the program that brings the FBI's FISA electronic communication wiretaps into the NSA's databases > It doesn't. > Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance OK. Not only are you inconsistent but your arguments are based around ill-defined terminology. Goodbye now.

by kakarot 10y ago

lern_too_spel 10y ago

> FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM This explicitly isn't PRISM, and this isn't ongoing. Moreover, Snowden's documents showed that this data wasn't used for surveillance. The data was anonymized and a system (not PRISM) was built on top of it that could only perform a limited set of graph queries to find associates of known threats to national security. To deanonymize a node, the government would have to request another court order. You have once again demonstrated that you don't know what PRISM is, so is it any wonder that I keep calling you out on it?

kakarot 10y ago
What isn't PRISM? FISA? No shit. I said it feeds into PRISM. And I did not say it is ongoing. And I think you have a warped view of what surveillance is because a system used to query networks and other identifying information is a dragnet surveillance tool. You just refuse to be wrong here. And a lot of the hooplah about these immoral dragnet tools is not only the fact that they partially target American citizens (after NSA executives said under oath, in very particular terms, that they do not collect files on American citizens) is that it was being accessed by employees without court orders. Pre 9/11, maybe you could have made a case about this "anonymization" being legitimate. There were certainly programs in the work that attempted to incorporate homomorphic encryption into their design. But these have been gutted and reformed into what we have today. You have to wonder, what are these tools being used for? They certainly haven't been publicly attributed to stopping any terrorist activities. If you don't think these systems, put in place by spy agencies with the legal ability to lie about their internal operations, are being used to spy on their targets (which is the general public) then what the hell do you think they are for?
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  > I said it feeds into PRISM. It doesn't. That's my point. How many more times are you going to show that you don't know what PRISM is while claiming that you do? Also, surveillance is, by definition, close observation. Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance any more than having access to Google Maps satellite imagery without any other data sources to join to. More specifically, it isn't mass wiretapping, which as you recall was your original claim that you have yet to substantiate, instead pointing to this metadata program that I had earlier used to show you that no evidence exists for mass wiretapping of Americans.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    > PRISM is the program that brings the FBI's FISA electronic communication wiretaps into the NSA's databases > It doesn't. > Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance OK. Not only are you inconsistent but your arguments are based around ill-defined terminology. Goodbye now.