3 ms·

Lawful intercept isn't itself a backdoor, but it did provide one that was exposed via Snowden. In this case I'll call a spade a spade: many lawful intercept too

Lawful intercept isn't itself a backdoor, but it did provide one that was exposed via Snowden. In this case I'll call a spade a spade: many lawful intercept tools were used as backdoors, or overreach of legal authority. Again, keep in mind the context of my original comment: the years 2010-2011 which was pre-Snowden. The FBI may have stepped in with a heavy hand for many reasons but those reasons may have included inclusion of another large ISP in programs like PRISM.

tptacek 7y ago
PRISM was literally a system for handling the paperwork for lawful intercepts. There are instances of the USG exceeding its authority, but you've somehow managed to cite one of the few leaked programs that had an almost purely lawful purpose.
- windexh8er 7y ago
  While I respect your opinion I don't agree. First of all PRISM was not purely "a system for handling paperwork for lawful intercepts", see [0]. Second your assertion assumes that somehow all requests within these programs abided by "lawful purpose", which we also know is not true. Whether FISA rubber stamps were lawful is subjective and your opinion but not fact. Your answer purports a black and white perspective on the past which I simply don't find appropriately represents all the shades of grey presented by all of the legal angles during this time. [0] https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-big https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-bi...
  - pvg 7y ago
    It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.
    - windexh8er 7y ago
      But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi_actions_are_unconstitutional_secret_court_nah_were_good/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi... [1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv... Just because it was never settled that way doesn't change the history of it.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still grinding its way through the top of your "Read It Later" list. You could have made the argument you were trying to make colorably and defensibly. All you had to do was not try to sound like you'd been "read in" to NSA's SIGINT programs. But, like I said above: you managed to cite one of the few NSA program examples that is in fact totally banal and, ironically, an almost perfect example of lawful intercept.
        windexh8er 7y ago
        So... 702 and PRISM aren't still being litigated? It's fun to watch you twist reality with this type of non-informational response. I get with the above you'd like people to assume that, instead, you've been "read in" on the subject matter. <golf clap> But not all of what you've outlined here is the _whole truth_.
        7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

PRISM was literally a system for handling the paperwork for lawful intercepts. There are instances of the USG exceeding its authority, but you've somehow managed to cite one of the few leaked programs that had an almost purely lawful purpose.

windexh8er 7y ago
While I respect your opinion I don't agree. First of all PRISM was not purely "a system for handling paperwork for lawful intercepts", see [0]. Second your assertion assumes that somehow all requests within these programs abided by "lawful purpose", which we also know is not true. Whether FISA rubber stamps were lawful is subjective and your opinion but not fact. Your answer purports a black and white perspective on the past which I simply don't find appropriately represents all the shades of grey presented by all of the legal angles during this time. [0] https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-big https://dzone.com/articles/nsa-prism-%E2%80%93-mother-all-bi...
- pvg 7y ago
  It's not a 'just your opinion, man' sort of thing - more or less nobody seems to have thought PRISM was unlawful. Rand Paul, I think, made some noises about suing at the time and eventually did file some sort of suit that ended up not being about PRISM.
  - windexh8er 7y ago
    But it is... You're conflating two different things: the legal position accepted by the government and the reality. I don't think PRISM was legal, in my opinion, you can have an opposing view. People write opinions on lawfulness of all kinds of topics prior to making legal arguments regarding. And many do think it is unconstitutional / illegal [0] [1]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi_actions_are_unconstitutional_secret_court_nah_were_good/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/20/public_advocate_fbi... [1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surv... Just because it was never settled that way doesn't change the history of it.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      No, I'm sorry, what's happened here is that you (and "el Reg") don't know what PRISM is, but only innuendo about it, and so you've mistaken it for other USG programs that do offer instances of the government enabling "unlawful intercept". PRISM is a paperwork handling service for FISA 702 directives, not the backdoor into Google that Glenn Greenwald initially thought it was. But a lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is still grinding its way through the top of your "Read It Later" list. You could have made the argument you were trying to make colorably and defensibly. All you had to do was not try to sound like you'd been "read in" to NSA's SIGINT programs. But, like I said above: you managed to cite one of the few NSA program examples that is in fact totally banal and, ironically, an almost perfect example of lawful intercept.
      - windexh8er 7y ago
        So... 702 and PRISM aren't still being litigated? It's fun to watch you twist reality with this type of non-informational response. I get with the above you'd like people to assume that, instead, you've been "read in" on the subject matter. <golf clap> But not all of what you've outlined here is the _whole truth_.
        7y ago