[lawdawg]

Bravo Edward, and yet very little is said about PRISM at all. When will we finally get to the bottom of what PRISM actually is? When will the public get access to the entire set of slides? How much exactly did Edward know about PRISM, or did he just stumble onto these slides and assume the worst?

So many questions, so few answers. Hopefully the coming weeks sheds more light onto this.

[mortehu]

> When will we finally get to the bottom of what PRISM actually is?

Is there any particular reason why you don't believe the fact sheet from the Director of National Intelligence[1] or Marc Ambinder[2]?

According to these sources (selected excerpts):

> PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program.

> PRISM is a kick-ass GUI that allows an analyst to look at, collate, monitor, and cross-check different data types provided to the NSA from internet companies located inside the United States.

> All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

1. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8dPmI7DfkxMejNyazZYMl93dlk/...

2. http://theweek.com/article/index/245360/solving-the-mystery-...

[jdp23]

I don't believe the DNI because of his testimony to Congress in February claiming that the National Security Agency does not “wittingly” collect data on millions of Americans. We now know they've been collecting data for tens of millions of Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint/Nextel customers since 2006.

More recently he also claimed that PRISM wasn't a previous-disclosed data collection program. It hadn't been previously disclosed before; and it is collecting data.

So, let me turn this around. Is there any particular reason why you do believe him?

Marc Ambinder's article, by contrast, is quite believable. But going beyond the quote you pulled, he also has lists quite a few open questions about PRISM collecting data on US persons. So it seems to me that we're still a long way from the bottom.

[mortehu]

> More recently he also claimed that PRISM wasn't a previous-disclosed data collection program. It hadn't been previously disclosed before; and it is collecting data.

The grammar here is slightly confusing. Do you believe PRISM is collecting data in a previously undisclosed way? If so, why?

[jdp23]

PRISM had not been previously disclosed. PRISM is collecting data.

[mortehu]

For now (until it's replaced by hits from blogs), you can Google for "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management", and you'll get plenty of hits describing intelligence job positions and PDFs with descriptions like "PRISM: A web-based application that provides users, at the theater level and below, with the ability to conduct Integrated Collection Management (ICM). Integrates all intelligence discipline assets with all theater requirements."

[acqq]

...and the FISA Court makes the blanket orders allowing the security organizations to have billions of collections in the U.S, see the output of the program made by NSA:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-in...

It is all "legal" in a sense that there are court orders, but there are no real checks as the orders are blanket ones.

Moreover, to read your mail older than 180 days from any provider according to the current laws they don't need any order at all to do it legally:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/fourth-amendment-em...

[mortehu]

Are you sure you're not conflating various types of SIGINTs here? We're discussing PRISM specifically. The article you linked does not even mention PRISM.

[acqq]

Neither I nor you can be 100% sure what's going on (unless you are one of the guys "inside," heh) but I think it's good that now people start to care if the executive organizations are giving themselves unchecked powers.

Let's see if "it's legal" as said by those you quote simply means "we don't need to ask anybody for permission" and "every three months we get from our court the permission to do anything." The fact is that they use such arguments, let's see the extent of it. The recent news seem to suggest that it's bigger that it was known up to now.

[mtgx]

No, I do not believe him. He's lied before and committed perjury. Why should I believe him now?

[lawdawg]

No reason, but PRISM as explained in #1 doesn't seem like that big of a deal, or at least, not that much more shocking then what we already knew.

[mortehu]

As far as I can see, this debacle is entirely the fault of one journalist at The Washington Post, and the people who believed his interpretation of some aspects of some PowerPoint slides. A lot of hot air was also generated by people who had forgotten about interception facilities like Room 641A, and thought it was news.

</unsubstantiated-claims>

[vbo]

Previous instances of abuse don't legitimise abuse.

[brown9-2]

A lot of info is out there if you can sift through the breathless hyperbole: http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=245360