Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 251 posts

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#151

Post by thelean12 »

alehul wrote: post #19
jagged-chisel wrote: post #4

You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...") PRISM is a phenomenal waste of trust and money.

I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness). Is it really possible we only have Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it rea…

I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing.

The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#152

Post by jariel »

djsumdog wrote: post #24
qwerty456127 wrote: post #14

AFAIK, neither did TSA. Sacrificing privacy for security is overrated severely.

America is the only country I've flow through (15+) where you are still required to take off your shoes. It's dumb theater and the TSA is pointless.

There was a shoe bomber who almost took down an airplane. [1]

Shoes, when they are not inspected, are rational places for people to hide explosives.

While it may or may not be a 'valid' tool, it's not rational to say it's 'pointless' when it's literally a known - and used - vector of attack.

It's not 'pointless' - the question is, 'is it a good policy given the likelihood of attack, the effectiveness of 'shoes through the scanner as a means of thwarting, other tradeoffs' etc..

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#153

Post by bigbubba »

InitialLastName wrote: post #115
djsumdog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never had to do that, but I haven't flown since 2016. If I was asked, I'd refuse. If they wouldn't let me though, I'd walk away and eat the cost. I'll remember this for next time though. I'll be sure to check my phone and laptop. I could always just buy a book and not have electronic devices .. or maybe take a cassette deck.

AIUI the unlocking is usually requested at the customs checkpoint, which is after you've retrieved your checked luggage, and if you say no, you don't get to just "walk away" -- you risk finding yourself detained in legal limbo with no recourse.

I've experienced an unlock demand immediately after passing through TSA to get on a domestic flight. Had I refused I surely would have missed my flight and probably the wedding I was trying to get to. Maybe the consequences would have been even worse than that, but that alone was enough to coerce my compliance.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#154

Post by anarazel »

daveevad wrote: post #26

The title is misleading, it appears to me, since the claim "did not prevent a single terrorist attack" isn't backed up with even a grammatically correct sentence. > a judge ruled beginning of September 2020 that not [one single terrorist attack had been stopped with the help of the NSA's phone surveillance program (sic) If you trail the linked articles you end up with this 9th circuit opinion: > The panel wrote that…

> The title is misleading

The HN title certainly seems to be. My understanding is that 9th circuit opinion was talking about the bulk phone metadata collection program (which used to be enabled under section 215 and even done before ("stellar wind")), not about 702 collection. But that 702 collection is certainly part of PRISM as we understand it.

> It's my reading that pertains specifically to the case before the court and not a conclusive determination about the entirety of the PRISM program.

I understood it to be somewhat generally about bulk metadata collection under 215 (which is not all of PRISM).

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#155

Post by UncleEntity »

macintux wrote: post #101
djsumdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them. Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sl…

You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger .

> One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot...

Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#156

Post by jariel »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #39
corrund wrote: post #9

I prevented one terrorist attack by myself. Nobody knows that, because attack was prevented.

The government prevents thousands of terrorist attacks every year by being tolerable enough that the number of people filling rental trucks full of explosives is zero.

? There are actually a myriad of interlocking protocols that help to thwart such activities, to ignore them is not reasonable.

Most poignantly there is literally an Ammonium Nitrate security program. [1]

As for the 'number of truck bombings being zero' ... it did happen and the average is 'more than zero' and when we consider the implications (an entire building and 100's of dead etc.) it's a concern.

Obviously, it's hard to determine the effectiveness of the various programs because they all play a part, but that there haven't been any such bombings since then is at likely a positive sign.

[1] https://www.cisa.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#157

Post by bigbubba »

hashtagmarkup wrote: post #142
bigbubba wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed. This is the tiger repelling rock theory of anti-terrorism. I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work.

> I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work. Behind the scenes, the man with the rock is using it to kill every single kitten he sees when he's alone. He can't prove how useful the rock is without admitting to all the senseless murder of innocent bystanders.

The details of my anti-tiger operations are highly classified; whoever leaked this information to you will be vilified and hounded around the globe for the rest of their life.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#158

Post by ksk »

zepto wrote: post #81
docPangloss wrote: post #48

I referenced PRISM in a comment to a recent Apple article on HN a couple of days ago. It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators.[1] Anyway, it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance. Members provide access to ALL user data/information to NSA et al. Here are some t…

The problem is that what you are saying is false, and the links you provide don’t back up your assertion in the slightest. Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so. The dates you quote are from slides indicating when prism started to acquire data from these companies. They have nothing to do with membership or joining . Data was obtained from these compan…

I think you're correct in general (in terms of standards of evidence), but if we are to accept Google's claims at face value, then why would you not also accept the leaked emails as evidence of collaboration?

Specifically, this[1] email exchange:

NSA Director (Keith Alexander) to Google's CEO :-

"It was good seeing you recently after the meeting earlier this month"

"Google’s participation in refinement, engineering and deployment of the solutions will be essential."

Make of that what you will..

[1] : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nsa-google_n_5273437

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#159

Post by lawnchair_larry »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #107
dx87 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. While we don't know the details, it's entirely possible that it didn't stop any terrorist attacks because the intel gathered allowed the USA to remove the conditions that would have allowed an attack to be planned in the first place. Ideally, that's how it would happen, just like it's better for an organizations IT department to proactively prevent networking problems than trying to mitigate issu…

These are similar kinds of non-falsifiable claims that many authoritarian or the like use. * The stock is down 25% this year with our $100M/yr CEO, but think of how bad it would have been without them * We need tough on crime policies because unreported crimes are on the rise * Tough on crime policies deterred all the decline in crimerate * The king is good because we didnt get invaded since he sat on the throne

But this is also a non-falsifiable claim that conspiracy theorists use.

Re: PRISM – NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack

#160

Post by bigbubba »

lvass wrote: post #57
Joker_vD wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"X was Y" doesn't necessarily imply that X is no longer Y: for that, English has "X used to be Y" construct.

"is" would be so much more descriptive in this case that one could argue the usage of "was" may be intentionally confusing, as to induce the reader to imagine either the surveillance ended or became legal.

'is illegal' wouldn't communicate that it was illegal at the time. It might be taken to suggest it is presently illegal but wasn't when it was done.
Post reply on HN