5 ms·

Marc Ambinder (the author) posted a new article late last night which goes into much more detail: http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of

Marc Ambinder (the author) posted a new article late last night which goes into much more detail: http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-of-prism http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-... Each data processing tool, collection platform, mission and source for raw intelligence is given a specific numeric signals activity/address designator, or a SIGAD. The NSA listening post at Osan in Korea has the SIGAD USA-31. Clark Air Force Base is USA-57. PRISM is US-984XN. Each SIGAD is basically a collection site, physical or virtual; the SIGAD alphanumerics are used to indicate the source of intelligence FOR a particular report. The NSA often assigns classified code names to the product of SIGADs. These can be confused with the nicknames or proper names of the collection platforms themselves, which may or may not be classified. What PRISM does is classified; the fact that there is a "PRISM" tool that does something is not. ... So: An analyst sits down at a desk. She uses a tool, like PRISM, to analyze information collected and deposited in a database, like CONTRAOCTAVE. Then she uses another tool, perhaps CPE (Content Preparation Environment), to write a report based on the analysis. That report is stored in ANOTHER database, like MAUI. MAUI is a database for finished NSA intelligence products. Anchory is an intelligence community-wide database for intelligence reports. --------------- And here is the core of it: This is all very complicated, and that is on purpose. But this brief tutorial is important. PRISM is a kick-ass GUI that allows an analyst to look at, collate, monitor, and cross-check different data types provided to the NSA from internet companies located inside the United States. The programs that use PRISM are focused, as the government said yesterday, on foreign intelligence. A lot of foreign intelligence runs through American companies and American servers. ... Now, these accounts are being updated in real-time. So Facebook somehow creates a mirror of the slice of stuff that only the NSA can access. The selected/court-ordered accounts are updated in real-time on both the Facebook server and the mirrored server. PRISM is the tool that puts this all together. Facebook has no idea what the NSA is doing with the data, and the NSA doesn't tell them. So, PRISM is the name of the software application(s) used by an analyst that allows them to pull together all the various pieces of data that they receive from these companies, along with other sources, for their analysis. Which of course, explains why the companies have never heard of this name. There is no reason for them to have. And what the NSA has isn't necessarily "direct access" to the servers - PRISM gives the analyst "direct access" to the data that has already been collected by many different means.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> And what the NSA has isn't necessarily "direct access" to the servers - PRISM gives the analyst "direct access" to the data that has already been collected by many different means. Right, the data may be provided directly from the servers rea time to the collection that the analyst uses, but the NSA wouldn't directly access the provider's servers. In fact, that would be counterproductive, as then users with privileged access to the provider's servers (provider side admins) could monitor what the NSA was doing with the data.
danso 13y ago
So the key question is, if this part is true: > Now, these accounts are being updated in real-time. So Facebook somehow creates a mirror of the slice of stuff that only the NSA can access. The selected/court-ordered accounts are updated in real-time on both the Facebook server and the mirrored server. Does this "slice" contain material and accounts gathered only after the legal review that Facebook claims that it performs? If so, then this story gels with what the NYT reported, that some organizations have built a secure framework to expedite the transmission of requested data...which makes sense, depending on the nature of the investigation...that is...if the NSA has requested data on a suspect on an ongoing case...then they'd probably want that datastore to be updated...in the same way that they want wiretaps to stay on the wire during the investigation. Note: this is not to say that such surveillance is justified, but that this program makes sense with what Facebook and Google said yesterday and with the reports by the WaPo and the Guardian. Whether this is substantially worse than the other apparatuses we have in place, such as NSL, is also up for debate.
- omd 13y ago
  Facebook and Google have always been the least transparent imaginable AND they're both in damage control mode AND they're obviously under some DHS gag order. So why anyone would give any credence to a word they say is beyond me.
  - danso 13y ago
    It's not out of faith in Google or Facebook, it's that they have put up a reasonably testable defense rather than what they could've done, which is to remain mostly silent. Moreover, the very size and complexity that most people distrust them for also means that their cooperation with any government function is going to involve a lot of moving parts...it's not likely to be the case that Zuckerberg can lie about something and be sure that those involved all stick to the script. So given that, I think it's worthwhile to actually test their assertion (I.e. not rush to judgment) rather than patting ourselves on the back with the logical fallacies of: * "Well, the reports about Facebook and Google must be true because it comes from a group that is itself evil and who I would normally not believe" (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) * "Well, what else would you expect an obviously evil entity to say after being accused of evil acts?" (circular reasoning). Again, it's not because Google and Facebook are poor disenfranchised groups that must be sympathized with, but because it feels a little dishonest to subject them to the same kind of inescapable logical trap that our government has used to go after and prosecute suspected enemies of the state Just out of curiosity...can you really not imagine a less transparent corporation than either Google or Facebook?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> And what the NSA has isn't necessarily "direct access" to the servers - PRISM gives the analyst "direct access" to the data that has already been collected by many different means. Right, the data may be provided directly from the servers rea time to the collection that the analyst uses, but the NSA wouldn't directly access the provider's servers. In fact, that would be counterproductive, as then users with privileged access to the provider's servers (provider side admins) could monitor what the NSA was doing with the data.

danso 13y ago

So the key question is, if this part is true: > Now, these accounts are being updated in real-time. So Facebook somehow creates a mirror of the slice of stuff that only the NSA can access. The selected/court-ordered accounts are updated in real-time on both the Facebook server and the mirrored server. Does this "slice" contain material and accounts gathered only after the legal review that Facebook claims that it performs? If so, then this story gels with what the NYT reported, that some organizations have built a secure framework to expedite the transmission of requested data...which makes sense, depending on the nature of the investigation...that is...if the NSA has requested data on a suspect on an ongoing case...then they'd probably want that datastore to be updated...in the same way that they want wiretaps to stay on the wire during the investigation. Note: this is not to say that such surveillance is justified, but that this program makes sense with what Facebook and Google said yesterday and with the reports by the WaPo and the Guardian. Whether this is substantially worse than the other apparatuses we have in place, such as NSL, is also up for debate.

omd 13y ago
Facebook and Google have always been the least transparent imaginable AND they're both in damage control mode AND they're obviously under some DHS gag order. So why anyone would give any credence to a word they say is beyond me.
- danso 13y ago
  It's not out of faith in Google or Facebook, it's that they have put up a reasonably testable defense rather than what they could've done, which is to remain mostly silent. Moreover, the very size and complexity that most people distrust them for also means that their cooperation with any government function is going to involve a lot of moving parts...it's not likely to be the case that Zuckerberg can lie about something and be sure that those involved all stick to the script. So given that, I think it's worthwhile to actually test their assertion (I.e. not rush to judgment) rather than patting ourselves on the back with the logical fallacies of: * "Well, the reports about Facebook and Google must be true because it comes from a group that is itself evil and who I would normally not believe" (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) * "Well, what else would you expect an obviously evil entity to say after being accused of evil acts?" (circular reasoning). Again, it's not because Google and Facebook are poor disenfranchised groups that must be sympathized with, but because it feels a little dishonest to subject them to the same kind of inescapable logical trap that our government has used to go after and prosecute suspected enemies of the state Just out of curiosity...can you really not imagine a less transparent corporation than either Google or Facebook?