4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%... The documents identified several

by cheez 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%... The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]

estebank 8y ago
The implication being that all those companies were cooperating and not being inadvertently tapped. This is not a given and from what I've seen the later seemed more likely, without discounting the existence of companies that do cooperate on an ongoing basis.
- cheez 8y ago
  The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program
  - willstrafach 8y ago
    > participants To avoid giving the wrong impression to folks, it is worth noting that ‘participating’ means they produced requested communications on an ongoing basis pursuant to orders from a judge.
    - cheez 8y ago
      Thank you for clarifying. To clarify further, this is the FISA (secret) court that Will is referring to that also ended up rubber stamping surveillance of a political campaign.
cromwellian 8y ago
Apples and oranges. PRISM was not these companies giving Carte Blanche access to data, it was narrow to specific government warrants for specific individuals per later media reports, and nothing like the Motel 6 or AT&T issues. It sounds to me like PRISM = “I have a warrant for individual XYZ, please zip up all their account data and deliver it electronically somewhere for the FBI” A separate program, MUSCULAR targeted dark fiber inter-data center links against companies which suggests that the tech companies were not handing out backdoors as they were accused of by Greenwald/Guardian reporting.
- cheez 8y ago
  I don't really see how it's different aside from semantics.
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    The root of this thread was that then tech companies routinely rebuff requests and the example of AT&T was given and Motel 6 was referenced. There’s a big difference between “show me your warrant” and “oh, the government asked nicely? I’ll give you the data as a favor” It’s not just semantics. There’s a huge difference between being compelled and being a willing participant who doesn’t push back. What evidence do you have that the tech companies don’t rebuff or push back on requests that don’t have the full force of the courts behind them?
    - cheez 8y ago
      No way to know since warrants are approved by secret courts. I'm going to guess zero pushback.

by cheez 8y ago

estebank 8y ago

The implication being that all those companies were cooperating and not being inadvertently tapped. This is not a given and from what I've seen the later seemed more likely, without discounting the existence of companies that do cooperate on an ongoing basis.

cheez 8y ago
The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program
- willstrafach 8y ago
  > participants To avoid giving the wrong impression to folks, it is worth noting that ‘participating’ means they produced requested communications on an ongoing basis pursuant to orders from a judge.
  - cheez 8y ago
    Thank you for clarifying. To clarify further, this is the FISA (secret) court that Will is referring to that also ended up rubber stamping surveillance of a political campaign.

cromwellian 8y ago

Apples and oranges. PRISM was not these companies giving Carte Blanche access to data, it was narrow to specific government warrants for specific individuals per later media reports, and nothing like the Motel 6 or AT&T issues. It sounds to me like PRISM = “I have a warrant for individual XYZ, please zip up all their account data and deliver it electronically somewhere for the FBI” A separate program, MUSCULAR targeted dark fiber inter-data center links against companies which suggests that the tech companies were not handing out backdoors as they were accused of by Greenwald/Guardian reporting.

cheez 8y ago
I don't really see how it's different aside from semantics.
- cromwellian 8y ago
  The root of this thread was that then tech companies routinely rebuff requests and the example of AT&T was given and Motel 6 was referenced. There’s a big difference between “show me your warrant” and “oh, the government asked nicely? I’ll give you the data as a favor” It’s not just semantics. There’s a huge difference between being compelled and being a willing participant who doesn’t push back. What evidence do you have that the tech companies don’t rebuff or push back on requests that don’t have the full force of the courts behind them?
  - cheez 8y ago
    No way to know since warrants are approved by secret courts. I'm going to guess zero pushback.