3 ms·

According to a new slide released by the Guardian, PRISM does give direct access. [1] [1] http://guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection

According to a new slide released by the Guardian, PRISM does give direct access. [1] [1] http://guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection-facebook-google http://guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-c...

leoc 13y ago
This is not direct access in the sense which the Guardian and Washington Post suggested yesterday and the tech companies denied. OP is the Washington Post (which has access to the full PowerPoint) backing down from that claim, something it had already started to do yesterday http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washingt... . In the context of the latest slide it's clear that direct collection probably means collection from the endpoint - Google, Facebook etc. - as distinct from "upstream" collection by wiretapping IP traffic through US telcos' networks.
- grey-area 13y ago
  What's the difference? If PRISM means the NSA has unsupervised access to any records they want from these providers, that's pretty disturbing, irrespective of word-games over the meaning of 'direct'. The scope for abuse of this sort of unregulated access rubber stamped by a secret court is huge, and there doesn't appear to be any effective supervision as people like clapper are happy to lie to congress about the extent and methods of the various surveillance programs, and the companies are obliged to lie about the program and conceal its existence.
  - hannibal5 13y ago
    Secret court orders only apply for data related to US citizens. FISA allows warrantless surveillance of foreign powers. The amount of warrantless data these companies give out is unknown. >The presentation claims Prism was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US. >"Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

leoc 13y ago

This is not direct access in the sense which the Guardian and Washington Post suggested yesterday and the tech companies denied. OP is the Washington Post (which has access to the full PowerPoint) backing down from that claim, something it had already started to do yesterday http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washingt... . In the context of the latest slide it's clear that direct collection probably means collection from the endpoint - Google, Facebook etc. - as distinct from "upstream" collection by wiretapping IP traffic through US telcos' networks.

grey-area 13y ago
What's the difference? If PRISM means the NSA has unsupervised access to any records they want from these providers, that's pretty disturbing, irrespective of word-games over the meaning of 'direct'. The scope for abuse of this sort of unregulated access rubber stamped by a secret court is huge, and there doesn't appear to be any effective supervision as people like clapper are happy to lie to congress about the extent and methods of the various surveillance programs, and the companies are obliged to lie about the program and conceal its existence.
- hannibal5 13y ago
  Secret court orders only apply for data related to US citizens. FISA allows warrantless surveillance of foreign powers. The amount of warrantless data these companies give out is unknown. >The presentation claims Prism was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US. >"Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-n...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]