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

241–250 of 251 posts

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

#241

Post by mafuy »

slg wrote: post #149
ianbutler wrote: post #5

No one should be surprised by this. This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. Much like the patriot act and our secret warrants, founded on a dubious premise that over the last 20 years have largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. This is a system designed to protect the larger system from any civs who may be getti…

>largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. If we actually want to convince people that this needs change, we need to hold both sides of the debate to the same standard. We searched for any concrete evidence of these measures adding safety, found none, and then concluded it didn't add safety. The next step is to look for concrete examples of how this erodes fre…

Isn't this something that has been shown in history time and time again? Look e.g. at recent German history: Nazis abused data collection to find and kill Jews and political opponents, and soviet Stasi invaded privacy to find, imprison and torture political opponents. Beyond this concrete evidence, there is also the indirect impact by the "chilling effect". I believe many or most of us experienced this effect already. So I'm entirely certain that the negative impact is easy to see.

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

#242

Post by jessaustin »

UncleEntity wrote: post #235
bigbubba wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous formulations of this rule. The one used by the US Marines is 'Never point the weapon at anything you do not INTEND to shoot.' In this formulation of the rule, pointing a gun with the intent to threaten isn't valid, since an intention to threaten is not an intention to shoot.

What they tell you and what actually happens on the battlefield are two different things. I've pointed weapons at people without the intention of shooting them while covering other solders and on occasions where they "just didn't look right" -- can't just randomly start shooting people but you also don't want to be caught off guard if they decide to start shooting at you. The last time this happened some car rolled u…

I'm sorry for what was done to you in the military. Please try to find a different way of existing in our society. People you'd never suspect have firearms, and will use them to kill you in response to the behavior you describe here.

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

#243

Post by minerjoe »

textgel wrote: post #215
minerjoe wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't it always been this way? The emperor has been naked for a very long time but most people seem to care just enough to attack the messengers.

I've been having this concerning feeling lately that we are in fact getting the leaders we deserve :(

If I had voted in the last election, I would have voted for Trump, just to hopefully have a more naked emporer. Lifelong politicians such as Biden and Obama, to me, are much more dangerous. People actually fall for their bullshit.

Edit: minor. Love the downvotes, keep them coming. You know your over target when your taking flak.

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

#244

Post by orthecreedence »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #231
orthecreedence wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PRISM is a good one...? National security letters as well. Black sites. The penal/prison system in general.

None of these originated in the current administration.

So what?

> This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism.

That was the original claim. You're the only one who's talking about the current administration.

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

#245

Post by lawnchair_larry »

zepto wrote: post #227
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that’s not correct. As I said, that was MUSCULAR, not PRISM. The interception against US companies like Google was not done in the US, and there is a good reason for that. You are mixing up different programs. Feel free to dig up the original reporting. They were distinct programs. PRISM requests are serviced by the provider and go through the FBI. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSCULAR_(surveillance_progr...

I stand corrected.

Thanks, nobody ever owns it after digging in ;)

This is what I meant by quasi-voluntary. They were not oblivious and hacked without their knowledge (under PRISM, that is - they were other ways), but they didn’t exactly have a choice.

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

#246

Post by artificialLimbs »

orthecreedence wrote: post #244
artificialLimbs wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these originated in the current administration.

So what? > This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. That was the original claim. You're the only one who's talking about the current administration.

onedogright: "I see plenty of examples of authoritarianism in the current U.S. administration"

Oooohk...

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

#247

Post by orthecreedence »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #246
orthecreedence wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? > This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. That was the original claim. You're the only one who's talking about the current administration.

onedogright: "I see plenty of examples of authoritarianism in the current U.S. administration" Oooohk...

The NSA is not a part of the "administration?" Or are you just being overly sensitive and defensive of the "administration" because in the current paper-democracy four-year cycle, it happens to be run by republicans (who are always good and entirely infallible)?

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

#248

Post by Dirlewanger »

aww_dang wrote: post #233
Dirlewanger wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At a recent happy hour, a friend-of-a-friend who is into all government conspiracy theories (including thinking Covid is a hoax) was there. It got kind of heated, and one question I asked him was "If the government is so hellbent on instituting surveillance technology everywhere, why would they also advocate for you to wear a mask, which hinders current face recognition capabilities?" Unsurprisingly, he didn't have a…

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/03/how-china-built-... >How China built facial recognition for people wearing masks: Hanwang says its technology has reached 95% accuracy in identifying mask wearers.

That's comparing snapshots to an existing database though, not on its own. Still, it's a start...

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

#249

Post by fmajid »

minerjoe wrote: post #200
fmajid wrote: post #176

Of course not. Its primary purpose is to identify whistleblowers.

That is spot on, yes? I wish more people "on the inside" lived up to their oath to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." But maybe the rachet had been tightened too far and they, if they even exist, just don't see a way?

Look at Ed Snowden. He lived his principles, and will basically live as an exile for the rest of his life. Most people with families and kids can't do that, no matter how principled and courageous.

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

#250

Post by docPangloss »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #245
zepto wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand corrected.

Thanks, nobody ever owns it after digging in ;) This is what I meant by quasi-voluntary. They were not oblivious and hacked without their knowledge (under PRISM, that is - they were other ways), but they didn’t exactly have a choice.

Replying to the person stating I provided "false" info, which is all supported by links and sources!:

It’s always “conspiracy theory”...until it becomes “conspiracy fact” years later.

Read Google’s (or Apple’s, or Yahoo’s) denial of participation in PRISM. The statements are examples of “Lying by Omission.” Verizon actually shared documents/orders it received from NSA, astonishingly. If one understand the basics of law, the omissions and doublespeak deniability are the most revealing and damning:[1] [2]

* “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”: The NSA is not “the U.S. government”; neither are the contract intel companies that have access to data as middleman for NSA.

* “...does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers.”: But Google does not deny “indirect” access or a ‘door’ – otherwise its crafty attorney would have stated “neither direct nor indirect” and certainly would not have narrowed the access point to only a “back door.” Doublespeak.

* Regarding giving data to the government upon request: “Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.” ‘Frequently pushes back’ – that’s laughable.

* “Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period.” Perhaps the press stated ‘open-ended’ but that’s not what Edward Snowden stated or leaked in documents. The prism program is not about “open-ended” access.[2]

The similarity of statements by the legal teams of Google, Apple, and Yahoo leads one to believe they are adhering to NDAs and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) restrictions about what they may say about PRISM or whether they ever heard of the program. So Apple, Yahoo, and Google all used doublespeak deniability in the carefully crafted legal pressers.

[1] http://www.thepaepae.com/google-denies-prism-direct-access-o...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/07/doublespeak-denials-and-br...

Other resources:

[3] NSF / DARPA (indirect NSA) funding that backed the inception of Google: https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

[4] The PRISM slides: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism...

[5] References to Snowden’s leaked docs (one needs to investigate the offlinds to original leaked docs; difficult to obtain): https://www.cloudwards.net/prism-snowden-and-government-surv...

[6] A money paper trail: NSA paid the companies for compliance! (but these companies and their legal teams denied – and continue to deny – either having known about the PRISM program or making data accessible to the NSA and related contractors via said program): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...

___

When in doubt, check your assumptions...because your assumptions are likely invalid.

Post reply on HN