8 ms·
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
by timr 13y ago
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
- spikels 13y agoI love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it? You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
- timr 13y ago"I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?" Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage. What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court. Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
- eightyone 13y agoTake a look at this comment of mine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851
- staunch 13y agoA warrant that applies to everyone, and is not based on probable cause, quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
- mtgx 13y agoA warrant that says "allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets". That's not much of a warrant that respects the 4th amendment.
- timr 13y ago"A warrant that says 'allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets'." So far, no evidence has been produced to support your assertion. In fact, all evidence in the leaked documents, official statements, etc. suggest the exact opposite: warrants are served that allow investigators to make specific searches, with oversight processes to try to reduce the number of US citizens' data included in the search. In other words: prove your claim. Cite something other than a Reddit or HN comment from a tinfoil hat-fitting specialist.
- staunch 13y agoObama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse. In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
- timr 13y agoThat's a different program, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of collecting the "metadata" that it's gathering, without a warrant. It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here.
- losvedir 13y ago> It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here. Is it, though? The widespread Verizon metadata gathering is what I'm most concerned with right now. It, too, was whistleblown by Snowden. > the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality I understand this program to be ruled unconstitutional by the Foreign International Surveillance Court, albeit with the findings suppressed by the justice department for "national security" reasons. I thought this was the stuff Senators Wyden and Udall were briefed on and aghast about, but unable to explain to the American people. Do you understand this differently?