4 ms·

"We are appalled to learn of the unprecedented surveillance of Internet users worldwide through PRISM and similar programmes." There has not been a shred of ev

by skwirl 13y ago

"We are appalled to learn of the unprecedented surveillance of Internet users worldwide through PRISM and similar programmes." There has not been a shred of evidence that PRISM gives the government any capability that it did not already have with FISA. All we learned was the name of the system that some companies use to respond to FISA requests, a name that they weren't even aware of. There is no practical difference between the U.S. companies listed on the PRISM slides and U.S. companies that are not; FISA covers them all. The initial claims by Glenn Greenwald that PRISM gave the NSA direct access to company servers have been refuted a hundred times over and walked back by Greenwald himself. If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times.

michaelfeathers 13y ago
For me, the big takeaway is that information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected' (as they are [mis-]using the word). I don't think that is an interpretation that the lawmakers anticipated, and it is an incredible end-run with potentially cataclysmic effects for liberty. We all know that information can be leaked or misused. In fact, I think it is a truism: all 'secret' information is eventually leaked or misused. The old process, where the government had to go to court to even start to collect information about a suspect was a completely different thing with less horrific side-effects. And yes, we learned that the government may not have direct access to servers of the social media companies, but dispelling that claim brought the issue of internet backbone access to the fore.
- skwirl 13y ago
  I don't follow. "Information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected'" - what exactly do you mean? Your GMail e-mail is stored with Google. The government can only get it with a FISA request targeted at you or someone yo e-mailed (via a request aimed at their account).
  - michaelfeathers 13y ago
    Fibre optic splitter: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager... And there's this story, also on the front page of HN now: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-and-use-data-inadvertently-collected-from-communications-of-us-citizens/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-...
    - skwirl 13y ago
      This was exposed in 2006. As PRISM claims are walked back, it seems the recently renewed outrage is being pushed to other old stories.
      - tlrobinson 13y ago
        That's fine. There wasn't enough outrage the first time around.
swombat 13y ago
Way to miss the point. This kind of pointless pedantry focused on the wrong argument is one of the most self-damaging and hateworthy features of the tech community.
- skwirl 13y ago
  What was the point, then? What exactly happened recently that we are supposed to be so upset about? If PRISM was nothing, that leaves the Verizon phone metadata leak, and nothing more.
  - swombat 13y ago
    The point is we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. This fact has been shoved into our public awareness over the last few weeks, and hopefully will continue to be at the top of our minds until it's resolved, because the conclusion of such a process, left unchecked, is the end of individual freedom. The fact that "some of it was known in the past" does not make it any less worthy of our attention today.
    - skwirl 13y ago
      My point is exactly that we do NOT have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. All we have is sensationalism. This is not a "pedantic" point. In fact, we have explicitly learned that they do NOT have a backdoor to get your data from tech companies. We learned that to do so they must use a FISA order, which we have known since 2001.
      - swombat 13y ago
        If you don't have anything positive to contribute and you really think this is not worth your time, then why don't you just go away? Why the pedantic need to argue some minor sub-points when everyone else is talking about the big picture? No one cares about your arguments, and you don't seem to care about other people's arguments either. I think the best solution for everyone is if you just go and argue somewhere where people might care.
gurkendoktor 13y ago
> If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times. This is the #1 counter-comment to PRISM posts that I see, and I don't understand it. "Your opinion is invalid because I knew this all years ago"? > There is no practical difference between the U.S. companies listed on the PRISM slides and U.S. companies that are not; FISA covers them all. Which is exactly why the focus on the website is on Europe.
Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
"If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times." The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. By definition top secret documents are not public knowledge. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is?

by skwirl 13y ago

michaelfeathers 13y ago

For me, the big takeaway is that information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected' (as they are [mis-]using the word). I don't think that is an interpretation that the lawmakers anticipated, and it is an incredible end-run with potentially cataclysmic effects for liberty. We all know that information can be leaked or misused. In fact, I think it is a truism: all 'secret' information is eventually leaked or misused. The old process, where the government had to go to court to even start to collect information about a suspect was a completely different thing with less horrific side-effects. And yes, we learned that the government may not have direct access to servers of the social media companies, but dispelling that claim brought the issue of internet backbone access to the fore.

skwirl 13y ago
I don't follow. "Information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected'" - what exactly do you mean? Your GMail e-mail is stored with Google. The government can only get it with a FISA request targeted at you or someone yo e-mailed (via a request aimed at their account).
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  Fibre optic splitter: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager... And there's this story, also on the front page of HN now: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-and-use-data-inadvertently-collected-from-communications-of-us-citizens/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-...
  - skwirl 13y ago
    This was exposed in 2006. As PRISM claims are walked back, it seems the recently renewed outrage is being pushed to other old stories.
    - tlrobinson 13y ago
      That's fine. There wasn't enough outrage the first time around.

swombat 13y ago

Way to miss the point. This kind of pointless pedantry focused on the wrong argument is one of the most self-damaging and hateworthy features of the tech community.

skwirl 13y ago
What was the point, then? What exactly happened recently that we are supposed to be so upset about? If PRISM was nothing, that leaves the Verizon phone metadata leak, and nothing more.
- swombat 13y ago
  The point is we have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. This fact has been shoved into our public awareness over the last few weeks, and hopefully will continue to be at the top of our minds until it's resolved, because the conclusion of such a process, left unchecked, is the end of individual freedom. The fact that "some of it was known in the past" does not make it any less worthy of our attention today.
  - skwirl 13y ago
    My point is exactly that we do NOT have renewed, solid evidence that our governments are constructing a global surveillance state. All we have is sensationalism. This is not a "pedantic" point. In fact, we have explicitly learned that they do NOT have a backdoor to get your data from tech companies. We learned that to do so they must use a FISA order, which we have known since 2001.
    - swombat 13y ago
      If you don't have anything positive to contribute and you really think this is not worth your time, then why don't you just go away? Why the pedantic need to argue some minor sub-points when everyone else is talking about the big picture? No one cares about your arguments, and you don't seem to care about other people's arguments either. I think the best solution for everyone is if you just go and argue somewhere where people might care.

gurkendoktor 13y ago

> If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times. This is the #1 counter-comment to PRISM posts that I see, and I don't understand it. "Your opinion is invalid because I knew this all years ago"? > There is no practical difference between the U.S. companies listed on the PRISM slides and U.S. companies that are not; FISA covers them all. Which is exactly why the focus on the website is on Europe.

Andrew_Quentin 13y ago

"If you were just now appalled to learn about the changes made to FISA with the PATRIOT act, you are 12 years behind the times." The leaked documents are TOP SECRET. By definition top secret documents are not public knowledge. If top secrets becoming public knowledge is not new then what is?