4 ms·

May I introduce you to PRISM? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

bpodgursky 5y ago
? Yes, being ordered and gagged by the US government is coercion. Are you familiar with the article you linked to?
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  I think the point being made is, via PRISM data is provided on the regular with zero coercion. That is, the bar is much lower than (your suggestion of) the need for coercion. Note: Not taking sides. Only trying to clear up the doubt.
  - tata71 5y ago
    > zero coercion This is false, although it's reasonable to assume that, during the coersion, some specific people or companies do roll over out of self-interest.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      Friend. It's not my position or argument. I was only trying to clear up the comms disconnect.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Facebook has no choice in the matter. Regardless- PRISM is run by the NSA to conduct court-approved foreign surveillance.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Congress approved national spying via the patriot act. That must mean surveillance is okay right since it's been supported by the courts. Right?
- onli 5y ago
  Not really court-approved, not exclusively foreign. But NSA.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    The NSA is for foreign targets. And a FISA court is a court.
    - onli 5y ago
      The NSA is supposed to act on foreign targets (which helps me in no way), but the NSA is not only listening to foreign communication. That was part of the lie Clapper told congress and then extensively discussed. FISA court is not a real court in a "rule of law" sense if it is non-public and creates secret law. Both is the case. Also, maybe even more importantly: The FISA court did not even decide on individual surveillance acts under PRISM, but about the program in whole. Both together means that in no way there is a court oversight for this kind of surveillance.

bpodgursky 5y ago

? Yes, being ordered and gagged by the US government is coercion. Are you familiar with the article you linked to?

chiefalchemist 5y ago
I think the point being made is, via PRISM data is provided on the regular with zero coercion. That is, the bar is much lower than (your suggestion of) the need for coercion. Note: Not taking sides. Only trying to clear up the doubt.
- tata71 5y ago
  > zero coercion This is false, although it's reasonable to assume that, during the coersion, some specific people or companies do roll over out of self-interest.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Friend. It's not my position or argument. I was only trying to clear up the comms disconnect.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Facebook has no choice in the matter. Regardless- PRISM is run by the NSA to conduct court-approved foreign surveillance.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
Congress approved national spying via the patriot act. That must mean surveillance is okay right since it's been supported by the courts. Right?
onli 5y ago
Not really court-approved, not exclusively foreign. But NSA.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  The NSA is for foreign targets. And a FISA court is a court.
  - onli 5y ago
    The NSA is supposed to act on foreign targets (which helps me in no way), but the NSA is not only listening to foreign communication. That was part of the lie Clapper told congress and then extensively discussed. FISA court is not a real court in a "rule of law" sense if it is non-public and creates secret law. Both is the case. Also, maybe even more importantly: The FISA court did not even decide on individual surveillance acts under PRISM, but about the program in whole. Both together means that in no way there is a court oversight for this kind of surveillance.