Comment by logn
13 years ago
? 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).
That's not PRISM. That's the other program revealed last week. The warrantless collection of phone number "metadata" has also been ruled legal by the Supreme Court, whereas the legal basis for PRISM has never been reviewed by SCOTUS.
Which leads me to an important aside: how much of the outrage being vented here comes from people who don't even know that these are two different programs? Take everything you read here with a huge block of salt.
I know the difference between the two. My point was that the Verizon collection of data very clearly was for the entire customer base of their major subsidiary. Also this 'metadata' has a staggering amount of information, like geocodes, dialed and received numbers, potentially content of SMS, downloaded apps, sites visited, etc. Further if this subsidiary controlled any Internet backbone (which I have no idea if that's the case), the implications are huge.
Edward Snowden's rationale for leaking this info is that people never realized that collection of metadata of phone records and PRISM and other programs had gone so far. Maybe SCOTUS ruled on some of this, but the public never realized the implications, largely because it's all protected by top secret classification.
I used the Verizon story in my comment because those implicated in PRISM said in their carefully crafted PR messages that their warrants were for specific subjects and unlike Verizon's vast dragnet. Anyhow, as other have pointed out, it's not hard to draft a specific warrant for the narrow group of 'every US user 13 years or older' which is what I'd presume PRISM involved. Also, the slides leaked for the PRISM stories showed that PRISM was the improvement on older collection techniques of essentially splicing Internet backbone cables.
Agreed on taking replies here with a grain of salt.
"I know the difference between the two. My point was that the Verizon collection of data very clearly was for the entire customer base of their major subsidiary."
Again, though...that program is legal. It's not even a controversial point (unlike with PRISM). From what I know of it, the rationale for the supreme court decision that says mass collection of metadata is legal is fairly well established, has a long judicial precedent, etc.
Yes, Snowden's rationale seems to be forthright. He's bothered by the implications of surveillance on this kind of scale. And I get it -- hell, I even agree. But most of the commentary I've been seeing on HN is just embarrassingly uninformed (or misinformed).
"it's not hard to draft a specific warrant for the narrow group of 'every US user 13 years or older' which is what I'd presume PRISM involved."
All of the public information about PRISM has explicitly said that information can only be obtained when one party to the conversation is a foreign national. I've read nothing to suggest that broad warrants of the sort you describe are any more legal than before.
1 reply →
> Anyhow, as other have pointed out, it's not hard to draft a specific warrant for the narrow group of 'every US user 13 years or older' which is what I'd presume PRISM involved.
Can you really get a warrant that broad? I assumed PRISM still entailed warrants issued on a user-by-user basis.