4 ms·
Well, these denials were just proven to be false by a statement issued by James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence. The statement confirms the e
by downandout 13y ago
Well, these denials were just proven to be false by a statement issued by James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence. The statement confirms the existence and active use of the program, though he insists that the data is only used for targeting non-US persons. Here is his statement:
"The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.
Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.
Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.
Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.
Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.
The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans."
In any event, each of these denials were just refuted by the man in charge of the program. So much for trusting anything any of these companies say ever again.
- nostrademons 13y agoMost likely: the name "PRISM" is made up (or was never revealed to tech companies), and so when you ask any of the tech companies involved, they're like "Huh? What?"
- btilly 13y agoI do not see where in James Clapper's statement there is a claim that Google, Apple or FB participated in PRISM. That said, the only way I can square his statement with the facts is that when you collect information on EVERYONE, then you haven't targeted ANYONE in particular. Which is exactly what this warrant enables the FBI to do. Also it should be noted that all denials have included the admission that companies are forced to comply with lawful requests. A request that comes complete with a warrant from a judge will be usually seen as lawful, even though there might be issues with the warrant. Thus a company could "only comply with lawful requests" and also turn over all of their data under a warrant like this. That said, Google has been vocal enough in protesting government attempts to troll through its data that I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. But I think that we'll soon have more details.