3 ms·

To me the presence or absence of court orders is absolutely a substantive distinction, as is the question of whether information is requested for only a limited

• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > To me the presence or absence of court orders is absolutely a substantive distinction Its perhaps a substantive distinction in terms of the culpability of the providers, but its not (IMO) a substantive distinction in terms of the abuse of surveillance by the government if the scope of information collected is as broad as described in the story. PRISM is just as bad if it is done via broad FISA court orders of the type of the Verizon order as if it is done without a court order. > as is the question of whether information is requested for only a limited subset of customers or for all (or a significant fraction of) customers. While the providers have denied providing information as part of a "voluntary program" or "without court orders", none have addressed the scope or breadth of information, so, while that may be an important distinction, its not one that is addressed by the denials at all.