Comment by timr
13 years ago
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
13 years ago
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
A warrant that applies to everyone, and is not based on probable cause, quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
A warrant that says "allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets".
That's not much of a warrant that respects the 4th amendment.
"A warrant that says 'allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets'."
So far, no evidence has been produced to support your assertion. In fact, all evidence in the leaked documents, official statements, etc. suggest the exact opposite: warrants are served that allow investigators to make specific searches, with oversight processes to try to reduce the number of US citizens' data included in the search.
In other words: prove your claim. Cite something other than a Reddit or HN comment from a tinfoil hat-fitting specialist.
Obama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse.
In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
5 replies →
? Maybe I'm missing something, but you should re-read carefully http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record... and see if you still think the same... by the way that news story was built on information leaked by Edward Snowden. So, in my opinion, that's why he's an American hero because he directly responded to people like you to provide real proof that, yeah, things are really bad right now, worse than almost everyone thought (except for us tinfoil hat types).
5 replies →
I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?
You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
"I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?"
Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage.
What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court.
Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
I know for a fact is does not. Even with the traditional criminal warrant (say a mafia boss) they only need a warrant for ONE person on the call.
Did Spitzer or Petraeus have conversations with foreign participants?
Take a look at this comment of mine.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851