4 ms·
First you state that PRISM isn't used domestically. Then you admit that it is used domestically. I have no idea why you're mentioning warrants from the 1800's.
by SapporoChris 3y ago
First you state that PRISM isn't used domestically. Then you admit that it is used domestically. I have no idea why you're mentioning warrants from the 1800's. "The feds were getting warrants to open mail in the 1800's." Are you trying to suggest it is used only infrequently?
While the number of times PRISM is used domestically is unknown, the attempts to keep the number unknown is eyebrow raising.
"Wyden repeatedly asked the NSA to estimate the number of Americans whose communications had been incidentally collected, and the agency’s director, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, insisted there was no way to find out. Eventually Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III wrote Wyden a letter stating that it would violate the privacy of Americans in NSA data banks to try to estimate their number." https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligenc...
- Workaccount2 3y agoYou do not need a warrant for international communications performed by non-citizens (whether inside or outside the country) You do need a warrant for communications done by citizens domestically. PRISM did not change that, it has been the same for centuries. So even if PRISM captures domestic communication, a warrant is still needed to view it. There has never been a time in US history when then feds didn't have access to warrants to tap communications.