6 ms·

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-banne

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.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so. And you of course trust them.
  - zepto 6y ago
    No, but not trusting them doesn’t mean that I accept any old bullshit people want to say about them without supporting evidence.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      Practically everything that Snowden leaked turned out to be true. I would not call that bullshit.
      - zepto 6y ago
        I am not calling Snowden’s leaks bullshit either. Nothing Snowden leaked actually corroborates DocPangloss’s claims. Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined. That’s the point.
        fsflover 6y ago
        > Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined. Not true. Snowden showed that Apple and Google were "commercial partners" with PRISM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)#Global_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure....
        zepto 6y ago
        That doesn’t mean they willingly joined PRISM, knew that they had joined, or knew what data the NSA was taking. As has been discussed elsewhere there are legitimate and legal reasons for them to cooperate with the NSA in certain ways. Those two words change nothing more than that there was a partnership of some kind. No evidence has ever been produced of these companies knowingly participating in the kind of bulk data collection that PRISM is asserted to be. I’m not claiming to be certain they didn’t participate. I am claiming that the evidence clearly doesn’t not support that claim yet.
meowface 6y ago
>it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance I don't think it's practical to expect either ordinary consumers or tech-savvy people to completely avoid all use of any Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, YouTube, Apple, Dropbox, or Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/AT&T product or service, or to use Tor or I2P 24/7 as that website seems to suggest. In how many cases were those companies essentially forced or heavily pressured to participate?

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.

fsflover 6y ago
> Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so. And you of course trust them.
- zepto 6y ago
  No, but not trusting them doesn’t mean that I accept any old bullshit people want to say about them without supporting evidence.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Practically everything that Snowden leaked turned out to be true. I would not call that bullshit.
    - zepto 6y ago
      I am not calling Snowden’s leaks bullshit either. Nothing Snowden leaked actually corroborates DocPangloss’s claims. Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined. That’s the point.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        > Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined. Not true. Snowden showed that Apple and Google were "commercial partners" with PRISM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)#Global_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure....
        zepto 6y ago
        That doesn’t mean they willingly joined PRISM, knew that they had joined, or knew what data the NSA was taking. As has been discussed elsewhere there are legitimate and legal reasons for them to cooperate with the NSA in certain ways. Those two words change nothing more than that there was a partnership of some kind. No evidence has ever been produced of these companies knowingly participating in the kind of bulk data collection that PRISM is asserted to be. I’m not claiming to be certain they didn’t participate. I am claiming that the evidence clearly doesn’t not support that claim yet.

meowface 6y ago

>it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance I don't think it's practical to expect either ordinary consumers or tech-savvy people to completely avoid all use of any Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, YouTube, Apple, Dropbox, or Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/AT&T product or service, or to use Tor or I2P 24/7 as that website seems to suggest. In how many cases were those companies essentially forced or heavily pressured to participate?