3 ms·

The slide says "PRISM\n Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: ..." How is it an "extreme interpretation" to read that as someth

The slide says "PRISM\n Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: ..." How is it an "extreme interpretation" to read that as something "direct" is likely to be happening involving "servers of these U.S. Service Providers"? Why should we bend over backwards to convince ourselves that what they really meant (but didn't say) was that they had indirect access only through intermediate layers of privacy-preserving systems that we architect from whole cloth in our own imagination?

GabrielF00 13y ago
It casts doubt on Snowden's knowledge of the situation. It makes it seem like either Snowden didn't understand what that slide is referring to. Snowden's rationale is that he was in a position to understand exactly what was going on and that he leaked because he felt it was necessary for the public to know what he knew. Snowden himself contrasted his situation with Manning - he pointed out that Manning leaked hundreds of thousands of documents indiscriminately without possibly being able to read them all or understand their consequences or the risks and benefits involved in leaking them. Snowden said that, by contrast, he was very selective in what he leaked and he understood the issues completely. But if one of the most serious claims that Snowden is making is wrong, it calls into question whether Snowden really had the knowledge that he claims he had.
- discostrings 13y ago
  I really doubt Snowden's interpretation of the slide had much to do with the article revealing Prism. The article content is seemingly based only on the 41-slide presentation itself, not the claims of its source.
- marshray 13y ago
  It doesn't discredit Snowden that he didn't clear up the confusion that results from folks not wanting to believe what it literally says in the authentic deck. He says he was an IT guy, but not the one who personally installed every undersea fiber tap or interception device. Snowden's undoing may be trying to have the baby half way. People are really pissed off about this and are going to be looking for someone to blame. I wonder if he's going to end up looking even worse than Assange in the end by assuming personal responsibility for the effectiveness of the selective editing and redaction. Personally, I don't feel like the weight of this story turns on the specifics of the interception hardware and the "directness" of the access. There's a slide deck that says "Dates when PRISM collection began for each provider" and "Collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past". And that's just the four slides that The Guardian and WaPo didn't feel were too hot to handle.
brown9-2 13y ago
It depends on what you mean from "servers of these US Service Providers", if that means a FTP site that they've set up or if it means "full access to any server of the provider's".

GabrielF00 13y ago

It casts doubt on Snowden's knowledge of the situation. It makes it seem like either Snowden didn't understand what that slide is referring to. Snowden's rationale is that he was in a position to understand exactly what was going on and that he leaked because he felt it was necessary for the public to know what he knew. Snowden himself contrasted his situation with Manning - he pointed out that Manning leaked hundreds of thousands of documents indiscriminately without possibly being able to read them all or understand their consequences or the risks and benefits involved in leaking them. Snowden said that, by contrast, he was very selective in what he leaked and he understood the issues completely. But if one of the most serious claims that Snowden is making is wrong, it calls into question whether Snowden really had the knowledge that he claims he had.

discostrings 13y ago
I really doubt Snowden's interpretation of the slide had much to do with the article revealing Prism. The article content is seemingly based only on the 41-slide presentation itself, not the claims of its source.
marshray 13y ago
It doesn't discredit Snowden that he didn't clear up the confusion that results from folks not wanting to believe what it literally says in the authentic deck. He says he was an IT guy, but not the one who personally installed every undersea fiber tap or interception device. Snowden's undoing may be trying to have the baby half way. People are really pissed off about this and are going to be looking for someone to blame. I wonder if he's going to end up looking even worse than Assange in the end by assuming personal responsibility for the effectiveness of the selective editing and redaction. Personally, I don't feel like the weight of this story turns on the specifics of the interception hardware and the "directness" of the access. There's a slide deck that says "Dates when PRISM collection began for each provider" and "Collection of communications on fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past". And that's just the four slides that The Guardian and WaPo didn't feel were too hot to handle.

brown9-2 13y ago

It depends on what you mean from "servers of these US Service Providers", if that means a FTP site that they've set up or if it means "full access to any server of the provider's".