3 ms·
An NSA release that is confirmed by another party such as Senator Wyden, Rand Paul, ACLU or EFF. Realistically I'm not sure what the NSA would share with anyon
by cracell 13y ago
An NSA release that is confirmed by another party such as Senator Wyden, Rand Paul, ACLU or EFF.
Realistically I'm not sure what the NSA would share with anyone that could be conclusive. But a logical explanation of how the NSA gets into data without corporate cooperation and that explanation matching up with the timeline presented on the one slide would be a great start.
For instance, you could argue that the PRISM timeline is simply showing once the NSA had filters in place to identify and capture general internet traffic headed to and from those specific companies. But this has a large hole in that why would Google, a company who's search queries would be highly valued, come so far after Microsoft on the timeline. So an explanation that addresses the large questions like that.
As opposed to the current situation which is a credible leak that makes Google look very bad, an executive branch that is defending the information in the leak as being legal and Google flat out denying any involvement.
- aniket_ray 13y agoI think you're conflating two different issues. The government was defending intercepting emails and getting phone records. The government too never claimed that they can access data from web companies.
- mpyne 13y agoOf course the company would have to cooperate to make PRISM work, but I think you're missing what PRISM is meant to do on the company end. It takes what the company was doing manually before PRISM (complying with NSLs and FISA warrants)... and automates part of that process. What it doesn't do is insert NSA as a wiretap into all their systems's traffic, as that's not what FISA compliance needed in the first place.