4 ms·

"Direct access" was taken directly from the slides but misunderstood as editorializing by Greenwald. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42134_Greenwald-_W

"Direct access" was taken directly from the slides but misunderstood as editorializing by Greenwald. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42134_Greenwald-_We_never_claimed_direct_access_was_true http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42134_Greenwald-_We_...

mortehu 13y ago
> misunderstood as editorializing by Greenwald. Did you accidentally use the wrong word? The quote Greenwald was using: > "PRISM: Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: [...]" Greenwald's interpretation: > "The Prism program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders."
- socillion 13y ago
  It is a fact that they don't need individual court orders to obtain communications. As to "obtaining targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers", here's a quote by Gellman: > In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. Regardless of whether it is actually accurate, that is what the NSA documents stated. I think the whole "direct access" argument over semantics is a red herring and completely irrelevant by now.
  - mortehu 13y ago
    > It is a fact that they don't need individual court orders to obtain communications. Statements like these have no information value unless you back them up. For all I know, you learned this from the "The Guardian" article I just cited. > [...] allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations [...] I don't think a statement about having write access to your own hardware pertains to this discussion, even if that hardware is located in Steve Ballmer's office.
    - socillion 13y ago
      Replying to your first point, here's the relevant law (FAA 702): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a
      - mortehu 13y ago
        That's a quite long quote, and it partly contradicts your assertions with statements like > The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i). ... and the actual contents of subsection (i). You have to be more specific.

mortehu 13y ago

> misunderstood as editorializing by Greenwald. Did you accidentally use the wrong word? The quote Greenwald was using: > "PRISM: Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: [...]" Greenwald's interpretation: > "The Prism program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders."

socillion 13y ago
It is a fact that they don't need individual court orders to obtain communications. As to "obtaining targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers", here's a quote by Gellman: > In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. Regardless of whether it is actually accurate, that is what the NSA documents stated. I think the whole "direct access" argument over semantics is a red herring and completely irrelevant by now.
- mortehu 13y ago
  > It is a fact that they don't need individual court orders to obtain communications. Statements like these have no information value unless you back them up. For all I know, you learned this from the "The Guardian" article I just cited. > [...] allowing “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations [...] I don't think a statement about having write access to your own hardware pertains to this discussion, even if that hardware is located in Steve Ballmer's office.
  - socillion 13y ago
    Replying to your first point, here's the relevant law (FAA 702): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1881a
    - mortehu 13y ago
      That's a quite long quote, and it partly contradicts your assertions with statements like > The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i). ... and the actual contents of subsection (i). You have to be more specific.