17 ms·

PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

486 points by Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago

corrund 6y ago
I prevented one terrorist attack by myself. Nobody knows that, because attack was prevented.
- zingplex 6y ago
  I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, but at the same time given the scope of the surveillance dragnet I'd hope they'd have something they could point to. At this point I would even circumstantial evidence as to the programs efficacy would go a long way, but it doesn't look like they even have that.
  - gopiandcode 6y ago
    Its not proving a negative, its proving an existential query, there exists terror attacks that were stopped by PRISM. If the data was useful, then they could certainly point to the in-progress attacks that were thwarted - stopping an attack does not erase all information about its existence.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  The government prevents thousands of terrorist attacks every year by being tolerable enough that the number of people filling rental trucks full of explosives is zero.
  - Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
    Timothy McVeigh begs to differ (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later-key-questions-remain-unanswered https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-cit...)
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      That was 25 years ago. The average number of such trucks per year is zero.
  - jariel 6y ago
    ? There are actually a myriad of interlocking protocols that help to thwart such activities, to ignore them is not reasonable. Most poignantly there is literally an Ammonium Nitrate security program. [1] As for the 'number of truck bombings being zero' ... it did happen and the average is 'more than zero' and when we consider the implications (an entire building and 100's of dead etc.) it's a concern. Obviously, it's hard to determine the effectiveness of the various programs because they all play a part, but that there haven't been any such bombings since then is at likely a positive sign. [1] https://www.cisa.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program https://www.cisa.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program
- Zigurd 6y ago
  The "secretly prevented attack" thing is bunk because really prevented attacks, and the plotters of those attacks, end up in court and in prison.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Do they? What about attacks prevented before a crime has been committed? By your logic, gun control can’t prevent any shootings.
- zepto 6y ago
  How do you know it was only one?
  - jaywalk 6y ago
    Because he prevented it!
    - zepto 6y ago
      Sure but he could have prevented others and not know about it!
0goel0 6y ago
I very strongly recommend reading Dark Mirror by Bart Gellman. https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206016 https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206016 It's a look at the reporting of PRISM and other Snowden leaks by the guy who first broke the leaks. Pet jarring look at how the program can't to be, and how it evolved.
anm89 6y ago
Which is unsurprising given that its goal never had anything to do with terror in the first place.
- 0goel0 6y ago
  What do you base that on?
  - anm89 6y ago
    Bush and his crew had the Patriot act written before 9/11 and were simply waiting around for a circumstance to justify enacting it. Honestly I'm surprised this is even a controversial opinion at this point. This is exactly what Snowden exposed. That these programs were as if not more focused on internal spying than anything else.
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      Quite an extraordinary claim, I'm surprised _you're_ surprised it's controversial: can you share a little bit more about how Snowden exposed the Patriot Act was prewritten & waiting for an excuse to be enacted?
      - bigbubba 6y ago
        Claiming it was entirely conceived and written in only 42 days is the extraordinary claim. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
      - anm89 6y ago
        You are conflating two things. I did not claim that Snowden exposed that the patriot act was pre written. I don't believe that to be true. Snowden exposed the underlying premise, not that detail.
    - tunap 6y ago
      By Bush & Crew you meant to say Joe Biden, right? Or, perhaps all those who enrich themselves by warmongering, despite party affiliation? If you were to parse the mass edits of JB & Patriot Acts wiki pages you would find that Joe's substantial contributions to the Patriot Act have been cleansed from said pages. And yet the OCA page still exists. The scripted narrative of politicos can't completely whitewash all historical facts. Yet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act... Obama announcing his VP gave me pause back in '08. I voted for them anyway. After they retained/appointed W.Gates & T Geitner, I realized "Change" != change, apparently. We now have two shit choices, IMO, and truly struggle to determine which is the least evil option through all the noise. Perhaps if we knew before casting our ballot who will be in each admins' cabinets making policy decisions we could make an more informed vote.
jagged-chisel 6y ago
You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...") PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- beagle3 6y ago
  > PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money. Only if you believe its stated purpose is its real purpose. I suspect it's actually a huge success if you measure it against its real purpose.
  - nobleach 6y ago
    I'm not asking in an accusatory manor, I'm generally curious. What do you think it's real purpose is?
    - alasdair_ 6y ago
      Increased power for the people that control it. (With a bonus side effect of lots of government dollars funneled to certain Contractors.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes
- alehul 6y ago
  I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness). Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism? Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).
Diederich 6y ago
Is this the same number of terrorist attacks the TSA has stopped?
Grimm1 6y ago
No one should be surprised by this. This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. Much like the patriot act and our secret warrants, founded on a dubious premise that over the last 20 years have largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. This is a system designed to protect the larger system from any civs who may be getting a little too rebellious.
- MarcellusDrum 6y ago
  The "Patriot Act" is so maliciously named its more funny than sad. Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1] An good example he used to show this is the condition the fighters get from shock in combat. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock, a terrifying name. The same condition in WW1 was called Battle Fatigue, a nicer name. In the Korean War, the name changed to Operational Exhaustion, removing any humanity from it. After the Vietnam War, the name because Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When you compare the terms "Shell Shock" and "PTSD", it's obvious what the intent is. [1]: https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc
  - tingol 6y ago
    Well "fatigue", "exhaustion" and "shock" imply you could just get over those, as medicine advanced we got a better picture of what it is, hence the more precise term now. As for the "Patriot Act", it's funny how ironic of a name it is.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      There was a predecessor name to Shellshock of "Soldier's Heart" back in the American Civil war. In such a brother against brother civil war it wouldn't have been judged shameful but with later militarism could have implied "weakness" against the propaganda dehumanized foreign menance. Assuring memory held to WWI and it wasn't an independent rediscovery/reinvention "shell shock" dodged the character image driven denial of having it or its existance by implying more physical damage as even valiant brave men are not immune to bullets and explosions. Men were facing charges of cowardice after fleeing vast trauma and it eased accepting "the man who fled after a many months long bloody stalemate isn't a craven but bearing invisible injuries sustained for his country so executing him would be a terrible wrong". Thus ironically shell shock could be called an ego saving euphemism itself. And well authoritarians have no sense of irony - what they think is "ironic" is presenting their true self when it unacceptable and passing it off as a joke. Thus they destroy freedom to protect freedom the same as they destroy the village to save it.
lvass 6y ago
>The NSA phone surveillance program was illegal and expensive: And it did not stop a single terrorist attack "Was" illegal?
- monadic2 6y ago
  It was recently found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, no? This seems to be asserting a stronger claim that it was also illegal then, not that it has since ceased.
- Joker_vD 6y ago
  "X was Y" doesn't necessarily imply that X is no longer Y: for that, English has "X used to be Y" construct.
  - lvass 6y ago
    "is" would be so much more descriptive in this case that one could argue the usage of "was" may be intentionally confusing, as to induce the reader to imagine either the surveillance ended or became legal.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      'is illegal' wouldn't communicate that it was illegal at the time. It might be taken to suggest it is presently illegal but wasn't when it was done.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." - Mitch Hedberg
qwerty456127 6y ago
AFAIK, neither did TSA. Sacrificing privacy for security is overrated severely.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  America is the only country I've flow through (15+) where you are still required to take off your shoes. It's dumb theater and the TSA is pointless.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Don't have to take your shoes off anymore if you precheck.
    - qwerty456127 6y ago
      I don't give a uck about the shoes actually but I absolutely don't feel like unlocking my phone or laptop, even though there's nothing criminal.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        I've never had to do that, but I haven't flown since 2016. If I was asked, I'd refuse. If they wouldn't let me though, I'd walk away and eat the cost. I'll remember this for next time though. I'll be sure to check my phone and laptop. I could always just buy a book and not have electronic devices .. or maybe take a cassette deck.
        thebooktocome 6y ago
        That's not what happens when you refuse to unlock your phone/laptop. You may get detained indefinitely.
        InitialLastName 6y ago
        AIUI the unlocking is usually requested at the customs checkpoint, which is after you've retrieved your checked luggage, and if you say no, you don't get to just "walk away" -- you risk finding yourself detained in legal limbo with no recourse.
wil421 6y ago
> Between 2014 and 2017, 13 Islamist terrorist attacks took place in Europe after which 24 offenders were convicted. All 24 of them - one hundred per cent - were already known to the authorities prior to the attack and had been classified as violent. Right below: > What we do need is better trained and better equipped police officers so that they can identify potential threats faster. If the violent offenders are already known to police then how is training cops to identify threats going to help? The threats were already known by police to be violent. The article doesn’t really provide any new developments. The company also claims to be the next Google with private security in mind. To me it feels like marketing blog speak. There are not any new developments about PRISM as related to Big Tech but having it in the title will make sure it reaches #1.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  There are also cases where the FBI will radicalize and entrap people like the Liberty City Seven. A great fictionalized movie about these situations is The Days Shall Come (2019).
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    The Day Shall Come (2019) https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/492190-the-day-shall-come https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/492190-the-day-shall-come
Imnimo 6y ago
While I'm absolutely opposed to PRISM and similar programs, I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the only potential value was from stopping terrorist attacks. Look at this leaked powerpoint slide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-week-in-life-straight.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-week-in-life-straig... If you want to argue against PRISM-like programs, it would behoove you to tackle their actual purpose. We shouldn't just argue that PRISM isn't good at catching terrorists, we should argue that the total value of intelligence gained from it is not worth sacrificing our privacy for.
- dx87 6y ago
  That's a good point. While we don't know the details, it's entirely possible that it didn't stop any terrorist attacks because the intel gathered allowed the USA to remove the conditions that would have allowed an attack to be planned in the first place. Ideally, that's how it would happen, just like it's better for an organizations IT department to proactively prevent networking problems than trying to mitigate issues that have already surfaced.
  - pavelrub 6y ago
    I think the larger point is that the goal of vast majority of intelligence gathering programs - and judging by the slides this seems to include PRISM as well - has nothing to do with stopping terrorist attacks, which is a tiny subset of what intelligence agencies do. Judging their utility by counting the number of terrorist attacks they've prevented is mostly a meaningless exercise.
  - maerF0x0 6y ago
    These are similar kinds of non-falsifiable claims that many authoritarian or the like use. * The stock is down 25% this year with our $100M/yr CEO, but think of how bad it would have been without them * We need tough on crime policies because unreported crimes are on the rise * Tough on crime policies deterred all the decline in crimerate * The king is good because we didnt get invaded since he sat on the throne
bszupnick 6y ago
I'm very much against government (and corporate) spying, but as a mental gymnastic, why was this program a flop? Assuming it didn't stop one act of terror (as this article assumed/the judge ruled), why? We know that in the hands of corporations and political machines all of this data can be used with pinpoint accuracy. Is sussing out "who's likely going to commit an act of terror" categorically different than "who's likely to buy a massage from a local spa" or "who's likely to vote for party X"?
- Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
  In a word - Too much Data, not enough analysts to wade through it. The amount of ingested data from various fire-hose feeds was (is?) staggering. The Signal to Noise ratio makes it practically impossible for any nation state to properly go through each and every 'flagged for human analysis' entry. Metadata analysis (who was in contact with who and when) are more than sufficient for prosecution and hoovering up the loose ends (after the fact). Parallel construction neatly masks some of the more interesting stuff. I am Pro Privacy but still keep in touch with those that deal with this sort of stuff and the latest fad is "ML/AI will solve it for us". Good luck with that because - What do you use as a training data set?
hnaccy 6y ago
Why is there so little call for reform from congress and new administrations etc? Obama or Trump had no part in building the original system so why do they continue it? Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America?
- vmception 6y ago
  Representatives don't want to be wrong if an attack happens afterwards. It is a prison of their own creation.
- mrguyorama 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure Obama genuinely believed the NSA and drone strikes were good things for the country, something I disagree with thoroughly
- phobosanomaly 6y ago
  Apathy likely plays a large role. Most people don't care enough to bug politicians about it, so politicians don't do anything about it. Most people have zero clue what PRISM is, and they just don't care. They're trying to pay rent and make sure their kids are learning long division over Zoom.
- zepto 6y ago
  One explanation would be some cabal or ‘the political class’ having an authoritarian agenda. The other would be that some of the danger is real and people in power are wary of giving up tools to fight it. Most likely both have significant truth.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    And/or that it's a local jobs program for enough representatives' districts that cutting it is a no-go, the same issue as with many other military-industrial programs.
- the_only_law 6y ago
  > Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America? You might be shocked by how many regular citizens are fine with and support systems like these.
daveevad 6y ago
The title is misleading, it appears to me, since the claim "did not prevent a single terrorist attack" isn't backed up with even a grammatically correct sentence. > a judge ruled beginning of September 2020 that not [one single terrorist attack had been stopped with the help of the NSA's phone surveillance program (sic) If you trail the linked articles you end up with this 9th circuit opinion: > The panel wrote that to the extent the public statements of government officials created a contrary impression, that impression is inconsistent with the contents of the classified record. It's my reading that pertains specifically to the case before the court and not a conclusive determination about the entirety of the PRISM program.
- conistonwater 6y ago
  If I understood correctly(?), the claim is that PRISM data was used in only one case, and in that case it was later judged to be irrelevant, therefore PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. But I'm not sure this is right, I found the article pretty confusing on the subject of what actually happened, so I'm not sure. Personally I agree with Imnimo's comment that this is just an overly confusing way of analyzing a surveillance program.
  - remus 6y ago
    > PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. I think it's worth noting that this is also fairly normal for signals intelligence of all types. If you want to use intelligence as evidence in a trial then you have to make that evidence available for scrutiny by the defense which is something intelligence agencies almost never want to do. As I understand it (obviously Im not very informed here!) you'd normally use intelligence to identify suspects, then gather further evidence with which to secure a prosecution so you don't have to rely on the original intelligence in court. I believe GCHQ in the UK have in the past gone so far as to abandon a strong cases that hinged on intelligence data so as to not reveal the source of the intelligence.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      []u.s police departments have dropped cases that relied on evidence collected by stingrays. Anyways, using Intel to build a case so the Intel and methods aren't exposed is called parallel construction and it should be illegal to do against citizens except in extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not when police departments get bored and use the ray to take down the boys slinging bags on the block. [] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-emails-show-that-feds-instructed-police-to-lie-about-using-stingray-mobile-phone-snooping.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-e...
mikece 6y ago
It has been argued that PRISM was more about corporate espionage under the ruberic of counter-terrorism than anything else. In the book The Shadow Factory, James Bamford points out the ridiculously low prices that were available for overseas traffic to be routed into the US and then back to a neighboring country, sometimes even a different region of the same country... anything to get overseas telecoms to route traffic through a PRISIM splitter (the allegation Bamford makes is that bribery was involved to get these routing deals in place as well). It’s certainly a fanciful story but does anyone really doubt that the post 9/11 US government would do this?
- bigbubba 6y ago
  'Whatever makes the rich richer is what they're doing' is probably a decent first order approximation, and under that logic corporate espionage does seem very likely.
- hammock 6y ago
  Seems like, in a world where most traffic is encrypted, this could only be worth it if they had a way of decrypting it, no?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  I am fairly certain that Bamford did not even come close to making the claim that PRISM was more about corporate espionage. If you have a citation that contradicts this, I’d love to see it. Yes, not only do I doubt that the post 9/11 government is spending billions (or even millions) to spy on corporations, but I’d flip your question and ask does anyone really believe that they are doing that. Before someone brings up the Petrobras example, I’ll pre-emptively point out that this isn’t in any way suggestive of what’s alleged above, and it wasn’t related to PRISM.
mcs_ 6y ago
But, if they stop an attack, say from XYZ country, is that data public? Is there any place where the failed intent of the attacks is listed?
fallingfrog 6y ago
Nor was it ever designed to do so.
ffpip 6y ago
Even if it did, I don't think they would say it stopped an attack. They don't want to encourage terrorists to move to more advanced methods.
docPangloss 6y ago
I referenced PRISM in a comment to a recent Apple article on HN a couple of days ago. It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators.[1] Anyway, it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance. Members provide access to ALL user data/information to NSA et al. Here are some technology/telecom company members (and approx. date joined): * Microsoft (2007) * Yahoo! (2008) * Facebook (2009) * Google (2009) / YouTube (2010) * Apple (2012) * Dropbox (tbd) * Verizon (and probably T-Mobile/Sprint, AT&T, etc.) These member companies are effectively an extension of three letter agencies (intel) and are above the law. A dozen+ countries participate in PRISM, too.[2] Want to Break Out of the PRISM? It’s relatively easy. The nonprofit Prism-Break provides people a path to get started.[3] Resources/Notes: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738743 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#C... [3] https://prism-break.org/en/ https://prism-break.org/en/
- mikestew 6y ago
  It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators. No, the moderators appear to have done no such thing. But with that opening sentence, and closing with the equivalent of "wake up, sheeple!", I can see why it got downvoted to a light gray.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > triggered HN and Apple fans This is generally not the best way to garner sympathy for your comment.
- zepto 6y ago
  The problem is that what you are saying is false, and the links you provide don’t back up your assertion in the slightest. Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so. The dates you quote are from slides indicating when prism started to acquire data from these companies. They have nothing to do with membership or joining. Data was obtained from these companies without their particpation, and they have taken measures to harden their systems since this was made public, for example in Google’s case prism obtained data by intercepting their underground fiber optic cables. Data was previously sent unencrypted between data centers along these, but after the intrusion was discovered, Google moved to encrypting this traffic. If you can find evidence that either of these companies willingly became members of prism, then please present it. Otherwise, you are repeating false claims.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Not only did it not prevent any terrorist attack, but was used openly as a way to build opposition research on political opponents in the USA since 2016 but probably earlier. https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210 https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210
hashtagmarkup 6y ago
You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed. What is the point of terrorizing a country that is already terrorizing its own citizens through unwarranted prying mass surveillance?
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed. This is the tiger repelling rock theory of anti-terrorism. I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work.
  - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
    > I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work. Behind the scenes, the man with the rock is using it to kill every single kitten he sees when he's alone. He can't prove how useful the rock is without admitting to all the senseless murder of innocent bystanders.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      The details of my anti-tiger operations are highly classified; whoever leaked this information to you will be vilified and hounded around the globe for the rest of their life.
president 6y ago
I would expect more digging and investigation before inferring that criminal activity was not reduced in a more significant way. The linked source is a NYT article that makes conclusions based on a few selected reports.
GuB-42 6y ago
> NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation. What the ruling said is that the NSA surveillance program resulted in only one conviction related to terrorism, and that it could have been made without it. i.e. it didn't help catch any terrorist, which is a different claim. The end result is the same: the NSA surveillance program is illegal and considered ineffective, but unlike the title claim, it is a fact.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  > Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation. This is nonsense, foiled attacks make the news. The FBI foiled a terrorist attack against the governor of Michigan a few days ago and that certainly made the news.
  - GuB-42 6y ago
    There is a difference between a foiled attack and one that is prevented. For example if you lock your bike and when you come back, you see bolt cutter marks on your lock and your bike it still there, you know that it stopped the thief. But for one attempt like that, there are probably a hundred more potential thieves that just passed by, saw your lock and didn't do anything. Seeing your lock untouched doesn't mean it is useless. It may or may not have prevented your bike from being stolen, but there is no way to be sure. In the same way, a terrorist may have had plans, but because of surveillance, he knew he would never have succeeded, and gave up. Seriously I doubt it, but that's a possibility.
rhacker 6y ago
I want Snowden to be pardoned. And I think the data collection network was both illegal and morally wrong. But that doesn't make me believe these kinds of articles. Most of these types of articles for the past numerous years have the same formula. Case X proves it was useful, case X is determined to not be relevant to the data collection methods, typically by someone biased. And it's always a judge out of one of the most liberal places. (and I'm liberal / democrat) It's weaksauce, and most of the people here are unwilling to see past it because they also agree with my first paragraph. We can have freedom and "live more dangerously". That's pretty much the entire point of how America came to be. We shouldn't spy on all of our people - and yes that comes with consequences. That's not the same as spying on specific people that we know will or may cause harm.
- hash872 6y ago
  I basically agree with your sentiment, but that's where politics (literally- persuading enough fellow citizens or legislators to your point of view) comes in. People think politics is this dirty, awful business, but it determines the legality or illegality of these kinds of programs. If you want to effectively advocate for change, you have to play the political system. And, telling the general public that PRISM isn't effective has a decent shot at getting these practices outlawed. Telling the general public 'sure, a few terrorists will get through here and there, but that's the price of living in freedom' is pretty much guaranteed to get you the opposite result. You have to focus on effective persuasion, and regular people won't/can't think about hard tradeoffs
feralimal 6y ago
Its only a huge waste of time and money, if you believe the purported justification - that it was to stop terrorist attacks. If you believe it was part of the new governance apparatus, I think you would consider it an unmitigated success.
maerF0x0 6y ago
And this is why we need to also halt the EARN IT Bill https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-bill-before-it-breaks-encryption-a7904e20-2083-4d5e-88ae-44ee5fef7a5d https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-bill-before-it-b... If only just to save the cost to taxpayers and companies for a useless policy.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
The submitted title is subtly editorialized to the point of being incorrect. The article only says that the phone surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack. It does not say that PRISM did not prevent a single terrorist attack. These are very different claims. Even where the article does use PRISM, it uses it incorrectly. PRISM is not the program that involved storing telecommunications metadata. The article claims that was one part of PRISM. This contradicts all public reporting on the two programs.
textgel 6y ago
But we were told it would save lives and was for saving the world? That means it's completely impossible for such things to be a lie doesn't it? As long as you say something is for saving the world or doing good and accuse all others who might raise questions about it of being terrorists/communists/racists/nazis etc it simply has to be true doesn't it? I mean as long as someone just says something is to save lives or for justice or to save the world you have to completely accept it without question don't you? You don't question it at all right? Or else that would make you pure black hearted evil wouldn't it? To take something done in the name of good intentions and apply rational thought and reasoning to it in the interest of affirming whether or not it would actually do good for the world or others or to achieve its goals makes you the literally the equivalent of a rapist doesn't it? I mean I just got done reading a recent hn article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 that is completely unrelated in any way whatsoever at all to anything mentioned above and I am completely shell shocked, dumbfounded! I mean how could this happen? Seriously, we were told it was to save lives? And it was said by people in official positions with credentials; which means it is literally physically impossible to be wrong in any way at all, we all know this is true! God this is all too much to take, I really need a holiday. I really hope we have a complete coronovirus lockdown for as long as it takes to kill off this virus for good so we can get back to normal and I can have one.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  Hasn't it always been this way? The emperor has been naked for a very long time but most people seem to care just enough to attack the messengers.
  - textgel 6y ago
    I've been having this concerning feeling lately that we are in fact getting the leaders we deserve :(
    - minerjoe 6y ago
      If I had voted in the last election, I would have voted for Trump, just to hopefully have a more naked emporer. Lifelong politicians such as Biden and Obama, to me, are much more dangerous. People actually fall for their bullshit. Edit: minor. Love the downvotes, keep them coming. You know your over target when your taking flak.
branon 6y ago
I understand the intent, and agree, but Tutanota's blog posts are really low quality. I'm sure there are much better and more in-depth articles we could be reading about this.
- fsflover 6y ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-court-finds-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-c...
shpongled 6y ago
Edward Snowden's recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast[1] was extremely interesting, and they discuss this case, among other things. Snowden is a great speaker. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl82OQDoOc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl82OQDoOc
wprapido 6y ago
It wasn't even meant to
grillvogel 6y ago
not that I am a huge fan of PRISM or anything but this seems highly unlikely
fmajid 6y ago
Of course not. Its primary purpose is to identify whistleblowers.
- minerjoe 6y ago
  That is spot on, yes? I wish more people "on the inside" lived up to their oath to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But maybe the rachet had been tightened too far and they, if they even exist, just don't see a way?
  - fmajid 6y ago
    Look at Ed Snowden. He lived his principles, and will basically live as an exile for the rest of his life. Most people with families and kids can't do that, no matter how principled and courageous.
vaccinator 6y ago
PRISM is thing of the past... now they have FUCKYOU...
lern_too_spel 6y ago
This is a pretty garbage article. It confuses PRISM, which is a data integration project to ingest data from the FBI into the NSA's databases, with Stellar Wind, which is the phone metadata collection program that this article is about.
01100011 6y ago
PRISM sucks, but would we really know if it led to stopping an attack? Would it's use be hidden with parallel construction? On the other hand, there is probably tremendous marketing value in publicizing any wins produced by the system.
eutropia 6y ago
A certain Noam Chomsky quote comes to mind: "If you want to stop terrorism: stop participating in it"

I prevented one terrorist attack by myself. Nobody knows that, because attack was prevented.

zingplex 6y ago
I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, but at the same time given the scope of the surveillance dragnet I'd hope they'd have something they could point to. At this point I would even circumstantial evidence as to the programs efficacy would go a long way, but it doesn't look like they even have that.
- gopiandcode 6y ago
  Its not proving a negative, its proving an existential query, there exists terror attacks that were stopped by PRISM. If the data was useful, then they could certainly point to the in-progress attacks that were thwarted - stopping an attack does not erase all information about its existence.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
The government prevents thousands of terrorist attacks every year by being tolerable enough that the number of people filling rental trucks full of explosives is zero.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
  Timothy McVeigh begs to differ (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-city-bombing-20-years-later-key-questions-remain-unanswered https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/oklahoma-cit...)
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    That was 25 years ago. The average number of such trucks per year is zero.
- jariel 6y ago
  ? There are actually a myriad of interlocking protocols that help to thwart such activities, to ignore them is not reasonable. Most poignantly there is literally an Ammonium Nitrate security program. [1] As for the 'number of truck bombings being zero' ... it did happen and the average is 'more than zero' and when we consider the implications (an entire building and 100's of dead etc.) it's a concern. Obviously, it's hard to determine the effectiveness of the various programs because they all play a part, but that there haven't been any such bombings since then is at likely a positive sign. [1] https://www.cisa.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program https://www.cisa.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program
Zigurd 6y ago
The "secretly prevented attack" thing is bunk because really prevented attacks, and the plotters of those attacks, end up in court and in prison.
- zepto 6y ago
  Do they? What about attacks prevented before a crime has been committed? By your logic, gun control can’t prevent any shootings.
zepto 6y ago
How do you know it was only one?
- jaywalk 6y ago
  Because he prevented it!
  - zepto 6y ago
    Sure but he could have prevented others and not know about it!

I very strongly recommend reading Dark Mirror by Bart Gellman. https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206016 https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206016 It's a look at the reporting of PRISM and other Snowden leaks by the guy who first broke the leaks. Pet jarring look at how the program can't to be, and how it evolved.

anm89 6y ago

Which is unsurprising given that its goal never had anything to do with terror in the first place.

0goel0 6y ago
What do you base that on?
- anm89 6y ago
  Bush and his crew had the Patriot act written before 9/11 and were simply waiting around for a circumstance to justify enacting it. Honestly I'm surprised this is even a controversial opinion at this point. This is exactly what Snowden exposed. That these programs were as if not more focused on internal spying than anything else.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    Quite an extraordinary claim, I'm surprised _you're_ surprised it's controversial: can you share a little bit more about how Snowden exposed the Patriot Act was prewritten & waiting for an excuse to be enacted?
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Claiming it was entirely conceived and written in only 42 days is the extraordinary claim. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
    - anm89 6y ago
      You are conflating two things. I did not claim that Snowden exposed that the patriot act was pre written. I don't believe that to be true. Snowden exposed the underlying premise, not that detail.
  - tunap 6y ago
    By Bush & Crew you meant to say Joe Biden, right? Or, perhaps all those who enrich themselves by warmongering, despite party affiliation? If you were to parse the mass edits of JB & Patriot Acts wiki pages you would find that Joe's substantial contributions to the Patriot Act have been cleansed from said pages. And yet the OCA page still exists. The scripted narrative of politicos can't completely whitewash all historical facts. Yet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act... Obama announcing his VP gave me pause back in '08. I voted for them anyway. After they retained/appointed W.Gates & T Geitner, I realized "Change" != change, apparently. We now have two shit choices, IMO, and truly struggle to determine which is the least evil option through all the noise. Perhaps if we knew before casting our ballot who will be in each admins' cabinets making policy decisions we could make an more informed vote.

jagged-chisel 6y ago

You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...") PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
beagle3 6y ago
> PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money. Only if you believe its stated purpose is its real purpose. I suspect it's actually a huge success if you measure it against its real purpose.
- nobleach 6y ago
  I'm not asking in an accusatory manor, I'm generally curious. What do you think it's real purpose is?
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    Increased power for the people that control it. (With a bonus side effect of lots of government dollars funneled to certain Contractors.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance#Purposes
alehul 6y ago
I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness). Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism? Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).

Diederich 6y ago

Is this the same number of terrorist attacks the TSA has stopped?

Grimm1 6y ago

No one should be surprised by this. This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. Much like the patriot act and our secret warrants, founded on a dubious premise that over the last 20 years have largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. This is a system designed to protect the larger system from any civs who may be getting a little too rebellious.

MarcellusDrum 6y ago
The "Patriot Act" is so maliciously named its more funny than sad. Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1] An good example he used to show this is the condition the fighters get from shock in combat. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock, a terrifying name. The same condition in WW1 was called Battle Fatigue, a nicer name. In the Korean War, the name changed to Operational Exhaustion, removing any humanity from it. After the Vietnam War, the name because Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When you compare the terms "Shell Shock" and "PTSD", it's obvious what the intent is. [1]: https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc https://youtu.be/vuEQixrBKCc
- tingol 6y ago
  Well "fatigue", "exhaustion" and "shock" imply you could just get over those, as medicine advanced we got a better picture of what it is, hence the more precise term now. As for the "Patriot Act", it's funny how ironic of a name it is.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    There was a predecessor name to Shellshock of "Soldier's Heart" back in the American Civil war. In such a brother against brother civil war it wouldn't have been judged shameful but with later militarism could have implied "weakness" against the propaganda dehumanized foreign menance. Assuring memory held to WWI and it wasn't an independent rediscovery/reinvention "shell shock" dodged the character image driven denial of having it or its existance by implying more physical damage as even valiant brave men are not immune to bullets and explosions. Men were facing charges of cowardice after fleeing vast trauma and it eased accepting "the man who fled after a many months long bloody stalemate isn't a craven but bearing invisible injuries sustained for his country so executing him would be a terrible wrong". Thus ironically shell shock could be called an ego saving euphemism itself. And well authoritarians have no sense of irony - what they think is "ironic" is presenting their true self when it unacceptable and passing it off as a joke. Thus they destroy freedom to protect freedom the same as they destroy the village to save it.

lvass 6y ago

>The NSA phone surveillance program was illegal and expensive: And it did not stop a single terrorist attack "Was" illegal?

monadic2 6y ago
It was recently found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, no? This seems to be asserting a stronger claim that it was also illegal then, not that it has since ceased.
Joker_vD 6y ago
"X was Y" doesn't necessarily imply that X is no longer Y: for that, English has "X used to be Y" construct.
- lvass 6y ago
  "is" would be so much more descriptive in this case that one could argue the usage of "was" may be intentionally confusing, as to induce the reader to imagine either the surveillance ended or became legal.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    'is illegal' wouldn't communicate that it was illegal at the time. It might be taken to suggest it is presently illegal but wasn't when it was done.
orthecreedence 6y ago
"I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." - Mitch Hedberg

qwerty456127 6y ago

AFAIK, neither did TSA. Sacrificing privacy for security is overrated severely.

djsumdog 6y ago
America is the only country I've flow through (15+) where you are still required to take off your shoes. It's dumb theater and the TSA is pointless.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Don't have to take your shoes off anymore if you precheck.
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    I don't give a uck about the shoes actually but I absolutely don't feel like unlocking my phone or laptop, even though there's nothing criminal.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      I've never had to do that, but I haven't flown since 2016. If I was asked, I'd refuse. If they wouldn't let me though, I'd walk away and eat the cost. I'll remember this for next time though. I'll be sure to check my phone and laptop. I could always just buy a book and not have electronic devices .. or maybe take a cassette deck.
      - thebooktocome 6y ago
        That's not what happens when you refuse to unlock your phone/laptop. You may get detained indefinitely.
      - InitialLastName 6y ago
        AIUI the unlocking is usually requested at the customs checkpoint, which is after you've retrieved your checked luggage, and if you say no, you don't get to just "walk away" -- you risk finding yourself detained in legal limbo with no recourse.

wil421 6y ago

> Between 2014 and 2017, 13 Islamist terrorist attacks took place in Europe after which 24 offenders were convicted. All 24 of them - one hundred per cent - were already known to the authorities prior to the attack and had been classified as violent. Right below: > What we do need is better trained and better equipped police officers so that they can identify potential threats faster. If the violent offenders are already known to police then how is training cops to identify threats going to help? The threats were already known by police to be violent. The article doesn’t really provide any new developments. The company also claims to be the next Google with private security in mind. To me it feels like marketing blog speak. There are not any new developments about PRISM as related to Big Tech but having it in the title will make sure it reaches #1.

djsumdog 6y ago
There are also cases where the FBI will radicalize and entrap people like the Liberty City Seven. A great fictionalized movie about these situations is The Days Shall Come (2019).
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  The Day Shall Come (2019) https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/492190-the-day-shall-come https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/492190-the-day-shall-come

Imnimo 6y ago

While I'm absolutely opposed to PRISM and similar programs, I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the only potential value was from stopping terrorist attacks. Look at this leaked powerpoint slide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-week-in-life-straight.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-week-in-life-straig... If you want to argue against PRISM-like programs, it would behoove you to tackle their actual purpose. We shouldn't just argue that PRISM isn't good at catching terrorists, we should argue that the total value of intelligence gained from it is not worth sacrificing our privacy for.

dx87 6y ago
That's a good point. While we don't know the details, it's entirely possible that it didn't stop any terrorist attacks because the intel gathered allowed the USA to remove the conditions that would have allowed an attack to be planned in the first place. Ideally, that's how it would happen, just like it's better for an organizations IT department to proactively prevent networking problems than trying to mitigate issues that have already surfaced.
- pavelrub 6y ago
  I think the larger point is that the goal of vast majority of intelligence gathering programs - and judging by the slides this seems to include PRISM as well - has nothing to do with stopping terrorist attacks, which is a tiny subset of what intelligence agencies do. Judging their utility by counting the number of terrorist attacks they've prevented is mostly a meaningless exercise.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  These are similar kinds of non-falsifiable claims that many authoritarian or the like use. * The stock is down 25% this year with our $100M/yr CEO, but think of how bad it would have been without them * We need tough on crime policies because unreported crimes are on the rise * Tough on crime policies deterred all the decline in crimerate * The king is good because we didnt get invaded since he sat on the throne

bszupnick 6y ago

I'm very much against government (and corporate) spying, but as a mental gymnastic, why was this program a flop? Assuming it didn't stop one act of terror (as this article assumed/the judge ruled), why? We know that in the hands of corporations and political machines all of this data can be used with pinpoint accuracy. Is sussing out "who's likely going to commit an act of terror" categorically different than "who's likely to buy a massage from a local spa" or "who's likely to vote for party X"?

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
In a word - Too much Data, not enough analysts to wade through it. The amount of ingested data from various fire-hose feeds was (is?) staggering. The Signal to Noise ratio makes it practically impossible for any nation state to properly go through each and every 'flagged for human analysis' entry. Metadata analysis (who was in contact with who and when) are more than sufficient for prosecution and hoovering up the loose ends (after the fact). Parallel construction neatly masks some of the more interesting stuff. I am Pro Privacy but still keep in touch with those that deal with this sort of stuff and the latest fad is "ML/AI will solve it for us". Good luck with that because - What do you use as a training data set?

hnaccy 6y ago

Why is there so little call for reform from congress and new administrations etc? Obama or Trump had no part in building the original system so why do they continue it? Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America?

vmception 6y ago
Representatives don't want to be wrong if an attack happens afterwards. It is a prison of their own creation.
mrguyorama 6y ago
I'm pretty sure Obama genuinely believed the NSA and drone strikes were good things for the country, something I disagree with thoroughly
phobosanomaly 6y ago
Apathy likely plays a large role. Most people don't care enough to bug politicians about it, so politicians don't do anything about it. Most people have zero clue what PRISM is, and they just don't care. They're trying to pay rent and make sure their kids are learning long division over Zoom.
zepto 6y ago
One explanation would be some cabal or ‘the political class’ having an authoritarian agenda. The other would be that some of the danger is real and people in power are wary of giving up tools to fight it. Most likely both have significant truth.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  And/or that it's a local jobs program for enough representatives' districts that cutting it is a no-go, the same issue as with many other military-industrial programs.
the_only_law 6y ago
> Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America? You might be shocked by how many regular citizens are fine with and support systems like these.

daveevad 6y ago

The title is misleading, it appears to me, since the claim "did not prevent a single terrorist attack" isn't backed up with even a grammatically correct sentence. > a judge ruled beginning of September 2020 that not [one single terrorist attack had been stopped with the help of the NSA's phone surveillance program (sic) If you trail the linked articles you end up with this 9th circuit opinion: > The panel wrote that to the extent the public statements of government officials created a contrary impression, that impression is inconsistent with the contents of the classified record. It's my reading that pertains specifically to the case before the court and not a conclusive determination about the entirety of the PRISM program.

conistonwater 6y ago
If I understood correctly(?), the claim is that PRISM data was used in only one case, and in that case it was later judged to be irrelevant, therefore PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. But I'm not sure this is right, I found the article pretty confusing on the subject of what actually happened, so I'm not sure. Personally I agree with Imnimo's comment that this is just an overly confusing way of analyzing a surveillance program.
- remus 6y ago
  > PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. I think it's worth noting that this is also fairly normal for signals intelligence of all types. If you want to use intelligence as evidence in a trial then you have to make that evidence available for scrutiny by the defense which is something intelligence agencies almost never want to do. As I understand it (obviously Im not very informed here!) you'd normally use intelligence to identify suspects, then gather further evidence with which to secure a prosecution so you don't have to rely on the original intelligence in court. I believe GCHQ in the UK have in the past gone so far as to abandon a strong cases that hinged on intelligence data so as to not reveal the source of the intelligence.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    []u.s police departments have dropped cases that relied on evidence collected by stingrays. Anyways, using Intel to build a case so the Intel and methods aren't exposed is called parallel construction and it should be illegal to do against citizens except in extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not when police departments get bored and use the ray to take down the boys slinging bags on the block. [] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-emails-show-that-feds-instructed-police-to-lie-about-using-stingray-mobile-phone-snooping.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-e...

mikece 6y ago

It has been argued that PRISM was more about corporate espionage under the ruberic of counter-terrorism than anything else. In the book The Shadow Factory, James Bamford points out the ridiculously low prices that were available for overseas traffic to be routed into the US and then back to a neighboring country, sometimes even a different region of the same country... anything to get overseas telecoms to route traffic through a PRISIM splitter (the allegation Bamford makes is that bribery was involved to get these routing deals in place as well). It’s certainly a fanciful story but does anyone really doubt that the post 9/11 US government would do this?

bigbubba 6y ago
'Whatever makes the rich richer is what they're doing' is probably a decent first order approximation, and under that logic corporate espionage does seem very likely.
hammock 6y ago
Seems like, in a world where most traffic is encrypted, this could only be worth it if they had a way of decrypting it, no?
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
I am fairly certain that Bamford did not even come close to making the claim that PRISM was more about corporate espionage. If you have a citation that contradicts this, I’d love to see it. Yes, not only do I doubt that the post 9/11 government is spending billions (or even millions) to spy on corporations, but I’d flip your question and ask does anyone really believe that they are doing that. Before someone brings up the Petrobras example, I’ll pre-emptively point out that this isn’t in any way suggestive of what’s alleged above, and it wasn’t related to PRISM.

mcs_ 6y ago

But, if they stop an attack, say from XYZ country, is that data public? Is there any place where the failed intent of the attacks is listed?

fallingfrog 6y ago

Nor was it ever designed to do so.

ffpip 6y ago

Even if it did, I don't think they would say it stopped an attack. They don't want to encourage terrorists to move to more advanced methods.

docPangloss 6y ago

I referenced PRISM in a comment to a recent Apple article on HN a couple of days ago. It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators.[1] Anyway, it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance. Members provide access to ALL user data/information to NSA et al. Here are some technology/telecom company members (and approx. date joined): * Microsoft (2007) * Yahoo! (2008) * Facebook (2009) * Google (2009) / YouTube (2010) * Apple (2012) * Dropbox (tbd) * Verizon (and probably T-Mobile/Sprint, AT&T, etc.) These member companies are effectively an extension of three letter agencies (intel) and are above the law. A dozen+ countries participate in PRISM, too.[2] Want to Break Out of the PRISM? It’s relatively easy. The nonprofit Prism-Break provides people a path to get started.[3] Resources/Notes: [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738743 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#C... [3] https://prism-break.org/en/ https://prism-break.org/en/

mikestew 6y ago
It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators. No, the moderators appear to have done no such thing. But with that opening sentence, and closing with the equivalent of "wake up, sheeple!", I can see why it got downvoted to a light gray.
saagarjha 6y ago
> triggered HN and Apple fans This is generally not the best way to garner sympathy for your comment.
zepto 6y ago
The problem is that what you are saying is false, and the links you provide don’t back up your assertion in the slightest. Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so. The dates you quote are from slides indicating when prism started to acquire data from these companies. They have nothing to do with membership or joining. Data was obtained from these companies without their particpation, and they have taken measures to harden their systems since this was made public, for example in Google’s case prism obtained data by intercepting their underground fiber optic cables. Data was previously sent unencrypted between data centers along these, but after the intrusion was discovered, Google moved to encrypting this traffic. If you can find evidence that either of these companies willingly became members of prism, then please present it. Otherwise, you are repeating false claims.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Not only did it not prevent any terrorist attack, but was used openly as a way to build opposition research on political opponents in the USA since 2016 but probably earlier. https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210 https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-unmasking-q-a-11589481210

hashtagmarkup 6y ago

You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed. What is the point of terrorizing a country that is already terrorizing its own citizens through unwarranted prying mass surveillance?

bigbubba 6y ago
> You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed. This is the tiger repelling rock theory of anti-terrorism. I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work.
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  > I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work. Behind the scenes, the man with the rock is using it to kill every single kitten he sees when he's alone. He can't prove how useful the rock is without admitting to all the senseless murder of innocent bystanders.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    The details of my anti-tiger operations are highly classified; whoever leaked this information to you will be vilified and hounded around the globe for the rest of their life.

president 6y ago

I would expect more digging and investigation before inferring that criminal activity was not reduced in a more significant way. The linked source is a NYT article that makes conclusions based on a few selected reports.

GuB-42 6y ago

> NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation. What the ruling said is that the NSA surveillance program resulted in only one conviction related to terrorism, and that it could have been made without it. i.e. it didn't help catch any terrorist, which is a different claim. The end result is the same: the NSA surveillance program is illegal and considered ineffective, but unlike the title claim, it is a fact.

bigbubba 6y ago
> Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation. This is nonsense, foiled attacks make the news. The FBI foiled a terrorist attack against the governor of Michigan a few days ago and that certainly made the news.
- GuB-42 6y ago
  There is a difference between a foiled attack and one that is prevented. For example if you lock your bike and when you come back, you see bolt cutter marks on your lock and your bike it still there, you know that it stopped the thief. But for one attempt like that, there are probably a hundred more potential thieves that just passed by, saw your lock and didn't do anything. Seeing your lock untouched doesn't mean it is useless. It may or may not have prevented your bike from being stolen, but there is no way to be sure. In the same way, a terrorist may have had plans, but because of surveillance, he knew he would never have succeeded, and gave up. Seriously I doubt it, but that's a possibility.

rhacker 6y ago

I want Snowden to be pardoned. And I think the data collection network was both illegal and morally wrong. But that doesn't make me believe these kinds of articles. Most of these types of articles for the past numerous years have the same formula. Case X proves it was useful, case X is determined to not be relevant to the data collection methods, typically by someone biased. And it's always a judge out of one of the most liberal places. (and I'm liberal / democrat) It's weaksauce, and most of the people here are unwilling to see past it because they also agree with my first paragraph. We can have freedom and "live more dangerously". That's pretty much the entire point of how America came to be. We shouldn't spy on all of our people - and yes that comes with consequences. That's not the same as spying on specific people that we know will or may cause harm.

hash872 6y ago
I basically agree with your sentiment, but that's where politics (literally- persuading enough fellow citizens or legislators to your point of view) comes in. People think politics is this dirty, awful business, but it determines the legality or illegality of these kinds of programs. If you want to effectively advocate for change, you have to play the political system. And, telling the general public that PRISM isn't effective has a decent shot at getting these practices outlawed. Telling the general public 'sure, a few terrorists will get through here and there, but that's the price of living in freedom' is pretty much guaranteed to get you the opposite result. You have to focus on effective persuasion, and regular people won't/can't think about hard tradeoffs

feralimal 6y ago

Its only a huge waste of time and money, if you believe the purported justification - that it was to stop terrorist attacks. If you believe it was part of the new governance apparatus, I think you would consider it an unmitigated success.

maerF0x0 6y ago

And this is why we need to also halt the EARN IT Bill https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-bill-before-it-breaks-encryption-a7904e20-2083-4d5e-88ae-44ee5fef7a5d https://act.eff.org/action/stop-the-earn-it-bill-before-it-b... If only just to save the cost to taxpayers and companies for a useless policy.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

The submitted title is subtly editorialized to the point of being incorrect. The article only says that the phone surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack. It does not say that PRISM did not prevent a single terrorist attack. These are very different claims. Even where the article does use PRISM, it uses it incorrectly. PRISM is not the program that involved storing telecommunications metadata. The article claims that was one part of PRISM. This contradicts all public reporting on the two programs.

textgel 6y ago

But we were told it would save lives and was for saving the world? That means it's completely impossible for such things to be a lie doesn't it? As long as you say something is for saving the world or doing good and accuse all others who might raise questions about it of being terrorists/communists/racists/nazis etc it simply has to be true doesn't it? I mean as long as someone just says something is to save lives or for justice or to save the world you have to completely accept it without question don't you? You don't question it at all right? Or else that would make you pure black hearted evil wouldn't it? To take something done in the name of good intentions and apply rational thought and reasoning to it in the interest of affirming whether or not it would actually do good for the world or others or to achieve its goals makes you the literally the equivalent of a rapist doesn't it? I mean I just got done reading a recent hn article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 that is completely unrelated in any way whatsoever at all to anything mentioned above and I am completely shell shocked, dumbfounded! I mean how could this happen? Seriously, we were told it was to save lives? And it was said by people in official positions with credentials; which means it is literally physically impossible to be wrong in any way at all, we all know this is true! God this is all too much to take, I really need a holiday. I really hope we have a complete coronovirus lockdown for as long as it takes to kill off this virus for good so we can get back to normal and I can have one.

minerjoe 6y ago
Hasn't it always been this way? The emperor has been naked for a very long time but most people seem to care just enough to attack the messengers.
- textgel 6y ago
  I've been having this concerning feeling lately that we are in fact getting the leaders we deserve :(
  - minerjoe 6y ago
    If I had voted in the last election, I would have voted for Trump, just to hopefully have a more naked emporer. Lifelong politicians such as Biden and Obama, to me, are much more dangerous. People actually fall for their bullshit. Edit: minor. Love the downvotes, keep them coming. You know your over target when your taking flak.

branon 6y ago

I understand the intent, and agree, but Tutanota's blog posts are really low quality. I'm sure there are much better and more in-depth articles we could be reading about this.

fsflover 6y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-court-finds-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-phone-snooping-illegal-c...

shpongled 6y ago

Edward Snowden's recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast[1] was extremely interesting, and they discuss this case, among other things. Snowden is a great speaker. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl82OQDoOc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rl82OQDoOc

wprapido 6y ago

It wasn't even meant to

grillvogel 6y ago

not that I am a huge fan of PRISM or anything but this seems highly unlikely

fmajid 6y ago

Of course not. Its primary purpose is to identify whistleblowers.

minerjoe 6y ago
That is spot on, yes? I wish more people "on the inside" lived up to their oath to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But maybe the rachet had been tightened too far and they, if they even exist, just don't see a way?
- fmajid 6y ago
  Look at Ed Snowden. He lived his principles, and will basically live as an exile for the rest of his life. Most people with families and kids can't do that, no matter how principled and courageous.

vaccinator 6y ago

PRISM is thing of the past... now they have FUCKYOU...

lern_too_spel 6y ago

This is a pretty garbage article. It confuses PRISM, which is a data integration project to ingest data from the FBI into the NSA's databases, with Stellar Wind, which is the phone metadata collection program that this article is about.

01100011 6y ago

PRISM sucks, but would we really know if it led to stopping an attack? Would it's use be hidden with parallel construction? On the other hand, there is probably tremendous marketing value in publicizing any wins produced by the system.

eutropia 6y ago

A certain Noam Chomsky quote comes to mind: "If you want to stop terrorism: stop participating in it"