Posted on 06/08/2013 11:53:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Well, golly, this might be just a tad inconvenient for the establishment spin on PRISM, if true. After the Washington Post and then the Guardian exposed the NSA’s Internet snooping program, a few of the named Internet companies denied giving the NSA any access to their servers. Instead, they told the New York Times that they provided blocks of information pursuant to FISA court orders and placed them in virtual dropboxes for the agency to access. That would, as Red Alert Politics notes, make the program legal and narrower than originally thought, although still a worrisome development for privacy.
However, now the Guardian says that this is just spin, because new slides from the internal PRISM presentation claim to have direct access to the servers after all. Oh, and PRISM and BLARNEY weren’t the only NSA programs involved, either:
Some articles have claimed that Prism is not a tool used for the collection of information from US companies, but is instead an internal tool used to analyse such information.
Others have speculated – in the light of denials from technology companies about granting “direct access” to servers – that Prism operates through interception of communication cables.
Both of these theories appear to be contradicted by internal NSA documents.
In the interests of aiding the debate over how Prism works, the Guardian is publishing an additional slide from the 41-slide presentation which details Prism and its operation. We have redacted some program names.
The slide, below, details different methods of data collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism, which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from four different programs involving data collection from “fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past”.
Here’s the slide:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Bump
So now we know how the white hut knew ob out the obscure Ben ghazi video.
The WashPost actually reported this first?
I saw nothing until the Guardian came out with it.
The FISA court order on page 2 contains non-disclosure requirements.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order
The order pretty much stipulates that they’ve got to maintain the secret, they can’t publicly admit anything about the order or what they’re doing in following the order.
All parties cited in the UK article on PRISM denied participation. But we know Google and Facebook are already going in the direction of Big Brother. And these companies pretty much worship Obama or like government contracts.
Do you believe the companies who deny wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment, or the British?
I love when the spooks spook themselves. Let’s see some more of this.
------
Green party politician Malte Spitz sued to have German telecoms giant Deutsche Telekom hand over six months of his phone data that he then made available to ZEIT ONLINE. We combined this geolocation data with information relating to his life as a politician, such as Twitter feeds, blog entries and websites, all of which is all freely available on the internet.
That Obama-the-Undocumented Moslem Tyrant by Fraud
CONTINUES to lie to Congress (through his Czar and aids)
is treason.
The STENCH of IMPROPRIETY
FROM THE Chicago Mob is overwhelming.
American journalism has sunk to such a low, the only credible recipient of this year’s Pulitzer Prize may be Britain’s Guardian.
I’m stuck somewhere between lies and plain old bumbling incompetence. There are way too many people mouth-shooting about web/communications/monitoring/intercepting/etc. sorts of things that they are clearly not knowledgeable about. And most of this is not news anyway. From the days of the first geosync telephone satellite the NSA has used its dish farm in West VA to monitor everything that comes or goes from it and all its cousins. The NSA is capable of listening to virtually every air-link in the communications of the world-—microwave, short radio, aircraft, AM FM, WIFI and the rest that I’ve forgotten. Airborne transmissions are NOT SECURE. If you have something important to say at least say it on a land line——they have to get a regular court warrant to listen to that.
Pay attention folks. To survive the 21st century you’ll need to know more than the operation of a flush toilet and where the porn favorites are on your PC.
The main thing is. Will anyone go to prison?
Otherwise this all amounts to a show of their power.
With the purposeful intent of intimidating people further. (Not true patriots but the majority of the mushy American populace) .
“If you have something important to say at least say it on a land line——they have to get a regular court warrant to listen to that.”
Thank you for your post. Perhaps you know the answer to my question: if a person has a land line but it’s connected to the same modem (I think that’s what it’s called, not sure) as the internet connection (Xfinity), is the land line (cordless phone and old push buttone princess phone) secure or not?
Best,
SC
the important thing is whether I can get my movie at Redbox
The companies’ lies are well-worded. They apparently had n Israeli firm helping the NSA, and they did the spying or something.
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
The telephone half of your home land line is as secure as a court warrant can make it. your computer modem, if it uses your land line, operates on the same phone wire but in a different frequency band so your high speed PC traffic goes thru a third party like a LAN, Google, etc. so that part can be seen by others. Your push button Princess is as secure as a home phone can be. Your home cordless signal is not powerful enough to get outside your house walls so it’s ok. But if you have a satellite phone you’re talking to the world. If you happen to live in a neighborhood that is fiber optic-connected your line conversations are also as safe as a search warrant but everything else involves a third party. It’s always that third party exposure that creates the weak link and the exposure. Remember that the phone company guys are not the problem-—they live in the same neighborhood and understand clearly the risk of double crossing a customer.
We can. but it ain't easy.
I would say possibly not. If your “land line” is going through a modem, it might be VOIP, which would not be secure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.