Live data from Hacker News

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

tutanota.com

1–10 of 251 posts

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

#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.

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

#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 getting a little too rebellious.

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

#7

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.

[deleted]

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

#8
I very strongly recommend reading Dark Mirror by Bart Gellman.

https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781594206016

It's a look at the reporting of PRISM and other Snowden leaks by the guy who first broke the leaks. Pet jarring look at how the program can't to be, and how it evolved.

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

#10
post #6

>The NSA phone surveillance program was illegal and expensive: And it did not stop a single terrorist attack "Was" illegal?

It was recently found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, no? This seems to be asserting a stronger claim that it was also illegal then, not that it has since ceased.
Post reply on HN