• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PRISM

BeachBumDeac

BeachBumDeac

Cheap Date
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
27,699
Reaction score
15,291
I thought this needed its own discussion, since 1) It's way more serious than phone records and 2) The other thread predictably devolved into Bush vs. Obama 9/11 shit.


Apple, Facebook, and Google have all come out with strong language saying there is NO way the government has a back door onto their servers, and that they don't share user information without court order etc. etc.

So who do we believe?
 
Nobody knows what to believe.

I would like to believe companies like Apple and Google are telling the public the truth -- that they haven't allowed a 'back door' into users' data and their networks. But then again, it could very well be true that the spokesperson from each company isn't high enough in the chain of command to really be "in the know."
 
Possible that the leaked slides were a proposed system that never got fully implemented?
 
The Facebook and Google denials are eerily similar- I think they're being disingenuous. And let's not forget, OBAMA CONFIRMED THE PROGRAM'S EXISTENCE today.
America's tech giants continued to deny any knowledge of a giant government surveillance programme called Prism, even as president Barack Obama confirmed the scheme's existence Friday.

With their credibility about privacy issues in sharp focus, all the technology companies said to be involved in the program issued remarkably similar statements.

All said they did not allow the government "direct access" to their systems, all said they had never heard of the Prism program, and all called for greater transparency.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/google-facebook-prism-surveillance-program
 
Also, the idea that Prism is only looking at foreigners and is not regularly scooping up info on innocent Americans is horseshit.
Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by the Post instruct new analysts to submit accidentally collected U.S. content for a quarterly report, “but it’s nothing to worry about.”
Indeed, 51 percent confidence isn't very confident at all. Even when the system manages to work properly and find a person who reaches said "foreignness," because of the way the Internet works, that process still leaves a lot of people's innocent information collected by the NSA program run out of Fort Meade, as Gellman and Poitras explain: "To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in." In addition, analysts are taught to "chain through contact to 'hops' from their target," meaning that all the contacts — likely innocent Americans — are being spied on as well. If the program says it needs two hops, it's worth remembering that we're all 4.74 hops away. As the Post team adds, the whole PRISM process is literally as easy as "a few clicks"
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/nsa-prism-program/65994/
 
OGBDeacon07 said:
Nobody knows what to believe.

I would like to believe companies like Apple and Google are telling the public the truth -- that they haven't allowed a 'back door' into users' data and their networks. But then again, it could very well be true that the spokesperson from each company isn't high enough in the chain of command to really be "in the know."
Click to expand...


Why would you believe them? Twitter told the government no and isn't on the list.

Also those companies keep and use all sorts of personal data on every user and sell it to whomever is willing to pay.
 
RJKarl said:
Why would you believe them? Twitter told the government no and isn't on the list.

Also those companies keep and use all sorts of personal data on every user and sell it to whomever is willing to pay.
Click to expand...

Because Google has more information on us than the Gov't! That's why I hope they're not blanket sharing it all!
 
From Google:

"We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for use information."
 
They allocate $20mm a year to this. No way are the closely monitoring all of the data available from these companies. That would take Google levels of infrastructure.
 
Yeah, I'm sure they would put everything out there in public about their budget....no black budget here for a secret program.

They shouldn't get getting this data AT ALL! Just a continuation of this gov't pissing on the constitution when it suits them.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
Yeah, I'm sure they would put everything out there in public about their budget....no black budget here for a secret program.

They shouldn't get getting this data AT ALL! Just a continuation of this gov't pissing on the constitution when it suits them.
Click to expand...

They had the annual cost listed on the slides that leaked. It isn't public information.
 
Now Reuter's reporting that the Gov't will likely open a criminal probe into the NSA leak.

The law enforcement and security officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said the agencies that normally conduct such investigations, including the FBI and Justice Department, were expecting a probe into the leaks to a British and an American newspaper.
Click to expand...

Gotta love these leaks upon leaks!
 
I'd be stunned if a similar program didn't exist beginning in the early 90s. There's no question all sides have been monitoring the internet since the mid-late 90s.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
From Google:

"We cannot say this more clearly—the government does not have access to Google servers—not directly, or via a back door, or a so-called drop box. Nor have we received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media. It is quite wrong to insinuate otherwise. We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. And we have taken the lead in being as transparent as possible about government requests for use information."
Click to expand...

I don't know why PR people think statements like these help. "Does not have access to Google servers" is an extremely limited statement. You have to assume Google is making the broadest denial they can, and the best they can do is deny that the government "has access to Google servers." The loud and clear implication is that the government is getting all that information without whatever Google defines as "access." It's also clear that Google is the subject of blanket orders. Otherwise they would have denied it, but all they said was that their blanket orders are not "of the kind being discussed in the media." Of course, because they involve computers and not phone records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top