3 ms·
"On April 5, according to this slide, there were 117,675 active surveillance targets in PRISM's counterterrorism database. The slide does not show how many othe
by moskie 13y ago
"On April 5, according to this slide, there were 117,675 active surveillance targets in PRISM's counterterrorism database. The slide does not show how many other Internet users, and among them how many Americans, have their communications collected "incidentally" during surveillance of those targets."
I think something is inferred there that isn't necessarily true: there being 117,675 PRISM records does not necessarily refer to 117,675 different people being targeted. The slides imply that there would be two different records for the same person's Gmail account and their Facebook account. So the number of individual people being targeted would actually be a good amount less. Yes, still tens of thousands of people... but less that 117,675.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago"targets in database" doesn't read as "PRISM case numbers" (to me). In fact, it sounds specifically different in order to indicate unique individuals. But who really knows, I guess.
- reeses 13y agoPart of the process is to unify targets across communications mechanisms. That number would very likely mean distinct "individuals," although it could include people using multiple accounts that had not yet been associated with the same person/group. It's easier when you can associate IP addresses with multiple accounts, of course, but there are a lot of traits (and I'm sure NSA has more than I am aware of) that can be used as similarity metrics to create a probabilistic hierarchy of account agglomeration. Throwing clique analysis into the mix, which is of course where the most important analysis goes, also helps establish the probability that multiple accounts may be controlled by one person.