PRISM

[Gerontophile]

PRISM

Thanks Nef: After visiting that page, I now have to put my 'Kentucky' coat on.

I am using Google Chrome. I fear nothing and no-one. Except tourists on bikes in Fuengirola. I carried a tennis racquet. "For the mosquitoes, don't you know?" when stopped by the police... yeah, that worked.

[Gerontophile]

PRISM

I have no idea what to think or say about this. It is not something that really matters to me, unless I say something stupid, like 'Kill all everyone everywhere' type thing, and much as I am a bit of a nutter, I tend not to do that anyway.

The occasional 'Fuck you' notwithstanding.

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

Nefertiti2 wrote: "collection direct from the servers of these US service providers..."

Doesn't tell you anything, because it could be one of two things:

1. The authorities have a backdoor to all those servers
2. The companies listed have designated servers that are accessible by the authorities, where information is placed in response to official requests. So a fancy Dropbox if you like

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

Senior officials with knowledge of the situation within the tech giants admitted to being confused by the NSA revelations, and said if such data collection was taking place, it was without companies' knowledge.

An Apple spokesman said: "We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order," he said.

Joe Sullivan, Facebook's chief security officer, said it did not provide government organisation with direct access to Facebook servers. "When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinise any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."

A Google spokesman also said it did not provide officials with access to its servers. "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door' for the government to access private user data."

Microsoft said it only turned over data when served with a court order: "We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don't participate in it."

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

@Nefertiti2

So you're arguing US intelligence is simply hacknig Facebook and Google servers? Really?

[Gerontophile]

PRISM

NCIS do that every week on TV.

*Not helping, I know.

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

I'm quoting The Guardian. it's the newspaper that broke the story.

They in turn interviewed spokespeople from all the major companies mentioned in the leaked Prism document.

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

There's no daylight between what Nef's long quote says and what Stumpy is suggesting: it could well be a fancy dropbox which can only be accessed with a court order.

Which is consistent with how the US govt has described it as well.

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

How sweeping those requests can be the Verizon ruling makes clear. If you can access all phone records for two months, I think like the US government you're hiding behind semantics.

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

"Dropbox everything for the next two or three months" "okay"

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

I think it's actually more like "dropbox everything, always so that when the need arises and we get a court order we can have access to past data while you and we can both claim we never go on facebook/google/etc". The $20 million is essentially for creation and maintenance of the dropbox and what must clearly be some pretty massive servers.

The search warrants may well be overly broad - I haven't really kept up with the Verizon thing. But presumably that's a general critique of US law not a specific critique of PRISM.

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

So is this a story or not? If you're right, all data is available at all times.

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

Anton Gramski wrote: I think it's actually more like "dropbox everything, always so that when the need arises and we get a court order we can have access to past data while you and we can both claim we never go on facebook/google/etc". The $20 million is essentially for creation and maintenance of the dropbox and what must clearly be some pretty massive servers.

If you can duplicate all the necessary capacity for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and AOL for $20m, then you are an IT genius.

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

True enough. So how would the dropbox work, d'you think then? Would they limit the data fields they're asking for?

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

Nefertiti2 wrote: So is this a story or not? If you're right, all data is available at all times.

We don't really know.

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

Anton Gramski wrote: True enough. So how would the dropbox work, d'you think then? Would they limit the data fields they're asking for?

I imagine they deposit the information requested in the subpoena (or whatever the official request is). And the government has a key to this encrypted facility.

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

Nefertiti2 wrote: So is this a story or not? If you're right, all data is available at all times.

Legally, all data is always available at all times, subject to a warrant, isn't it? If the police or the government thinks a crime has been committed, it is never a problem to access electronic records.

What this case raises is how easy companies should make it for governments to execute such warrants, and whether making it too easy makes government want to use it more. I think.

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

Stumpy Pepys wrote:

True enough. So how would the dropbox work, d'you think then? Would they limit the data fields they're asking for?

I imagine they deposit the information requested in the subpoena (or whatever the official request is). And the government has a key to this encrypted facility.

Mustn't it be broader than that? They wouldn't need a special program just to do that, would they?

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

I would say that access to data- and metadata- seems to be on a scale unprecedented that it is a fucking big story. We don't the mechanics of access. We do though know from the Verizon case that the US Government routinely demands and gets all the data available from all phone calls through a network for a three month period from a single request. that is in my view a fucking big deal. And I think it's down to you Mr Pepys to explain why you think it isn't.

[Stumpy Pepys]

PRISM

Nefertiti2 wrote: … that is in my view a fucking big deal. And I think it's down to you Mr Pepys to explain why you think it isn't.

Erm, did I say it wasn't?

What I did say was that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the authorities have backdoors to the servers of Google, Facebook, Apple et al.

[Nefertiti2]

PRISM

Stumpy Pepys wrote: Just got around to reading this thread.

With the exception of AG, this is just the typical one-eyed, knee-jerk response that's synonymous with the web.

If the US government had a back-door to Facebook, Google and so on, then I'd be similarly outraged. Except it's not apparent (and pretty unlikely) that they have.

There is an important debate to be had on this subject, but I don't think this is the smoking gun you think it is.

More on how it works here

[Amor de Cosmos]

PRISM

Stumpy Pepys wrote:

With the exception of AG, this is just the typical one-eyed, knee-jerk response that's synonymous with the web.

Wait up.

So you believe these practices don't contravene both the letter and spirit of the fourth amendment? Or you believe they do, but it doesn't matter?

[Anton Gramscescu]

PRISM

If a court order is required to initiate a search, how does it breach the 4th amendment?

I understand nef's point about how broadly the terms of the search are defined, but that's not specific to PRISM.

[Amor de Cosmos]

PRISM

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Were Verizon subscribers notified that such a search and seizure was going to be — or had — taken place?

It isn't just about PRISM is it? That's merely part — though an important part — of a rapidly thickening wedge that's eroding personal rights and freedoms. This was reported, and pretty much shrugged off, back in 2006. Now, with more meat on it's bones, it's back again. This time if there isn't, at the very least, an extensive debate on the issue then, frankly I don't know what it will take for people to actually give a shit.

[ursus arctos]

PRISM

It's a valid question, but if the report that that FISA has approved every single one of the thousands of search requests made in the last two years is accurate, the system clearly isn't working the way it was intended. Even Texas judges turn down warrant requests every now and then.

The same goes for the breadth of the Verizon request, which genuinely shocked a lot of people who have far more experience with this field than I do.