|
|
|
|
|
|
by rlu
4575 days ago
|
|
|
What annoyed me is that, as with anything, the devil is in the details. And the questions failed to clarify on details. A few examples (all quotes paraphrased): 1. "we only listen to conversations of non americans" -----Ok, so what happens when an American has a conversation with a non American? Do you tap it at all? Do you get both sides of conversation? Only one side? 2. "you can only look at a protected phone number if you have access" ----Awesome, but this is sort of a non-answer. How many people have access? How long does it take to get access? How easy is it to request access? Do you need access per phone number or if you get access for one protected number do you now get access to all of them? 3. "PRISM only lets us target US persons with probable cause under court order" -----What is a US person? US Citizen? Person living in the US? This also contradicts so much of what I thought I knew about PRISM that I'm baffled that no clarification was asked for. |
|
|
Uh, these details were actually all hashed out in the media within the couple of weeks after PRISM was initially revealed.
USPER == Anyone in the physical borders of the United States, whether a citizen or an alien.
Likewise it is true even when PRISM was described that a USPER couldn't be accessed without an Article III warrant. The big question was whether this was a technical safeguard or a "analyst follows policy" safeguard. But even for non-USPER PRISM still required at least an NSL (which the receiving company could escalate to the FISC if they felt the NSL was illegal).
If this all surprises you about PRISM then I'd humbly suggest that you've been getting fed so much misinformation that you should possibly consider using alternate sources instead of sitting back in an echo chamber. ;)