16 ms·

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 sentenc

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...
warrenq 6y ago
I'm shocked that the supposedly smart HN crowd has fallen for click-bait, echo-chamber, filter-bubble article
anarazel 6y ago
> The title is misleading The HN title certainly seems to be. My understanding is that 9th circuit opinion was talking about the bulk phone metadata collection program (which used to be enabled under section 215 and even done before ("stellar wind")), not about 702 collection. But that 702 collection is certainly part of PRISM as we understand it. > 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. I understood it to be somewhat generally about bulk metadata collection under 215 (which is not all of PRISM).

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...

warrenq 6y ago

I'm shocked that the supposedly smart HN crowd has fallen for click-bait, echo-chamber, filter-bubble article

anarazel 6y ago

> The title is misleading The HN title certainly seems to be. My understanding is that 9th circuit opinion was talking about the bulk phone metadata collection program (which used to be enabled under section 215 and even done before ("stellar wind")), not about 702 collection. But that 702 collection is certainly part of PRISM as we understand it. > 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. I understood it to be somewhat generally about bulk metadata collection under 215 (which is not all of PRISM).