[discostrings]

> I'd be more interested in a study that asked people if they knew what they were actually outraged about.

To list a few reasons people are outraged: -Surveillance has been revealed that seems to far exceed what is authorized by the Patriot Act -The executive branch refuses to release the legal rationale on which it justifies the surveillance -Senior officials have lied to Congress about the scope of surveillance -Congress has not properly been briefed on these programs -There programs were kept secret unnecessarily -These programs are extremely dangerous to a free society -It appears this is a serious overreach in executive power, indicating a breakdown in the checks and balances of a functioning representative government

> A majority of the insinuations of the original "leak" have since been retracted

I don't know of any insinuations that have been retracted. The NSA slides say one thing, and the companies say another. There is still much to resolve.

> and those actually following the details of the story have no belief that there is anything illegal going on.

This is completely false. There seems to be a claimed legal basis for what's going on (which happens to be an extreme interpretation of the Patriot Act that even its author states goes beyond what it was written to authorize). But it hasn't been ruled on by a court because the executive branch claims it is too secret for judicial review. When that obstruction is removed, it's likely to be found unconstitutional.

Sure, people you interview might not be able to clearly express the reasons they're outraged. But there are at least three tiers of reasons to be concerned. Please consider reflecting on the fact that a claim of legality is not a claim that something is not terribly wrong and dangerous for society.

[res0nat0r]

Here is a summary of the Guardian story and what has been changed: http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-th...

"Updated June 10 to include a quote from a follow-up article in the Post directly contradicting its initial claims and another observation after the release of the leaker's identity."

[discostrings]

That's a summary of the Washington Post story and what was changed. It looks like the Washington Post reporting of this was a disaster. Not only did they initially publish language that was more sweeping than the Guardian, but they had absolutely no backbone and edited their story when companies said the NSA slides were wrong.

It seems the claims of the Guardian have not been edited, proven incorrect, or retracted. I haven't re-read their entire article, but it appears to be the same one that was initially published.

It appears that the exposé you linked eventually concludes: "According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers." Looking at this from a process perspective and not a technical one, it appears there is little functional difference between this and "direct access" to servers. And it perfectly explains why the NSA presentation cut to the point: you get data from the company's systems without the company being involved.

It's up to the companies and the NSA to clarify things, but it appears the NSA slides are likely correct in terms of process, if not in technical terms.

[res0nat0r]

It looks like the Guardian is changing their story as of today: http://www.mediaite.com/online/fulsome-prism-blues-the-guard...

[discostrings]

That link is to a ridiculous "story". See my responses in the main thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5876943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5877115

[res0nat0r]

Oops that is the WaPo story you are right. Also the summary above sounds like the story that floated by on HN yesterday (hard to keep track since all this site is this week is NSA outrage), IE: data is sent via sftp to offsite servers by humans when complying with requests.

[skwirl]

In your first paragraph, you seem to assert that this program is as The Guardian reported (that is - essentially unfettered access to private data stored with tech companies). In your second paragraph, you seem to admit that we don't really know and there is more to be resolved.

Ultimately, I think you are talking past the person you are replying to. You are arguing that the program as reported by The Guardian (essentially unfettered access to personal data stored with tech companies) is horrible. He is arguing that the program is not what it is being made out to be, and the differences between what it is now popularly believed to be and what it is are tremendous. That is a more fundamental argument that would make the other argument moot if it is true.

See: https://medium.com/prism-truth/82a1791c94d3

[discostrings]

No--my points stand even on the basis of just the phone record collection.

The questions about Prism just add more to potentially be worried about.

[skwirl]

We're all going to need to be specific with what we're talking about or we really are talking past each other.

I think that right now the vast majority of the outrage here is over PRISM, although, if PRISM turns out to be a non-issue, I'm sure the outrage will simply migrate to the phone records issue.