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

171–180 of 251 posts

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

#171

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mikece wrote: post #31

It has been argued that PRISM was more about corporate espionage under the ruberic of counter-terrorism than anything else. In the book The Shadow Factory, James Bamford points out the ridiculously low prices that were available for overseas traffic to be routed into the US and then back to a neighboring country, sometimes even a different region of the same country... anything to get overseas telecoms to route traff…

I am fairly certain that Bamford did not even come close to making the claim that PRISM was more about corporate espionage. If you have a citation that contradicts this, I’d love to see it.

Yes, not only do I doubt that the post 9/11 government is spending billions (or even millions) to spy on corporations, but I’d flip your question and ask does anyone really believe that they are doing that.

Before someone brings up the Petrobras example, I’ll pre-emptively point out that this isn’t in any way suggestive of what’s alleged above, and it wasn’t related to PRISM.

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

#172

Post by zepto »

fsflover wrote: post #167
zepto wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but not trusting them doesn’t mean that I accept any old bullshit people want to say about them without supporting evidence.

Practically everything that Snowden leaked turned out to be true. I would not call that bullshit.

I am not calling Snowden’s leaks bullshit either.

Nothing Snowden leaked actually corroborates DocPangloss’s claims.

Snowden showed that these orgs were compromised by prism, not that they willingly joined.

That’s the point.

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

#173

Post by bleepblorp »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #119
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.

Yeah, at least the CIA claimed that "enhanced interrogation techniques" was yielding actionable intelligence. I remember a story from years ago that some lab was working on a lens for a satellite for the NSA with a resolution that would be able to discern different coins on the ground from space. They were complaining that, after all their work, the job was cancelled, and they weren't going to get paid. What it meant…

Identifying a coin from orbit is almost certainly physically impossible due to the diffraction limit[0] and the maximum payload diameter of existing space launch vehicles.

As for the PRISM replacement, it's fair to assume that the NSA simply buys whatever social contact graphs it wants from Facebook and commercial data brokers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system

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

#174

Post by lawnchair_larry »

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…

You are correct that parent is wrong (and horribly wrong, to the point of downright fabrication beyond anything Snowden has ever said), but actually you are also wrong. Under PRISM, data cannot be taken without participation. The simple reason for that is that “participation in PRISM” more or less means you respond to court orders.

You are confusing it with other programs. The one you are referring to was reported as a joint operation with GCHQ called MUSCULAR.

Google and Apple’s denials of PRISM participation are kind of semantic. One, they do not refer to it by any NSA codename, so they can truthfully say they don’t participate in something called PRISM, whatever PRISM supposedly is. Second, PRISM was incorrectly described as direct server access without approval. Both companies can truthfully claim that they do not participate in such a program, whether that program is PRISM or not. The truth is that they do “participate”, but that isn’t what PRISM actually enables.

That’s the best denial they can give due to the nature of the gag order.

From trumancenter.org:

If the NSA’s descriptions are accurate, the NSA’s PRISM program allows them to seek electronic data on non-U.S. Persons under FISA warrants applied to foreign electronic traffic travelling through U.S. servers with filters and controls to prohibit use of data of U.S. Persons that may get caught up in the dragnet. The expressly prohibits the use of FISA warrants toward U.S. Persons, but it is not as clear as to what happens to data on U.S. Persons that get picked up in large dragnets aimed at non-U.S. Persons. Much of the accuracy of claims depend on the certified disclosures to Congress by the Attorney General that such safeguards exist and are in place.

So, “participation” means you respond to FISA warrants, which isn’t optional.

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

#175

Post by bleepblorp »

failuser wrote: post #137
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.

One reason not to do that is to hide your methods. The usual tactic to show good anti-terrorist results is to inject provocateurs into fringe groups and paint them as thwarted terrorists. I hope that US is not going that route.

The US already has gone down that route.

Most of the Islamist terrorist plots federal authorities have 'broken up' over the past twenty years have involved undercover agents leading on people who are too dysfunctional to be dangerous to do things for which they can be convicted.

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

#177

Post by greyhair »

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…

If you count domestic terror, for example, the recent conspiracy to kidnap a Governor (or possibly two).

That should count.

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

#178

Post by devenblake »

bigbubba wrote: post #146
devenblake wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If wearing a mask stopped the government from being able to listen in on my phone calls I'd wear it in the shower. This new normal means I don't have to put on deodorant and I can get away with shaving every other day, I love it.

You could easily live like a slob before 'new normal', if that's really the lifestyle you desired.

That's true but misses my point; people's perceptions of me haven't changed because nobody (should) be going close enough to me to smell me and because my mask conceals any stubble of mine.

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

#179

Post by bumby »

bigbubba wrote: post #139
bumby wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plausible counterpoint is that renaming can also remove a lot of the social stigma, leading to more people getting treatment. As an example, I believe many prefer using the term "post-traumatic stress/PTS" now because it removes the "disorder" stigma. I.e., it better communicates that it's a natural reaction to such stress and nothing to be ashamed of [1] https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/ptsd/relate…

You might be right that this motivates the 'euphemism treadmill', but if so I think that's misguided. It's my personal belief that the stigma follows the condition itself (particularly when untreated), not the name given to the condition. When I was a kid my friends and I all knew that you had to step light around some people's fathers because they were Vietnam vets with hair triggers that would go ballistic for seem…

To be clear, I don't think the nomenclature is the sole driver of social stigma, just a contributor.

As an analogy, I doubt anybody thinks the social stigma around trisomy-21 is solely attributable to previous politically incorrect terminology but continued use of those former terms doesn't help alleviate that stigma.

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

#180

Post by ksk »

zepto wrote: post #170
ksk wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

They are evidence of some kind of collaboration. The problem is that evidence of collaboration doesn’t substantiate anything at all about participation in prism or any other illegal or underhanded scheme. We know that Google does have portals to service lawful government information requests. It’s also entirely possible that Google participated in some kind of analytics development based on their web indexing and not…

I guess we'll have to wait for another leak to get confirmation on the exact nature of the relationship.
Post reply on HN