![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"Edward Snowden Q&A: Dick Cheney traitor charge is 'the highest honor'". The Guardian. June 17, 2013.
It's a primary source but a fascinating read, and it will be heavily covered in the press tomorrow. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know whether Wikimedia or one of its sister projects is affected by PRISM ? I am wondering whether NSA wants to know the e-mail addresses of all Wikimedia users. See also Commons talk:Privacy policy#PRISM. -- Bautsch ( talk) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed information from this resource due to concerns about recentism:
Perhaps it can be seen as "recentish" now, but I think there will be more articles on how this impacts Obama's approval rating/perception as a president, and so we should keep this as a note, and revisit it later when more sources come out WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
More on Obama approval ratings published today. Dezastru ( talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been a turning point until reliable sources say there's been a turning point. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Anna Lekas Miller wrote the following article: Miller, Anna Lekas. " If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance." The Guardian. Wednesday 19 June 2013. Retrieved on 20 June 2013.
I do not know if she is Palestinian. I have this there so editors have a list of resources in case this becomes something bigger. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The following language was/is in the lead section:
According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM cannot be used to intentionally target any Americans or anyone in the United States. Clapper said a special court, Congress, and the executive branch oversee the program and extensive procedures ensure the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of data accidentally collected about Americans is kept to a minimum.[16] Clapper issued a statement and "fact sheet"[17] to correct what he characterized as "significant misimpressions" in articles by The Washington Post and The Guardian newspapers.[18]
I removed it with the comment: "remove Clapper as not reliable even with attribution due to WP:PRIMARY and prior perjury. Statements from Obama or other officials would be more appropriate."
Somedifferentstuff reverted with the comment: "What are you doing? There is no violation of WP:Primary. Every source here is secondary except for the fact sheet which is attributed."
Clapper's statements and the fact sheet are indeed primary sources. They're accounts by a person directly involved in the issue. Primary sources must not only be attributed but they "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." As indicated by discussions above and the edit history of this article, Clapper's statements were added to the lead not to explain the government's formal position on PRISM but to add "balance" to reliably sources, i.e. news stories by the WaPo and the Guardian. In contrast, Clapper's statements are not at all reliable. Aside from him being a highly interested (i.e. biased) party, he's perjured himself on this very subject. We simply cannot lean on his statements, especially in such a prominent place as the lead, without explaining this. Otherwise we're giving equal weight between his statements and the WaPo and Guardian, which is WAY out of WP:BALANCE.
If the decision is to give some voice to the government in the lead then we would be much better referencing other officials such as... President Obama perhaps? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you trust Bill Clinton to tell you what happened in the Oval Office with Monica? Would you trust Madoff to tell you what happened with the investments he made off with? Of course not. We wouldn't "balance" (or attempt to "provide neutrality" against) news reporting by established media outlets with statements why these people. Why? Because they have a proven track record of lying on those subjects. Clapper is no difference. So yes, I have a bias against Clapper, as should any responsible reader/editor. We must assess the reliability of his statements based on context, which includes his honesty (or lack thereof) in the past. But the real bottom line is, why not substitute his statements with those of other officials who don't have the same credibility issues? That would solve the WP:BALANCE issues (which I share). -- Nstrauss ( talk) 04:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In any controversy about the actions of an organization, that organization's response belongs in the intro per NOPV. We need reliable sources to verify that the response is indeed the official response of the organization, but it is not for us to judge the credibility of the response. As long as the response is clearly attributed, our readers can make that judgement.-- agr ( talk) 17:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Three sources:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the reason Ron Paul's opinion should be included? [4] Widefox; talk 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be lacking information about the Netherland's leaks revealing it taking part in Prism, Belgium too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.70.216 ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
On the DuckDuckGo page I added:
Does this fit under domestic response... or should it be a new section? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources that could be useful:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As i said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=561052904&oldid=561052715 i ask for the removal of protection for this page, 'cause its locking was based on clumsy excuses. 79.25.98.5 ( talk) 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The point, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&action=edit&undoafter=560938400&undo=560939116, is that nobody asked Google about a backdoor, and also PRISM's not about "backdoors". A backdoor is usually something that a developer put inside the code of a program so that it can access that program without alerting the legitimate user. In this case (PRISM) there's nothing like backdoors because the firms (Google/FB/etc) are the maintainer of those systems.
It's stupid to think that they'll put backdoors in their own systems to allow access to somebody else. The only option that make sense could be they (Google/FB/etc) allowing direct (not hidden, aka not backdoor) access to their system, letting the NSA use the very same interfaces that their (Google/FB/etc) sysadmins use every day to do maintenance of the system.
Backdoor is the bad term because it means something hidden, and this (PRISM) is not the case since Google/FB/etc are accused of being well informed and of collaborationism with the NSA.
Like for example the AT&T case with NSA rooms copying traffic some (5 or 6) years ago: Was it a "backdoor" ?!? obviously NO! it was an entire room and AT&T was aware of that.
Ok i can change that sentence and put "although a backdoor is not a necessary requisite to grant the government that kind of access". 87.2.112.110 ( talk) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>[http://books.google.de/books?id=RgSBGXKXuzsC&pg=PA49&dq=Backdoor&hl=de&ei=nCwfTJvGKM-VONCdsKEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false "Computer Security - Protecting digital Resources", ISBN 978-0763759940, Robert C. Newman, Februar 2009, Pg. 49]: "Backdoor software tools allow an intruder to access a computer using an alternate entry method. Wheras legitimeate users log in through '''front doors''' using a userid and password, '''attackers use backdoors to bypass these normal access controls.''' [...]", books.google.de</ref> (as found on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/backdoor ) 87.2.112.110 ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
87.2.112.110, Wikipedia works by consensus. Please stop re-adding the "Google backdoor" material until consensus has been reached here. If you continue edit-warring you will be blocked. See WP:EW. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The best way to resolve this, 87.2.112.110, is to see if a newspaper source makes this exact argument (you want to avoid accusations of WP:Synthesis, meaning editorial synthesis of two sources that don't make Point B in order to claim Point B) - Check the American, British, Hong Kong, and other newspapers WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"[...] that we have created a government ‘back door' into our systems," Are they negating the presente of the backdoor or the authorship of such a backdoor?
" but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data." Do they have a backdoor for other uses? Or do they allow the gov to access private user data via other means ( NOT via backdoor) ?
"[A]ny suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." Also this is misleading. If the NSA, according to leaked infos, had complete access to the "information about the users", there is no need for Google to "disclose" (aka "give" ) such infos to the NSA. Since the NSA has that kind of (complete) access, it (NSA) can simply get the infos by itself, without asking google each time it (NSA) wants some infos.
87.2.112.110 ( talk) 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(conflict)
@Nstrauss
95.236.41.160 ( talk) 21:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This is totally out of control! The following is conjecture, like the sort that people engage in, in forums and comments sections:
It shouldn't be the basis for an encyclopedia article. Also, stop saying that Google is a "collaborator" with the NSA! The NSA is a U.S. Federal government agency, and Google is incorporated in the U.S.A., as well as having its servers (some of them), under U.S. government jurisdiction. Until stated otherwise by Rule of Law and due process, Google is law abiding and so is the NSA. It is misleading and inaccurate to write anything to the contrary, not here. We still don't know what happened, this is an ongoing event, and anyone who reads this article should not be inadvertently deceived by content alleging that Google or the NSA have been charged with criminal misconduct. The entire back doors thing is still conjecture, as we STILL don't really know what Prism (PRISM?) is. -- FeralOink ( talk) 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what other editors thought about the title of the article. The program is called PRISM but that is just a redirect to PRISM (surveillance program). But yeah, I was just curious what everyone else thought. Cheers, — - dain omite 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Does anyone know if there are Wikipedia articles for the surveillance scandals involving the the Maryland State police (2008) [7] or the NYPD (2012) [8]? 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The reality of treating foreign nationals as terrorist targets by PRISM allows the NSA to forcible confine individuals for internal affairs and this allegedly could be broadened to include US citizens. [1]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatum81 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a HUGE new story that just came out and puts a lot of stuff into perspective: Gellman, Barton (June 16, 2013). "U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata". Washington Post. Mandatory reading for anyone working on this article or anything related.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The photo showing that the company Apple is a provider for PRISM is incorrect. 17.26.244.103 ( talk) 21:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This brings the total to 8.
Some things to note: the surveillance and "stored comms" chosen by the analyst may happen prior to FISA or "S2 FAA Adjuticators" (slide 1)
Prism Case notations explainer.
(slide 3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ -- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the edits of "19:50, 27 June 2013 Someone not using his real name"? I believe he/she put some webpoll there to make Prism-scandal more 'digestible' for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 ( talk)
[10] is any of this new and notable? May122013 ( talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to go off-line now, but this should be covered. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Folks, I really think we need to have one central 2013 NSA leaks article, which links all of the ones that have been created and expanded ever since the Guardian began punlishing on June 6.
Why is it all caps? Some other reason? It should be noted in the article somewhere... Hires an editor ( talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources, including worldwide services, are beginning to say "Prism" which also implies it is not an acronym. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CNET claims: "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management": see What is the NSA's PRISM program? (FAQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bautsch ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
What the Prism people call themselves should be given top precedence — look at the top of this article to see the logo: "PRISM". And the CNET claim just noted seems right. Thanks, Bautsch! [CAPS-answer is "good enough for government work"] ;-) :-) — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What's in a name (and logo diagram)? While the article is to not include original thought (one Wikipedia founder thinks this is a WP weakness) we can use the TALK page here for connecting the dots, so to speak. And if 'Prism' refers to the effort, and 'PRISM' refers to the tool of the effort, what can be made of the choice of the logo and codename? Suppose it is not about the letters forming an acronym but rather the physics of prism-optics? Editors can watch for information about Prism/PRISM taking the information stream of all bandwidth in USA/world and splitting it to interested departments of national interest, such as the IRS, DHS, NCS, CIA, WH. Just a concept to watch for and which explains better than searching for an acronym. We didn't find one. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the title "Prism" is simply inspired from this image about the working of the Naurus Nsystem : http://narus.com/solutions/narus-nsystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 ( talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh - Prism is a commercial product from Voxeo Labs that does at NSA exactly what it is intended for... ok, maybe its slightly modified... ;) see here: http://voxeolabs.com/prism/ I read this that often across the web that I even don't remember where I first encountered it... -- Jussty ( talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I added a new section/paragraph to Restore_the_Fourth {Amendment} since there were 10,000 protestors across USA yesterday, Independence Day. To wit: To get back to the "original intent" of the Constitution can be Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, or Liberal; even Libertarian or Green. For example, Liberals and Conservatives both do not like the government spying on citizen eMail to an intrusive extent. Hence the protest against the NSA Utah Data Center by a small group of Restore the Fourth people. [12] and [13] "The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding what is reasonable is at the center of the national debate over the NSA's data seizure ..." according to the protestors today. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Kim Dotcom's quote as I felt his opinion was no more notable than any other tech entrepreneur's. 79.6.38.82 added it back with the comment: "Kim Dotcom 's notable since the PRISM program is not only about mass surveillance: It's also about economic/industrial spionage/operations. Eliminating KimD. they advantage US firms vs non US ones." A follow-up comment by the same editor said: "Btw the problem is not only the snooping of communications between K.Dotcom and that firm. Problem is also the manipulation (*alteration*) (by Nsa) of such communications. (that's what PRISM is all about))."
79.6.38.82, if you can support any of those assertions with reliable sources then we should add them to the article right away. If you can't, then you shouldn't be using them to support the inclusion of the Dotcom quote. I'll give you a few days. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to convince me of anything. You just need to find me reliable sources that support your position. No reliable sources, no Kim Dotcom. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 06:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh btw: i am 79.6.38.82 (just for safety ;) 87.2.112.195 ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems like classic
original research to me. You're cherry picking sources that don't actually say what you're saying and then extrapolating with no basis. That's not what we do here. You cite the reference to "transit traffic" in the PRISM slide as proof that the purpose of PRISM is to manipulate data, rather than to collect it? Where does that come from? You cite an article about ECHELON to draw conclusions about PRISM. You also rely on an unsubstantiated accusation by a British intelligence expert (Campbell) as conclusive proof. And then you rely on claims of a "ramping up" of "fears" of industrial espionage (broken link, btw) to "prove" that PRISM is used for industrial espionage. Sorry, these sources don't come close to cutting it. And yes, the Wikipedia community expects you to do your own research if you're going to throw around such unsubstantiated allegations.--
Nstrauss (
talk)
23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike that. You're the same Italian IP-hopper who provoked a very disruptive discussion earlier and was responsible for this article becoming semi-protected. Funny how you didn't disclose that. You're being uncivil and you also seem to have chronic WP:IDHT. Please drop this pestering or we'll go back to the noticeboards for further sanctions. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike that. Do you work for the NSA? Your nick also made me think that Ns = National security ? dont take it as an offence. I'm just asking, since there's some rule here on wiki against conflict of interests and i noticed your disruptive behaviour when it comes to handle facts that could damage the public image of the NSA or the US gov. 79.11.238.206 ( talk)
You failed again in explaining why the Kim Dotcom comments are not ok in the article (and the WP:OR has nothing to do with this, since here we are in a Talk page and that pretext doesnt work here, since the Talk page goal is to allow the users to use ORs.) The part you removed contain sources (The Guardian and the chinese newspaper). (and i'm still 79.11.238.206) 79.6.100.101 ( talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
@NsAtrauss: oh good you 'protected' the page again? Is this your normal behavior or was it $haped by money?
you're nuts(<- removed according to
WP:PA)
79.6.100.101 (
talk)
23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The Domestic Response section was tagged as being too anti-PRISM. Rather than just leaving the tag there and making no effort to adjust the balance, can someone suggest what material to add that shows support for the program? I've tried a number of searches looking for support from the usual political commentators, but so far I am not coming up with anything useful. Dezastru ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not the surveillance that is the problem. The problem is that only a few people have access to the gathered data. So only they can decide what to do with it. I got no problem if all those CIA and NSA guys - mainly mean intelligently military people - give me access to their files. Just to see how much dirt they have done. But they won't because there are some real criminals in those organisations. Only a minority but still they're there, killing presidents and attacking foreign or domestic nations. Anyway, as long as "secret services" can be legitimately secret, while manipulating political parties and governments, anything won't change. By the way, in a democracy it doesn't make any sense why informations about "enemy" countries aren't released to the public. The only reason not to do it is because secret services run the countries, at least China, Russia and the USA, manipulating people and infiltrating all kind of public or private organisations. That's the world out there right now, and today's world's situation does exactly reflect the intelligence and empathy (meaning both IQ and EQ) of the people in power. Nevermind, our civilisation is anyway going down soon. It has nothing to do with kindergarten games of any secret service...so yes, go on to surveil me while not using your power to do real good...still we're sitting in the same boat, pal, an increasingly sick planet named earth. Mark my words and watch "Elysium" to see what comes next. 178.197.236.10 ( talk) 18:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
This blog post about finding Paul Revere very simply explains how limited meta data actually contains a lot more info than you might suspect if you can cross reference it. Not sure whether this article can absorb the ideas - perhaps it ought to be in analysis of metadata or somewhere else similar? EdwardLane ( talk) 22:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be concise, and of course it should be WP:BALANCEd. Can we please get rid of the Keith Alexander statement, which is largely redundant with the Obama statement? It's also been heavily contested and critiqued by a variety of reliable sources. As things currently stand it sounds like we're endorsing the government's view on this. At one point there was language in the lead that attempted to balance the Alexander statement but it just read as a back-and-forth, which was really inappropriate for the lead section. In my view we should focus on concision. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that the Alexander statement was added back, without the accompanying statement by the two US Democratic senators from the Intelligence committee, which is how it's presented for example in the BBC, I think the lead is currently not being neutral. Even more so because the exact same Senators have caused the NSA to retract their famous fact sheets on PRISM, and Alexander has personally admitted the sheets were wrong. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
So here's the material you want to remove,
According to NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, communications surveillance helped prevent more than 50 potential terrorist attacks worldwide (at least 10 of them in the United States) between 2001 and 2013, and the PRISM web traffic surveillance program contributed in over 90 percent of those cases. [1] [2] [3]
I disagree with the idea of removing this material. As NSA Director, Alexander's view carries significant weight. By completely removing one of the primary functions of the program (to reduce terrorist activity) you are violating Wikipedia's policy on neutrality( WP:NPOV) by not respecting the weight carried by the Alexander material( WP:Weight). And neutrality is not determined by majority rule so keep that in mind. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Snowden on Monday accused members of Congress and administration officials of exaggerating their claims about the success of the data gathering programs, including pointing to the arrest of the would-be New York subway bomber, Najibullah Zazi, in 2009.
- In an online interview with The Guardian in which he posted answers to questions, he said Zazi could have been caught with narrower, targeted surveillance programs -- a point Obama conceded in his interview without mentioning Snowden.
- "We might have caught him some other way," Obama said. "We might have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious. Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn't go off. But, at the margins, we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs," he said.
We need more input. Any takers? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 01:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
To have both this statement – "and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant, that it has helped to prevent acts of terrorism, and that it receives independent oversight from the federal government's executive, judicial and legislative branches" – and the Alexander and Obama statements is overkill. Take the Alexander statement out of the lede and keep it as a detail in the body of the article.
The current version of the lede now obscures the fact that the Prism program itself, not just its revelation, has been a source of a fair amount of controversy. The lede now gives the impression that Snowden is the only person who has raised questions about the program, which is clearly (at least as the lede is written) fully legal, and fully justified. Just take a look at the choice of terms used: "Edward Snowden, who claimed the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public knew" —vs— "U.S. government officials ... have defended the program by asserting" and "General Keith B. Alexander stated that" and "U.S. President Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru ( talk • contribs)
Do we have anything about the senators who wrote Alexander for specific examples after court documents showed that the NYSE bombing attempt was not prevented because of surveillance? EllenCT ( talk) 09:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
These would be the documents that show Yahoo! "objected strenuously" to federal demands for customer data.
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sources on Microsoft and PRISM:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There has been some edit warring activity over "under the Bush Administration" or "by the Bush Administration" in relation to the passage of the Protect America Act (PAA). First off, "Administration" should be lowercase. Second, why are we fighting over this? Why does someone feel the intense need to point out that the PAA was passed during the Bush years second sentence of an article about PRISM? Why not say that it was passed by the 110th Congress? Isn't it enough that we have a link to the PAA and curious readers can click on it to learn more? Why not leave out this silliness altogether and please, please don't edit war? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section "Responses and involvement of other countries" the subsections about Germany and about India have gotten mixed up. These two subsections need to be separated.
Also, perhaps the German section could be augmented with the following: "The German Army was using PRISM to support its operations in Afghanistan as early as 2011." Reference: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bild-bericht-bundeswehr-soll-von-prism-gewusst-haben-a-911531.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 ( talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Where are they? I can't find one place where all the slides revealed so far are. I count 10 of them as of 11th June. It's very disapointing that they are not all in this article, isn't that what Wikipedia is for? www.dearunite.com has made an attempt to track them. 2.30.166.12 ( talk) 14:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html This one also admits that surveilance targets are approved "two or three" contacts away from suspects, instead of just two as per the leaked 2009 procedures. more reporting on the same hearing. Even more, with quotes, e.g. by Rep. Ted Poe (TX): "Do you see a national security exemption in the Fourth Amendment?" EllenCT ( talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to move most of the national and international responses to the PRISM disclosure to the article 2013 mass surveillance scandal? This article here is really overloaded: it's giving hardly any specific information about PRISM itself, but, in my opinion, a way too long and detailed listing of all those responses. I think that would fit much better in the other article, which is more focussed on the "scandal". P2Peter ( talk) 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that while Twitter may not be party to a direct arrangement with the NSA, it is nonetheless providing its public tweets to the Library of Congress. And announced this in a press release. [1] [2] [3]
References
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Which sections should http://phys.org/news/2013-07-tech-firms-business-prism-poll.html go in and how should it be reported? Some excerpts:
EllenCT ( talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The failed Amash amendment to a recent spending bill would be a great addition to this article. The house narrowly rejected the amendment 205 to 217 along bipartisan lines that would have defunded parts of the NSA's data collection activities.
Sources (I know how partisan Wikipedia talk pages are, so I provided a ton of links from all ends of the news-media spectrum):
By Rep Rush Holt: "Surveillance State Repeal Act"
http://www.holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200&Itemid=18
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was suprised to see that this aricle doesn't cover http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document yet. Page 5 is particularly interesting. (Ever sent or received email to someone in a foreign country? You're exempt from NSA privacy protections which nominally apply to US citizens.) [23] is a good secondary New Yorker fact piece on it. [24] and [25] collect many other sources on the same topic. EllenCT ( talk) 06:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, the single public opinion poll reported in this article is both out of date and happens to be the poll most favorable to the surveillance program. Public sentiment has been turning against the program rapidly. Here is the most recent poll as of today.
Another thing is that there does not seem to be a discussion of the revelation that the program involves FBI-owned equipment on the large Internet corporations' premises, which was revealed a few days after strenuous but carefully-worded denials from those companies which strongly implied that they were not participating in any such programs. These omissions should be corrected.
Finally, the slides are low resolution versions of the partially redacted Guardian versions, instead of the more informative Washington Post slides. EllenCT ( talk) 09:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Search engines such as DuckDuckGo, Ixquick are gaining popularity.
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 17:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
DuckDuckGo is getting more press so I would focus on that. Here are some sources:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is another great article from a very reputable source (USA Today) to the pile:
-- Akh81 ( talk) 06:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
SAIC 2006 Annual Report Mentions PRISM by name on page 13 of the pdf report. Here's the link for confirmation/challenge: https://www.saic.com/news/pdf/Annual-Report2006.pdf PRISM isn't secret in this public report, making it public domain information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC) The main PRISM access point is here: https://prism.leidos.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa LEIDOS is part of SAIC and is the cropped form of kaLEIDOScope, making PRISM and LEIDOS dovetail into the optics theme. A secondary access point is here: https://onesaic.esl.saic.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa Cheryl Aycock and Barry Fiebert are key personnel for the PRISM program at SAIC/LEIDOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
These other NSA programs are confirmed by name and described in [26] and [27]:
Do they need their own articles, or redirects? EllenCT ( talk) 05:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you spefic knowledge and contents to the programms, then create new articles. Otherwise redirect them to List of government surveillance projects#United_States and 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. The sources you posted are already included in the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures site. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is really confusing to me. I was reading Techdirt's coverage of today's emergency NSA hearing to prevent their Section 215 program from being de-funded, and the author points out that, "To date, every example (of disrupting terrorist attacks) given (by the NSA to Congress) falls apart under scrutiny." And, "You'd think that the NSA and the FBI would be trotting out the good examples first." I'm completely baffled by this. Could there be a disgruntled middle management in NSA which is purposely releasing stories which they know will fall apart upon research by the press? More importantly, how should the article cover this aspect of the reaction? EllenCT ( talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
ABC News (video)
Further details are promised at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nsa early this week. EllenCT ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data "XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'; NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches; Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history"
Not sure about the capitalization on this one. EllenCT ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Multiple Superfluous "citation needed" tags. In half the cases so far, the citation is one sentence after the tag.
PRISM is a clandestine mass electronic surveillance data mining program.
The NSA can use these Prism requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the Internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier,[10][11] and to get data that is easier to handle, among other things.[12]
PRISM was first publicly revealed when classified documents about the program were leaked to journalists of the The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden[citation needed] – at the time an NSA contractor – during a visit to Hong Kong.[1][2] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.
This explains some of the confusion.
http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/07/nsa-says-there-are-three-different.html -- Paulmd199 ( talk) 07:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
E.g. [28](i.e. [29]) and the section just after that one (which is entirely my fault because I've been working on other things.) Related questions:
What is the current status of examples where NSA surveillance thwarted terrorist plots? They've in the past had trouble identifying any. [30] [31]
What is the status of the government purchasing exploits on the black market and leaving them unpatched? I.e. per [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]? Is there any way to do that which doesn't effectively fund organized crime?
Also asked at Talk:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court#Examples of terrorists thwarted? Buying exploits and leaving them unpatched? Repeal?.... EllenCT ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Le Monde also disclosed new slides, provided by Glenn Greenwald, coming from the famous "PRISM/US-984XN Overview" - See Page 4, 7 and 8 : Le Monde - Documents
LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 02:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Added your material at the The Slides section of the PRISM (surveillance program) page and the Media Disclosures section of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures section. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC). Thanks LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Slides also available on Cryptome.org :
=> Can someone put it in Wiki Commons (I'm not aware of the process) ?
LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 00:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This may be bordering on NPOV and issues of relevance to the specific focus of the article itself, but could we consider adding some information that would better educate readers about their online security, as well discussing methods they could pursue to ensure the privacy of their personal data and activities? For instance, under "See also" we could add internal link to Internet privacy (although this may not be a good example, since the current article has multiple issues) and work in a minor section detailing common methods that consumers use to overcome privacy concerns, such as encrypted VoIP communications and full disk encryption.
If not here specifically, then perhaps another article related to NSA surveillance. 98.86.117.86 ( talk) 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
.> A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-Of-The-U.S. Clause > Snowden Says Surveillance Is Worse Than Orwell Envisioned >> NSA to No Longer Keep Phone Records Under Obama Plan >> Obama outlines changes to US spying >> Obama: Spying won't damage ties with Germany >> Trust in Governments Slides to Record Low Amid U.S. Spy Programs >>v US tech giants to reveal spy agency demands >> US sees Russian hand in envoy's bugged call [37] >> US senator: CIA searched Senate computers( Lihaas ( talk) 20:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).
Headline: "How The NSA Hacks Your iPhone (Presenting DROPOUT JEEP)"
Headline: "Apple denies 'backdoor' NSA access"
Headline: "NSA can spy on offline computers wirelessly, says security expert"
Headline: "BUSINESS: Apple Denies Working With NSA on iPhone Backdoor — Unaware of Alleged NSA Program Targeting its Products"
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"Edward Snowden Q&A: Dick Cheney traitor charge is 'the highest honor'". The Guardian. June 17, 2013.
It's a primary source but a fascinating read, and it will be heavily covered in the press tomorrow. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Does anybody know whether Wikimedia or one of its sister projects is affected by PRISM ? I am wondering whether NSA wants to know the e-mail addresses of all Wikimedia users. See also Commons talk:Privacy policy#PRISM. -- Bautsch ( talk) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed information from this resource due to concerns about recentism:
Perhaps it can be seen as "recentish" now, but I think there will be more articles on how this impacts Obama's approval rating/perception as a president, and so we should keep this as a note, and revisit it later when more sources come out WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
More on Obama approval ratings published today. Dezastru ( talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been a turning point until reliable sources say there's been a turning point. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 16:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Anna Lekas Miller wrote the following article: Miller, Anna Lekas. " If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance." The Guardian. Wednesday 19 June 2013. Retrieved on 20 June 2013.
I do not know if she is Palestinian. I have this there so editors have a list of resources in case this becomes something bigger. WhisperToMe ( talk) 14:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The following language was/is in the lead section:
According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM cannot be used to intentionally target any Americans or anyone in the United States. Clapper said a special court, Congress, and the executive branch oversee the program and extensive procedures ensure the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of data accidentally collected about Americans is kept to a minimum.[16] Clapper issued a statement and "fact sheet"[17] to correct what he characterized as "significant misimpressions" in articles by The Washington Post and The Guardian newspapers.[18]
I removed it with the comment: "remove Clapper as not reliable even with attribution due to WP:PRIMARY and prior perjury. Statements from Obama or other officials would be more appropriate."
Somedifferentstuff reverted with the comment: "What are you doing? There is no violation of WP:Primary. Every source here is secondary except for the fact sheet which is attributed."
Clapper's statements and the fact sheet are indeed primary sources. They're accounts by a person directly involved in the issue. Primary sources must not only be attributed but they "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." As indicated by discussions above and the edit history of this article, Clapper's statements were added to the lead not to explain the government's formal position on PRISM but to add "balance" to reliably sources, i.e. news stories by the WaPo and the Guardian. In contrast, Clapper's statements are not at all reliable. Aside from him being a highly interested (i.e. biased) party, he's perjured himself on this very subject. We simply cannot lean on his statements, especially in such a prominent place as the lead, without explaining this. Otherwise we're giving equal weight between his statements and the WaPo and Guardian, which is WAY out of WP:BALANCE.
If the decision is to give some voice to the government in the lead then we would be much better referencing other officials such as... President Obama perhaps? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Would you trust Bill Clinton to tell you what happened in the Oval Office with Monica? Would you trust Madoff to tell you what happened with the investments he made off with? Of course not. We wouldn't "balance" (or attempt to "provide neutrality" against) news reporting by established media outlets with statements why these people. Why? Because they have a proven track record of lying on those subjects. Clapper is no difference. So yes, I have a bias against Clapper, as should any responsible reader/editor. We must assess the reliability of his statements based on context, which includes his honesty (or lack thereof) in the past. But the real bottom line is, why not substitute his statements with those of other officials who don't have the same credibility issues? That would solve the WP:BALANCE issues (which I share). -- Nstrauss ( talk) 04:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In any controversy about the actions of an organization, that organization's response belongs in the intro per NOPV. We need reliable sources to verify that the response is indeed the official response of the organization, but it is not for us to judge the credibility of the response. As long as the response is clearly attributed, our readers can make that judgement.-- agr ( talk) 17:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Three sources:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the reason Ron Paul's opinion should be included? [4] Widefox; talk 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The article seems to be lacking information about the Netherland's leaks revealing it taking part in Prism, Belgium too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.70.216 ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
On the DuckDuckGo page I added:
Does this fit under domestic response... or should it be a new section? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources that could be useful:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As i said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=561052904&oldid=561052715 i ask for the removal of protection for this page, 'cause its locking was based on clumsy excuses. 79.25.98.5 ( talk) 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The point, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&action=edit&undoafter=560938400&undo=560939116, is that nobody asked Google about a backdoor, and also PRISM's not about "backdoors". A backdoor is usually something that a developer put inside the code of a program so that it can access that program without alerting the legitimate user. In this case (PRISM) there's nothing like backdoors because the firms (Google/FB/etc) are the maintainer of those systems.
It's stupid to think that they'll put backdoors in their own systems to allow access to somebody else. The only option that make sense could be they (Google/FB/etc) allowing direct (not hidden, aka not backdoor) access to their system, letting the NSA use the very same interfaces that their (Google/FB/etc) sysadmins use every day to do maintenance of the system.
Backdoor is the bad term because it means something hidden, and this (PRISM) is not the case since Google/FB/etc are accused of being well informed and of collaborationism with the NSA.
Like for example the AT&T case with NSA rooms copying traffic some (5 or 6) years ago: Was it a "backdoor" ?!? obviously NO! it was an entire room and AT&T was aware of that.
Ok i can change that sentence and put "although a backdoor is not a necessary requisite to grant the government that kind of access". 87.2.112.110 ( talk) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
<ref>[http://books.google.de/books?id=RgSBGXKXuzsC&pg=PA49&dq=Backdoor&hl=de&ei=nCwfTJvGKM-VONCdsKEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false "Computer Security - Protecting digital Resources", ISBN 978-0763759940, Robert C. Newman, Februar 2009, Pg. 49]: "Backdoor software tools allow an intruder to access a computer using an alternate entry method. Wheras legitimeate users log in through '''front doors''' using a userid and password, '''attackers use backdoors to bypass these normal access controls.''' [...]", books.google.de</ref> (as found on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/backdoor ) 87.2.112.110 ( talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
87.2.112.110, Wikipedia works by consensus. Please stop re-adding the "Google backdoor" material until consensus has been reached here. If you continue edit-warring you will be blocked. See WP:EW. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 19:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The best way to resolve this, 87.2.112.110, is to see if a newspaper source makes this exact argument (you want to avoid accusations of WP:Synthesis, meaning editorial synthesis of two sources that don't make Point B in order to claim Point B) - Check the American, British, Hong Kong, and other newspapers WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"[...] that we have created a government ‘back door' into our systems," Are they negating the presente of the backdoor or the authorship of such a backdoor?
" but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data." Do they have a backdoor for other uses? Or do they allow the gov to access private user data via other means ( NOT via backdoor) ?
"[A]ny suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users' Internet activity on such a scale is completely false." Also this is misleading. If the NSA, according to leaked infos, had complete access to the "information about the users", there is no need for Google to "disclose" (aka "give" ) such infos to the NSA. Since the NSA has that kind of (complete) access, it (NSA) can simply get the infos by itself, without asking google each time it (NSA) wants some infos.
87.2.112.110 ( talk) 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
(conflict)
@Nstrauss
95.236.41.160 ( talk) 21:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This is totally out of control! The following is conjecture, like the sort that people engage in, in forums and comments sections:
It shouldn't be the basis for an encyclopedia article. Also, stop saying that Google is a "collaborator" with the NSA! The NSA is a U.S. Federal government agency, and Google is incorporated in the U.S.A., as well as having its servers (some of them), under U.S. government jurisdiction. Until stated otherwise by Rule of Law and due process, Google is law abiding and so is the NSA. It is misleading and inaccurate to write anything to the contrary, not here. We still don't know what happened, this is an ongoing event, and anyone who reads this article should not be inadvertently deceived by content alleging that Google or the NSA have been charged with criminal misconduct. The entire back doors thing is still conjecture, as we STILL don't really know what Prism (PRISM?) is. -- FeralOink ( talk) 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what other editors thought about the title of the article. The program is called PRISM but that is just a redirect to PRISM (surveillance program). But yeah, I was just curious what everyone else thought. Cheers, — - dain omite 20:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Does anyone know if there are Wikipedia articles for the surveillance scandals involving the the Maryland State police (2008) [7] or the NYPD (2012) [8]? 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The reality of treating foreign nationals as terrorist targets by PRISM allows the NSA to forcible confine individuals for internal affairs and this allegedly could be broadened to include US citizens. [1]
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatum81 ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's a HUGE new story that just came out and puts a lot of stuff into perspective: Gellman, Barton (June 16, 2013). "U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata". Washington Post. Mandatory reading for anyone working on this article or anything related.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The photo showing that the company Apple is a provider for PRISM is incorrect. 17.26.244.103 ( talk) 21:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This brings the total to 8.
Some things to note: the surveillance and "stored comms" chosen by the analyst may happen prior to FISA or "S2 FAA Adjuticators" (slide 1)
Prism Case notations explainer.
(slide 3)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ -- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the edits of "19:50, 27 June 2013 Someone not using his real name"? I believe he/she put some webpoll there to make Prism-scandal more 'digestible' for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 ( talk)
[10] is any of this new and notable? May122013 ( talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to go off-line now, but this should be covered. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Folks, I really think we need to have one central 2013 NSA leaks article, which links all of the ones that have been created and expanded ever since the Guardian began punlishing on June 6.
Why is it all caps? Some other reason? It should be noted in the article somewhere... Hires an editor ( talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Sources, including worldwide services, are beginning to say "Prism" which also implies it is not an acronym. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
CNET claims: "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management": see What is the NSA's PRISM program? (FAQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bautsch ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
What the Prism people call themselves should be given top precedence — look at the top of this article to see the logo: "PRISM". And the CNET claim just noted seems right. Thanks, Bautsch! [CAPS-answer is "good enough for government work"] ;-) :-) — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What's in a name (and logo diagram)? While the article is to not include original thought (one Wikipedia founder thinks this is a WP weakness) we can use the TALK page here for connecting the dots, so to speak. And if 'Prism' refers to the effort, and 'PRISM' refers to the tool of the effort, what can be made of the choice of the logo and codename? Suppose it is not about the letters forming an acronym but rather the physics of prism-optics? Editors can watch for information about Prism/PRISM taking the information stream of all bandwidth in USA/world and splitting it to interested departments of national interest, such as the IRS, DHS, NCS, CIA, WH. Just a concept to watch for and which explains better than searching for an acronym. We didn't find one. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 10:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the title "Prism" is simply inspired from this image about the working of the Naurus Nsystem : http://narus.com/solutions/narus-nsystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 ( talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh - Prism is a commercial product from Voxeo Labs that does at NSA exactly what it is intended for... ok, maybe its slightly modified... ;) see here: http://voxeolabs.com/prism/ I read this that often across the web that I even don't remember where I first encountered it... -- Jussty ( talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I added a new section/paragraph to Restore_the_Fourth {Amendment} since there were 10,000 protestors across USA yesterday, Independence Day. To wit: To get back to the "original intent" of the Constitution can be Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, or Liberal; even Libertarian or Green. For example, Liberals and Conservatives both do not like the government spying on citizen eMail to an intrusive extent. Hence the protest against the NSA Utah Data Center by a small group of Restore the Fourth people. [12] and [13] "The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding what is reasonable is at the center of the national debate over the NSA's data seizure ..." according to the protestors today. Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Kim Dotcom's quote as I felt his opinion was no more notable than any other tech entrepreneur's. 79.6.38.82 added it back with the comment: "Kim Dotcom 's notable since the PRISM program is not only about mass surveillance: It's also about economic/industrial spionage/operations. Eliminating KimD. they advantage US firms vs non US ones." A follow-up comment by the same editor said: "Btw the problem is not only the snooping of communications between K.Dotcom and that firm. Problem is also the manipulation (*alteration*) (by Nsa) of such communications. (that's what PRISM is all about))."
79.6.38.82, if you can support any of those assertions with reliable sources then we should add them to the article right away. If you can't, then you shouldn't be using them to support the inclusion of the Dotcom quote. I'll give you a few days. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to convince me of anything. You just need to find me reliable sources that support your position. No reliable sources, no Kim Dotcom. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 06:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh btw: i am 79.6.38.82 (just for safety ;) 87.2.112.195 ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This seems like classic
original research to me. You're cherry picking sources that don't actually say what you're saying and then extrapolating with no basis. That's not what we do here. You cite the reference to "transit traffic" in the PRISM slide as proof that the purpose of PRISM is to manipulate data, rather than to collect it? Where does that come from? You cite an article about ECHELON to draw conclusions about PRISM. You also rely on an unsubstantiated accusation by a British intelligence expert (Campbell) as conclusive proof. And then you rely on claims of a "ramping up" of "fears" of industrial espionage (broken link, btw) to "prove" that PRISM is used for industrial espionage. Sorry, these sources don't come close to cutting it. And yes, the Wikipedia community expects you to do your own research if you're going to throw around such unsubstantiated allegations.--
Nstrauss (
talk)
23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike that. You're the same Italian IP-hopper who provoked a very disruptive discussion earlier and was responsible for this article becoming semi-protected. Funny how you didn't disclose that. You're being uncivil and you also seem to have chronic WP:IDHT. Please drop this pestering or we'll go back to the noticeboards for further sanctions. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Strike that. Do you work for the NSA? Your nick also made me think that Ns = National security ? dont take it as an offence. I'm just asking, since there's some rule here on wiki against conflict of interests and i noticed your disruptive behaviour when it comes to handle facts that could damage the public image of the NSA or the US gov. 79.11.238.206 ( talk)
You failed again in explaining why the Kim Dotcom comments are not ok in the article (and the WP:OR has nothing to do with this, since here we are in a Talk page and that pretext doesnt work here, since the Talk page goal is to allow the users to use ORs.) The part you removed contain sources (The Guardian and the chinese newspaper). (and i'm still 79.11.238.206) 79.6.100.101 ( talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
@NsAtrauss: oh good you 'protected' the page again? Is this your normal behavior or was it $haped by money?
you're nuts(<- removed according to
WP:PA)
79.6.100.101 (
talk)
23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The Domestic Response section was tagged as being too anti-PRISM. Rather than just leaving the tag there and making no effort to adjust the balance, can someone suggest what material to add that shows support for the program? I've tried a number of searches looking for support from the usual political commentators, but so far I am not coming up with anything useful. Dezastru ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not the surveillance that is the problem. The problem is that only a few people have access to the gathered data. So only they can decide what to do with it. I got no problem if all those CIA and NSA guys - mainly mean intelligently military people - give me access to their files. Just to see how much dirt they have done. But they won't because there are some real criminals in those organisations. Only a minority but still they're there, killing presidents and attacking foreign or domestic nations. Anyway, as long as "secret services" can be legitimately secret, while manipulating political parties and governments, anything won't change. By the way, in a democracy it doesn't make any sense why informations about "enemy" countries aren't released to the public. The only reason not to do it is because secret services run the countries, at least China, Russia and the USA, manipulating people and infiltrating all kind of public or private organisations. That's the world out there right now, and today's world's situation does exactly reflect the intelligence and empathy (meaning both IQ and EQ) of the people in power. Nevermind, our civilisation is anyway going down soon. It has nothing to do with kindergarten games of any secret service...so yes, go on to surveil me while not using your power to do real good...still we're sitting in the same boat, pal, an increasingly sick planet named earth. Mark my words and watch "Elysium" to see what comes next. 178.197.236.10 ( talk) 18:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC) |
This blog post about finding Paul Revere very simply explains how limited meta data actually contains a lot more info than you might suspect if you can cross reference it. Not sure whether this article can absorb the ideas - perhaps it ought to be in analysis of metadata or somewhere else similar? EdwardLane ( talk) 22:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be concise, and of course it should be WP:BALANCEd. Can we please get rid of the Keith Alexander statement, which is largely redundant with the Obama statement? It's also been heavily contested and critiqued by a variety of reliable sources. As things currently stand it sounds like we're endorsing the government's view on this. At one point there was language in the lead that attempted to balance the Alexander statement but it just read as a back-and-forth, which was really inappropriate for the lead section. In my view we should focus on concision. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Given that the Alexander statement was added back, without the accompanying statement by the two US Democratic senators from the Intelligence committee, which is how it's presented for example in the BBC, I think the lead is currently not being neutral. Even more so because the exact same Senators have caused the NSA to retract their famous fact sheets on PRISM, and Alexander has personally admitted the sheets were wrong. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 02:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
So here's the material you want to remove,
According to NSA Director General Keith B. Alexander, communications surveillance helped prevent more than 50 potential terrorist attacks worldwide (at least 10 of them in the United States) between 2001 and 2013, and the PRISM web traffic surveillance program contributed in over 90 percent of those cases. [1] [2] [3]
I disagree with the idea of removing this material. As NSA Director, Alexander's view carries significant weight. By completely removing one of the primary functions of the program (to reduce terrorist activity) you are violating Wikipedia's policy on neutrality( WP:NPOV) by not respecting the weight carried by the Alexander material( WP:Weight). And neutrality is not determined by majority rule so keep that in mind. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 19:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Snowden on Monday accused members of Congress and administration officials of exaggerating their claims about the success of the data gathering programs, including pointing to the arrest of the would-be New York subway bomber, Najibullah Zazi, in 2009.
- In an online interview with The Guardian in which he posted answers to questions, he said Zazi could have been caught with narrower, targeted surveillance programs -- a point Obama conceded in his interview without mentioning Snowden.
- "We might have caught him some other way," Obama said. "We might have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious. Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn't go off. But, at the margins, we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs," he said.
We need more input. Any takers? -- Nstrauss ( talk) 01:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
To have both this statement – "and have defended the program by asserting it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant, that it has helped to prevent acts of terrorism, and that it receives independent oversight from the federal government's executive, judicial and legislative branches" – and the Alexander and Obama statements is overkill. Take the Alexander statement out of the lede and keep it as a detail in the body of the article.
The current version of the lede now obscures the fact that the Prism program itself, not just its revelation, has been a source of a fair amount of controversy. The lede now gives the impression that Snowden is the only person who has raised questions about the program, which is clearly (at least as the lede is written) fully legal, and fully justified. Just take a look at the choice of terms used: "Edward Snowden, who claimed the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public knew" —vs— "U.S. government officials ... have defended the program by asserting" and "General Keith B. Alexander stated that" and "U.S. President Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezastru ( talk • contribs)
Do we have anything about the senators who wrote Alexander for specific examples after court documents showed that the NYSE bombing attempt was not prevented because of surveillance? EllenCT ( talk) 09:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
These would be the documents that show Yahoo! "objected strenuously" to federal demands for customer data.
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sources on Microsoft and PRISM:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There has been some edit warring activity over "under the Bush Administration" or "by the Bush Administration" in relation to the passage of the Protect America Act (PAA). First off, "Administration" should be lowercase. Second, why are we fighting over this? Why does someone feel the intense need to point out that the PAA was passed during the Bush years second sentence of an article about PRISM? Why not say that it was passed by the 110th Congress? Isn't it enough that we have a link to the PAA and curious readers can click on it to learn more? Why not leave out this silliness altogether and please, please don't edit war? -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
In the section "Responses and involvement of other countries" the subsections about Germany and about India have gotten mixed up. These two subsections need to be separated.
Also, perhaps the German section could be augmented with the following: "The German Army was using PRISM to support its operations in Afghanistan as early as 2011." Reference: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bild-bericht-bundeswehr-soll-von-prism-gewusst-haben-a-911531.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 ( talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Where are they? I can't find one place where all the slides revealed so far are. I count 10 of them as of 11th June. It's very disapointing that they are not all in this article, isn't that what Wikipedia is for? www.dearunite.com has made an attempt to track them. 2.30.166.12 ( talk) 14:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html This one also admits that surveilance targets are approved "two or three" contacts away from suspects, instead of just two as per the leaked 2009 procedures. more reporting on the same hearing. Even more, with quotes, e.g. by Rep. Ted Poe (TX): "Do you see a national security exemption in the Fourth Amendment?" EllenCT ( talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to move most of the national and international responses to the PRISM disclosure to the article 2013 mass surveillance scandal? This article here is really overloaded: it's giving hardly any specific information about PRISM itself, but, in my opinion, a way too long and detailed listing of all those responses. I think that would fit much better in the other article, which is more focussed on the "scandal". P2Peter ( talk) 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that while Twitter may not be party to a direct arrangement with the NSA, it is nonetheless providing its public tweets to the Library of Congress. And announced this in a press release. [1] [2] [3]
References
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Which sections should http://phys.org/news/2013-07-tech-firms-business-prism-poll.html go in and how should it be reported? Some excerpts:
EllenCT ( talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The failed Amash amendment to a recent spending bill would be a great addition to this article. The house narrowly rejected the amendment 205 to 217 along bipartisan lines that would have defunded parts of the NSA's data collection activities.
Sources (I know how partisan Wikipedia talk pages are, so I provided a ton of links from all ends of the news-media spectrum):
By Rep Rush Holt: "Surveillance State Repeal Act"
http://www.holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200&Itemid=18
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was suprised to see that this aricle doesn't cover http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document yet. Page 5 is particularly interesting. (Ever sent or received email to someone in a foreign country? You're exempt from NSA privacy protections which nominally apply to US citizens.) [23] is a good secondary New Yorker fact piece on it. [24] and [25] collect many other sources on the same topic. EllenCT ( talk) 06:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, the single public opinion poll reported in this article is both out of date and happens to be the poll most favorable to the surveillance program. Public sentiment has been turning against the program rapidly. Here is the most recent poll as of today.
Another thing is that there does not seem to be a discussion of the revelation that the program involves FBI-owned equipment on the large Internet corporations' premises, which was revealed a few days after strenuous but carefully-worded denials from those companies which strongly implied that they were not participating in any such programs. These omissions should be corrected.
Finally, the slides are low resolution versions of the partially redacted Guardian versions, instead of the more informative Washington Post slides. EllenCT ( talk) 09:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Search engines such as DuckDuckGo, Ixquick are gaining popularity.
-- 71.20.55.6 ( talk) 17:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
DuckDuckGo is getting more press so I would focus on that. Here are some sources:
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is another great article from a very reputable source (USA Today) to the pile:
-- Akh81 ( talk) 06:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
SAIC 2006 Annual Report Mentions PRISM by name on page 13 of the pdf report. Here's the link for confirmation/challenge: https://www.saic.com/news/pdf/Annual-Report2006.pdf PRISM isn't secret in this public report, making it public domain information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC) The main PRISM access point is here: https://prism.leidos.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa LEIDOS is part of SAIC and is the cropped form of kaLEIDOScope, making PRISM and LEIDOS dovetail into the optics theme. A secondary access point is here: https://onesaic.esl.saic.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa Cheryl Aycock and Barry Fiebert are key personnel for the PRISM program at SAIC/LEIDOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 ( talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
These other NSA programs are confirmed by name and described in [26] and [27]:
Do they need their own articles, or redirects? EllenCT ( talk) 05:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you spefic knowledge and contents to the programms, then create new articles. Otherwise redirect them to List of government surveillance projects#United_States and 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. The sources you posted are already included in the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures site. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is really confusing to me. I was reading Techdirt's coverage of today's emergency NSA hearing to prevent their Section 215 program from being de-funded, and the author points out that, "To date, every example (of disrupting terrorist attacks) given (by the NSA to Congress) falls apart under scrutiny." And, "You'd think that the NSA and the FBI would be trotting out the good examples first." I'm completely baffled by this. Could there be a disgruntled middle management in NSA which is purposely releasing stories which they know will fall apart upon research by the press? More importantly, how should the article cover this aspect of the reaction? EllenCT ( talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
ABC News (video)
Further details are promised at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nsa early this week. EllenCT ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data "XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'; NSA analysts require no prior authorization for searches; Sweeps up emails, social media activity and browsing history"
Not sure about the capitalization on this one. EllenCT ( talk) 17:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Multiple Superfluous "citation needed" tags. In half the cases so far, the citation is one sentence after the tag.
PRISM is a clandestine mass electronic surveillance data mining program.
The NSA can use these Prism requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the Internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier,[10][11] and to get data that is easier to handle, among other things.[12]
PRISM was first publicly revealed when classified documents about the program were leaked to journalists of the The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden[citation needed] – at the time an NSA contractor – during a visit to Hong Kong.[1][2] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.
This explains some of the confusion.
http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/07/nsa-says-there-are-three-different.html -- Paulmd199 ( talk) 07:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
E.g. [28](i.e. [29]) and the section just after that one (which is entirely my fault because I've been working on other things.) Related questions:
What is the current status of examples where NSA surveillance thwarted terrorist plots? They've in the past had trouble identifying any. [30] [31]
What is the status of the government purchasing exploits on the black market and leaving them unpatched? I.e. per [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]? Is there any way to do that which doesn't effectively fund organized crime?
Also asked at Talk:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court#Examples of terrorists thwarted? Buying exploits and leaving them unpatched? Repeal?.... EllenCT ( talk) 02:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Le Monde also disclosed new slides, provided by Glenn Greenwald, coming from the famous "PRISM/US-984XN Overview" - See Page 4, 7 and 8 : Le Monde - Documents
LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 02:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Added your material at the The Slides section of the PRISM (surveillance program) page and the Media Disclosures section of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures section. -- P3Y229 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC). Thanks LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Slides also available on Cryptome.org :
=> Can someone put it in Wiki Commons (I'm not aware of the process) ?
LectriceDuSoir ( talk) 00:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This may be bordering on NPOV and issues of relevance to the specific focus of the article itself, but could we consider adding some information that would better educate readers about their online security, as well discussing methods they could pursue to ensure the privacy of their personal data and activities? For instance, under "See also" we could add internal link to Internet privacy (although this may not be a good example, since the current article has multiple issues) and work in a minor section detailing common methods that consumers use to overcome privacy concerns, such as encrypted VoIP communications and full disk encryption.
If not here specifically, then perhaps another article related to NSA surveillance. 98.86.117.86 ( talk) 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
.> A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-Of-The-U.S. Clause > Snowden Says Surveillance Is Worse Than Orwell Envisioned >> NSA to No Longer Keep Phone Records Under Obama Plan >> Obama outlines changes to US spying >> Obama: Spying won't damage ties with Germany >> Trust in Governments Slides to Record Low Amid U.S. Spy Programs >>v US tech giants to reveal spy agency demands >> US sees Russian hand in envoy's bugged call [37] >> US senator: CIA searched Senate computers( Lihaas ( talk) 20:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).
Headline: "How The NSA Hacks Your iPhone (Presenting DROPOUT JEEP)"
Headline: "Apple denies 'backdoor' NSA access"
Headline: "NSA can spy on offline computers wirelessly, says security expert"
Headline: "BUSINESS: Apple Denies Working With NSA on iPhone Backdoor — Unaware of Alleged NSA Program Targeting its Products"