Talk:PRISM/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Stellar Wind?

This Prism project seems very much related to the NSA's "Stellar Wind" project. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stellar Wind ~= TSP~= PRISM ~= NextGenSurveillance?

The most logical answer is : the NSA renames the program every time it loses authority. As a machine learning engineer, I never throw away models that work well. If you have hundreds of engineers, the time to redevelop a BIG DATA codebase from scratch would be years even with the best people. We are talking BIG DATA: everyone else is mini-data by comparison.

They have stock models just like car dealers have spare parts. Lots of them. They have models that select models. Just because the NSA lost authority doesn't mean they through away a LSA/VSM/SVM trained on 500M+ twitter feeds of angry teens.

It also seems to incorporate elements very similar to the FBI's old Carnivore/DCS 1000 project, although I had always assumed that the NSA had their own version of it. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read Bamford's books, and some websites, there is Shamrock, Minaret, Thinthread, Trailblazer, Turbulence, Echelon, Hoover's old FBI Indexes, and on and on and on. The number of different projects is probably much larger than we actually know about. If there was a wiki article on Carnivore it should probably be linked too. Decora (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

There's something very fishy about this whole PRISM business. We've got the corporate denials, and the incredibly bad PowerPoint formatting, and the bizarre uncharacteristic department seal.

Given these inconsistencies, I don't think it's reasonable for the Wikipedia article to speak so authoritatively to the existence of this program. At the very least, we should wait until some more details come out, or until the Director of National Intelligence officially comments on this program (as opposed to the Verizon court order). Until then, I believe that it should be described as an alleged program, or something to that effect. SashaMarievskaya (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. It would take about ten minutes to forge a PowerPoint like that. I'm not saying the program isn't real, but there's just not any reliable proof that it is real. Talmage (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

the quality of the PPT is exactly waht make it look authentic ... and of course - any PPT can be forged in minutes (even a good one) - anyway thanks for creating the page. I think even if it turns out to be a fake it might be interesting to cover the topic in WP IMHO. --christophe (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so um, I thought April was the 4th month of the year? So where is the 4 in that date? --RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The first slide is dated "April 2013". That's where the April comes from. SashaMarievskaya (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I've just woken up and heard the BBC reporting the news very cautiously with lots of "claimed" and "reported" in reference to the story. WP should be as careful I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I double agree. Wiki can cover itself by pointing out that the evidence comes from one guy, and is vetted by two journalism agencies. Now, Greenwald is a pretty solid reporter, he used to be a prosecutor. We will have to wait, but that doesnt mean the wiki page has to be blank. Decora (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it does look fake

This Washington Post article shows a presentation of the Prism system that mentions at one point, "Complete list and details on PRISM web page: Go PRISMFAA" And indeed there is an FAA Prism page, but look at how Prism is described on it. I don't know.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Govt agencies don't communicate to find out if they are using the same acronyms. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

FAA in the Washington Post refers to the FISA Amendments Act. Presumably, that's the FAA referred to in the slides. --RAN1 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good call -- I found an EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) page that uses "FAA" for "FISA Amendments Act." And this EFF description of it does gel a lot more with how Prism is suppose to operate. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "PRISMFAA" might be referring to an Intranet page, not one normally publicly accessible on the Internet. Such pages don't need TLDs like .com --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Other relevant articles

Because PRISM as the name for a surveillance system sounded so familiar from a few years back, did an news.google.archive search and found a few things of interest:

• 2008 use: "With the Wedgetail, Echidna, Prism and the ALR-2002 Electronic Warfare programs all approaching service, BAE Systems is now preparing the support environment which will sustain them. "
• 2006 use - Xray system sees through walls]
• 2006 use about Congress grilling NSA on surveillance in similar way, but prism just adjective in text. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is also this copy of a Washington Post article, from May 14th, 2006, that has a deja vu feeling to it.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And there's this 2006 USA Today article as well. It seems everything old is new again.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Name

The name PRISM seems to come from the fact that this is a signal splitter that makes a copy of the signals at the main trunks of phone and cable companies. There is a report of a guy from the Huffington Post that explains this. It is believe there is a well replicated internet in the NSA servers. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I seem to agree—it could possibly not be an acronym. I've found nothing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you imagine PRogram of Internet Surveillance and Monitoring ? --Bautsch (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Play with this: פריזמה

bull/will fry fruit time

reading back

Zep Wazir ~> zip/spy & rule. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have (twice) removed the following content

The denials by the participating companies are not surprising and may, in fact, be a requirement under the National Security Letters, which the NSA and FBI use to give quasi-legal cover to their signals collection. Google issued a similar denial when the Terrorist Surveillance Program was made public.

as it is sourced to a CNET article from 2008 and so obviously not directly linked to the PRISM story - the link is being made by the WP editor. Of course, the point may be true and sensible, but we need a reliable source making it before it can be included here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not WP:OR, but you could claim it is WP:SYNThesisi. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblowers

I have added info from 3 well known NSA whistleblowers :

In an interview on ABC News in January 2006 NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice has stated "...the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used. That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,"[12] http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

In an interview on RT in December 2012 NSA Whistleblower William Binney had stated "...the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least."[13]http://rt.com/usa/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/ On June 6, 2013 he estimated that the NSA also collects records on 3 billion calls per day[14] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nsa-whistleblowers-say-agency-casts-wide-net-verizon-order-is-part-of-routine/2013/06/06/6bc26bf2-cee3-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

In an interview to Democracy Now! on June 6, 2013, NSA Whitleblower Thomas Drake has stated "...This is routine. These are routine orders. This is nothing new. What’s new is we’re actually seeing an actual order. And people are somehow surprised by it. The fact remains that this program has been in place for quite some time. It was actually started shortly after 9/11. The PATRIOT Act was the enabling mechanism that allowed the United States government in secret to acquire subscriber records of—from any company that exists in the United States."[15] http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/6/nsa_whistleblowers_all_us_citizens_targeted

My addition was reverted by Alexbrn I was asked to find a source that linked the 3 whistleblowers to the PRISM subject

Therefore I added -

"Former employees of the National Security Agency have added further information[11]:" http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/210480671.html

The article in the Startribune published June 6, 2013 does the required Synthesis. it interviews all the 3 whistleblowers that talk about the same stuff, just less elaborately then the other sources that interviewed them individually109.64.191.12 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the Star Tribune links these statements to the Verizon data story, and makes no mention of PRISM -- that "aha!" deduction is original work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I added these 2 references linking them directly to PRISM story :

Russ Tice http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/obama-administration-nsa-verizon-records William Binney and Thomas Drake http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/former_employees_reports_suggest_VAXjsXaFNVYGqOvmExDS2H%7C79.179.176.30]] (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Those additions still do not fix the problem. The Democracy Now interview was about the Verizon phone records logs surveillance, not about the internet data surveillance. The interviews from ABC News with Russ Tice and RT with William Binney long predated the June 2013 revelation about the internet data surveillance program. The Drake quote from the NY Post article is about the Verizon phone records logs court order, not about PRSIM. All of this material should come out of the article until RS clearly make the direct tie between past assertions concerning internet data surveillance and what has now been revealed about the PRSIM program. Same with the quotations currently in the article from various lawmakers. Their comments were made in the hours prior to the PRISM program leaks being reported, so they were about the Verizon court order, not PRISM. This info went into the WP article too soon. There'll be plenty of directly relevant quotes from the senators soon enough. Dezastru (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dezastru, although I sympathize with Alexbrn's efforts. I hope Alexbrn can channel his/her energy to continue to contribute, just to be more focused and patient. In order to actually sort out the chaos of secret programs, you do have to be a stickler for accuracy and nitpick the details. Perhaps there could be a place for thos quotes in the NSA Warrantless Surveillance Controversy article... Decora (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No back doors

Everyone is losing their minds over this thing, but as far as I can tell, data is only provided with a "legally binding order or subpoena". This isn't the NSA reading through every inbox in the world. Or am I wrong? --IP98 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be right, and the "system" may turn out to be "we send emails to get stuff". However, the Guardian - as is its recent wont - amped this up a lot. Time will tell. For now, it would be best if Wikipedia's guidelines/policies were attended to carefully, in particular so that opinion is not relayed here appearing to be fact ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(add) A response from Google's Larry Page - which seems very precise on this point. In the UK the journalist that covered this story for the Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, is an opinionated/controversial figure - I worry his opinion has turned into Wiki-fact. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

IP98 - You are technically correct, but practically wrong. However, it is trivial for the agency to ask for a "legally binding order or subpoena" that covers all communications or users. For example, the Verizon order covered all customers. The FISC has a horrible record of challenging the need of the NSA/FBI on necessity. So for practical purposes, the statute allows collection of any and everything the agencies want.Jsheehy 16:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn - Just because some folks dislike Glenn Greenwald, does not mean his journalism or facts are opinion. Clearly the editorial staff at the Guardian carefully fact check and vetted Greenwald's article prior to publishing.Jsheehy 16:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So maybe referring to GG's "opinion" wasn't quite the right turn of phrase; perhaps "agenda-driven speculation" would've been better. For a sensational story like this, WP's policy on verifiability needs to be very carefully attended to. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right in that it's not every e-mail inbox in the world, just those of non-Americans. The clue is in the F of FISA - Foreign. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Top secret screw logos

re:[2]

• 2. What it supposed to 'mean logo need context'? Logo mostly the dark-blue shadow of hexagonal screw/bolt was next to the sentence. Stil is there only sentence is out. Do you mean what is the symbolic context of screw with hexagonal head there ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) If all agree(nobody object) i put "The program logo is hexagonal head screw shadow".

Joined?

"date of joining PRISM in parentheses" "the date at which they joined PRISM." This verbiage is not supported by the slides. "became part of" or "involvement in" might be better verbiage, as the companies have pretty much issued blanket denials of knowledge, so while the NSA may have included data from them, stating that the companies "joined" indicates active intent. Ronabop (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What about 'listed' or 'listed (date)' or 'first listed in leak'? Only true is that they are listed there in leak. To say microsoft 'first involvement' in searching your hard disk is not there, even if 'become part of' just before 11. Whoever send update/patch is root - control your computer as they wish but WRSN reliblue sources convey reader, login protect editors IP, Tor is closed. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo controversy

The section "Yahoo controversy needs" to be written by someone who understands English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.216.86 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been removed for now because it was original research. Capscap (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yottabyte

"A yottabyte is so big as to be nearly unimaginable by casual computer users: It’s enough information to fill 200 trillion DVDs." . . .

"The companies participating in PRISM produce enormous amounts of data every day, so storing it would require computing power the likes of which the public has never seen. People who study technology and security believe that’s why the NSA [built] a million-square-foot data center near Salt Lake City."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/07/11-questions-you-probably-have-about-u-s-domestic-spying-answered/
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New declassified info to be added

There's a new unclassified fact sheet from the DNI available here. Some secondary coverage here. I need to run somewhere, so perhaps someone can try to integrate this? Capscap (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Washington Post softens its original news article

A couple of news organizations reporting that The Washington post has revised its original news article revealing the PRISM program, softening some of its original claims:

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6

Applegamer (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to imply that they are retracting their original claims. There's a new WaPo article that again says that the companies knowingly participated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html Capscap (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

So, consider this a warning to all editors editing that article. Be careful that you adhere to policy. Although not a featured article, it is on the main page. Some leeway may be given to editors' attempts to improve the article ("Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."), but disruption will not be tolerated.
— User:Bbb23
— Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reposting this here so that editors who come here are aware of this in the future. --RAN1 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Prism, by Palantir Technologies

Palantir Technologies has a product or service named Prism. Palantir is a U.S. defense contractor. Forbes Magazine online published an article on Friday afternoon (7 June 2013) explaining why PRISM was not Palantir Technologies's Prism software.

The Guardian UK's latest update claimed that PRISM was developed internally by the NSA for $20 million. That would seem to rule out Palantir.

Last item: Palantir Technologies is a different company from Palantir! --FeralOink (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy editing - PRISM and Verizon phone records logging are not the same

The following material from the History section is highly misleading. The sources cited were either discussing the leak of a classified court order affecting Verizon phone logs, or were about general allegations of improper government surveillance activity. The Washington Post and Guardian articles indicate that PRISM has been online since 2007, yet the material here is quoting an NSA whistleblower from 2006. If connections between past allegations and what is now reported about PRISM have been drawn by reliable sources, those connections need to be indicated in the article. Otherwise, the article is violating WP:NOR and, especially, WP:SYNTH. The material also quotes the Fourth Amendment text without any explanation of how the Fourth Amendment ties into the context of the story, and without an indication of specifically who it is that is making the connection between PRISM and the Fourth Amendment. Is a whistleblower bringing up the Fourth Amendment? Is it an op-ed columnist? Is it a civil liberties attorney? Is it a Wikipedia editor?

Former employees of the National Security Agency added further information: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause [...]".
* In an interview on ABC News in January 2006 NSA whistleblower Russ Tice stated "...the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used. That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum."
* In an interview on RT in December 2012 NSA whistleblower William Binney had stated "...the FBI has access to the data collected, which are basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country.  And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone.  If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least." On June 6, 2013 he estimated that the NSA also collects records on 3 billion calls per day.

In a technology conference in March 2013, Ira "Gus" Hunt, the Chief Technology Officer for the Chief Information Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) stated "The government collects vast amounts of data that become valuable when you can connect it with something else that arrives at a future point in time. Since you can’t connect dots you don’t have, it drives us into a mode of we fundamentally try to collect everything and hang onto it forever – forever being in quotes, of course”.

U.S Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden had classified knowledge of the program as members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but were unable to speak of it when they warned in a Dec. 27, 2012, floor debate according to the Washington Post 6/6/2013. They commented in 2011 that the government has secretly interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act in a way that they portray as twisted, allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct some kind of unspecified domestic surveillance that they say does not dovetail with a plain reading of the statute.
In June 2013 highly placed NSA intelligence official , turned whistleblower William Binney confirmed and clarified the Senators allegation by stating "the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain any data in any third party, like any service provider… any third party… any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else.

It's easy to confuse the Verizon logging story with the PRISM story because information on the two stories became public over the span of a single news cycle, and not all of the media have been careful to make the distinction (although the more reliable sources generally have). But Wikipedia shouldn't be contributing to the confusion. Dezastru (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added this paragraph to "Response from United States government"

On June 8, 2013 questioned regarding PRISM, highly placed NSA intelligence official , turned whistleblower William Binney confirmed and clarified U.S Senators Mark Udall and Ron Wyden 2011 allegation[41] by stating "the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain any data in any third party, like any service provider… any third party… any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else. In other words, the government was using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not acting color of law using governmental powers, and that it was private companies just doing their thing (which the government happened to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over)".[42]

It is very relevant. William Binney is being interviewed about PRISM, and what is the Legal basis the Government is using. and in his statement he is addressing the Senators 2011 allegation similar comments he just tells more .109.65.191.146 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Binney was one of the people who filed the original Inspector General complaint to the DoD in the early 2000s about the Trailblazer project. He was friends with Thomas Andrews Drake, one of the most important NSA whistleblowers in US history and the center of a huge court battle in 2010/2011. Binney designed some intercept systems for the NSA. He is an excellent source for information about the NSA surveillance programs. Decora (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about PRISM, not about government surveillance as an open-ended discussion. The issue isn't whether Binney is someone whose opinions on government surveillance are relevant. The issue is (a) whether his opinions on government surveillance have been directly tied to the PRISM program and (b) whether that connection has been reported on by reliable sources. A lot of people over the years have been critical of government surveillance policies, but the PRISM program has only come to light within the past couple of days. To take isolated statements from months or even years ago that are critical of government surveillance programs and then tie those statements to the PRISM program when no reliable source has yet made that connection is a violation of Wikipedia's prohibition against synthesis, which plainly states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYNTH Dezastru (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This little article from the New York Times is relevant to the discussion here. It highlights the major differences reported on thus far between the phone records logging program and the PRISM progam. Dezastru (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Response from US lawmakers & mass deleted content

Below is a oneline list. Link, size, topic, comment If you cant wait for information to resurface spontaneously see what is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein know prism was on "for the past seven years" and "it is lawful". "That's the goal. If we can do it another way, we're looking to do it another way. We'd like to." Telephone record "not to be private personal property " "thing taken" "If there is strong suspicion that a terrorist" "I flew over World Trade Center going to Senator Lautenberg’s funeral" Mike Rogers NSA "is not reading Americans’ emails. None of these programs allow that,” Lindsey Graham "could care less if they're looking" ""I'm glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country." Mark Udall "We do need to remember, we’re in a war against terrorists", "It ought to remain sacred" Pete King understood the extent supports it. Steve Israel said "The system worked". "We must continue to have checks and balances". Tim Bishop and Carolyn McCarthy wants more info. Charles Schumer didn't know Americans "10 million families" are caught up. Kirsten Gillibrand said "PRISM program raises real concerns" Jim Sensenbrenner - "I'm angry, and I was the one that wrote the law. And I think that the Justice Department and the NSA have abused this by going to far," Al Franken - "The American public can't be kept in the dark". Rand Paul - "The National Security Agency's seizure and surveillance of virtually all of Verizon's phone customers is an astounding assault on the Constitution," Jeff Merkley - “I knew about the program because I specifically sought it out,” "I felt it was so out of sync with the plain language of the law" "I called for the declassification" “When I sought information [on the phone surveillance program], the only information I got was that, yes there is a program sweeping up broad amounts of data through the records act. This second thing, which we just learned about, called PRISM, I had no idea about.” Ron Wyden was seeking in 2011 and didn't yet read (06/07) the secret law on which PRISM operate edits by 99.90.197.87

References

Nominated for DYK

I nominated this article to be featured in Wikipedia's "Did you Know?" project. See the nomination here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems illogical that a current event of international importance would be considered for trivia. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on making Wikipedia homepage, "In the news" .!.

• "The US National Security Agency's PRISM program is revealed as using surveillance of user data from major technology companies." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Still secret?

• 1. 'former' not good I agree, but perhaps 'formerly top secret' will be beater wording. US President commented about it to public, what by all means mean secret no longer is secret. For me is an antisemantism to call secret a context all world talk about. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It says "formally" not "formerly" (in case that's what you meant) Capscap (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

When in the United States Air Force Security Service in 1957, I had to attend a briefing where we were presented a New York Times front page stamped TOP SECRET top and bottom. We all then had to sign acknowledgements that the information in the page was still TOP SECRET. —Pawyilee (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• 2. It is 'not secret' when it is declared to be 'not secret', not when someone talks about it. And 'Top Secret' is more secure than 'Secret' in the military/intelligence/government. PRISM was and is 'Top Secret'. You may not know what you think you know, in extent and in detail. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was there reluctance to add 'Utah Data Center' to 'See also' ?

The Utah Data Center is back on our 'See also' list, not by me. When I first put it there it was removed as not having reference.

Here is a reference: "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Out on Verizon, PRISM, and the Utah Data Center" [3] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And the "Libertas Institute" is a reliable source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some RS:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2337420/Utah-Data-Center-The-million-square-foot-Utah-data-mining-facility-built-NSA.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
• http://fox13now.com/2013/06/06/nsa-data-collection-turns-attention-to-utah-data-center/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-the-nsas-utah-data-center-2013-6

Capscap (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

When you talk about 'reliable sources' do you mean The New York Times and Washington Post that didn't report this for years and left it for the UK to report? :-) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

NSA data centers

Can anyone here tell me where the Wikipedia articles are for the NSA center in San Antonio, Texas and North Yorkshire, England? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are articles for those. There's a brief mention of the Texas one at National security agency#Facilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capscap (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Capscap. In that case, I will add the one in England to the NSA article. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, just noticed this link! Texas Cryptology Center! Capscap (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well England has been added to the NSA article and sourced. Sadly, somebody just reverted my addition to the North Yorkshire article. This topic is awfully hard to discuss. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a whole new article for the yorkshire center? or you can link to RAF Menwith Hill ?? Decora (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Decora. The Salt Lake Tribune wasn't very specific. I learned of RAF Menwith Hill only thanks to User:Langcliffe's correction to the North Yorkshire article. (And the person who reverted me did so correctly I think.) Do you have time to fix the NSA article? I'm going offline for the day. Here is The Guardian that you could use as a source if you find the time. I guess I thought by now the NSA article would at least keep better track of facilities. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, for what it's worth. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Impact of disclosure on collection activities

A section needs to be added, when the mainstream media finally gets around to talking about the impact that this disclosure had on the NSA's intelligence gathering capabilities. So far we only have a few vague statements from political appointees and politicians, such as the from the DNI. Per Snowden's statements, he carefully selected materials to minimize the impact to collection activities not related to collection efforts aimed at Americans.

Those policy makers who choose to spy on Americans have unleashed an unavoidable set of events that has irreparably harmed the NSA's ability to collect legal and useful intelligence on foreign entities.

We should address the impact of the disclosure as reliable and neutral sources on the matter become available.

Jsheehy (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The disclosure may be lengthy, if there is cache of 3T HDD to disclose. Is only one whisteblower? or others have fast internet or LAN to getso much? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen no reports indicating there's a 3-TB hard drive of data to disclose. It's deeply inconsistent with all reports about Snowden's motivations and his approach. He specifically said he did not want to go the Bradley Manning route of a document dump. However, I do think as more truth-bending denials come out, we'll see more limited releases to clarify the conversation and prevent the spin-doctoring by the USG. There's hundreds of other collections lines running now, but most of them do not target US citizens and are not likely to be presented in the media, since they do not need to be part of the debate about a domestic surveillance state.

Nor have I seen reports of multiple whistleblowers at this time. It is possible others will step forward in the future to bring to light operations with which they have ethical problems. We will see how this continues to unfold. Jsheehy (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The best article I have found so far attempting to address this topic is in the WSJ It state that the "data has aided in building successful sting cases, in which people with terrorist ties are lured into purported attacks, helping thwart terrorists plots, current and former U.S. officials said." If, in fact, this is the only impact, then their is no impact, since the FBI can entrap people just as easily without the aid of this dragnet surveillance. Clapper's general statement warning that "Discussing programs like this publicly will have an impact on the behavior of our adversaries and make it more difficult for us to understand their intentions." seems to be the most relevant, but still remains quite vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsheehy (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Known counter measures deleted!

Two users are deleting a paragraph regarding counter measures to the NSA spying. See these changes: [4] and [5]. One of these users, Capscap, claims that naming counter measures is "original research" which is not true since the measures -- such as GNU Privacy Guard or open source alternatives to Skype such as Jitsi -- are all well known. Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)\

Please see WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTADVOCATE Capscap (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Both rules are not applicable in this case of just naming very shortly counter measures. Its not a manual on how to setup GnuPG for example and it is also not "propaganda" to point out that there are possible counter meassures. Its just what a encyclopedia is for: Naming the relevant information in one article. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of the countermeasures in this article and the assertions about their effectiveness is original research. You even acknowledge that is advocacy in your first message here: "Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public." You are using the section to provide a manual on alleged methods to avoid the NSA surveillance. Perhaps the "See also" section could have a link to Category:Cryptographic software. Capscap (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. Until there's evidence to the contrary about what you're posting, what you're posting is pretty much advertisement. --RAN1 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now this article is also part of that Jitsi-Ekiga-spam-campaign. Previous targets include the Skype and Google+ Hangouts articles. --pcworld (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, its just neither original reasearch nor spam: Its just about completeness and Neutral point of view. Even regular news article stress possible counter meassures such as PGP - see here and here (its german though but just search for "pgp"), and this one is technical from "pc world" - @pc-world ... what a coincidence ... - so why wouldn't a encyclopedia article name counter measures when the press is naming them? Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just link to WP:NOT. Please read that in its entirety (including the section on how Wikipedia is not a news service) before coming back here to reply. --RAN1 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written: Why wouldn't a encyclopedia article name counter measures when the press is naming them? Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the press. It is not a news organization of any sort. It's a neutral encyclopedia that, in this case/article, is documenting information about the PRISM program and its scope. It's not meant to go outside that scope or to take a biased point of view by promoting either side, the companies who were named as partners to the PRISM program or companies/organizations that were not named. Promotion is especially the issue here since those news articles are promoting, but we can't. In short, as much as it would be convenient to post alternatives here, for the sake of neutrality we should not post those here. It's better left off to news sources and advice columns to provide that kind of information to readers. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the press - of course. But when the press names counter measures in the context of their reports covering PRISM than the scope of the PRISM program expands and includes the counter meassures as well! Therefore, not naming counter measures--even though it is part of the scope of PRISM media coverage--is just not neutral. To cover the phenomenon in its complexity you need to name counter meassures to be in compliance with WP:Neutral point of view. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's pertinent to the topic that the targets that are hoped to be caught by PRISM can trivially thwart such surveillance by communicating with strong encryption. This is not a controversial concept, but it seems to be easily forgotten. The article could point out such tools as pgp and such, but it really doesn't have to. 12.234.226.200 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(←) NPOV doesn't stand for news' point of view, and just because a news service publishes it does not make it neutral. --RAN1 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To be quite frankly: Yes it does stand for news' point of view. I quote the first sentence of the NPOV rule: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", see: WP:Neutral point of view. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The distinction is we have all of the other policies, including no promotion. --RAN1 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I highlight the relevant part of the NPOV rule again: " (...) all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - so do you consider all of the sources I have linked to above as not reliable ? It is not a "promotion" when adressing possible counter measures is part of the media coverage! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's neither significant nor a view Capscap (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not getting the point of this policy. The point is to be unbiased, yet the promotion is biased. Furthermore, it doesn't fall under the scope of PRISM, it falls under the scope of reactions to PRISM. If you want to describe how other news articles began reporting alternatives to the companies named in response to the revealing of the program, that should be ok, barring a direct description of those alternatives so as not to fall outside the scope of the article. Perhaps maybe a See Also link for Internet privacy might be appropriate, but an entire section devoted to alternatives gives undue weight to a topic outside this article's scope. --RAN1 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Capscap - dont know what you mean.
@RAN1 - Ok, so I will add a paragraph that "describe[s] how other news articles began reporting alternatives to the companies named in response to the revealing of the program". Kulturdenkmal (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how using hard disk encryption and using Firefox or Opera is supposed to be a "counter measure"? --pcworld (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Google's Chrome browser for example sends information regarding your activity to the Google servers = NSA. So by using an open source browser your activity log is not send to the NSA... if you use TrueCrypt for cloud services such as Dropbox they can not look into your files etc. ... Kulturdenkmal (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This behavior is optional, and Chromium is the almost identical open source version of Chrome. Also, Opera is proprietary software and not open source. --pcworld (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding VPNs: "to encrypt the users internet traffic" – this isn't really true as long as the VPNs are US-based, and even anonymization might not be given if US companies have to cooperate with the US government. --pcworld (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, than just edit the paragraph and improve the information instead of complaining here. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "complaining", I'm providing ideas for discussion on how this section could be improved. --pcworld (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I was rejecting this addition in the beginning. but now that there is the introduction - this subject has clearly been discussed in WP:RS regarding PRISM. - I say keep this addition.109.64.221.115 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the main points raised by RAN1 and me still stand. While it doesn't seem so much like advocacy any more, it still reeks of WP:MANUAL and WP:NOTNEWS. It's just a tangent from what this article is about and the rationale for including it here would mean that it should also be included in dozens of other pages where it's a tangential response rather than information about the actual issue. It may be worthy of a see also link or a single sentence, but that's about it. Given the bare and tangential coverage, the section now is certainly giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Capscap (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So now we have an edit war going on. Great 190.103.67.104 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC).

No, just one ip (202.71.129.154) tried twice to delete the paragraph ... the rest want to keep it ... the ip also stopped its activity so no-edit war. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Kulturedenkmal, you're edit warring. And the rest of us don't want to keep it. See this section for more on that. Capscap (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Capscap - you just said "It's neither significant nor a view" - which I didn't understand. So maybe you could go in a little bit more detail what exactle you don't like. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added more right above this "edit war" thread--might have gotten lost in the mix (15:25 time stamp). Capscap (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reported the IP 202.71.129.154 as beeing involved in vandalism - lets just wait until he is blocked to bring it back. @Capscap - please bring forward an argument on why you wouldn't include media coverage regarding counter measures. I still didn't hear anything that would justify a deletion. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Counter measures are very relevant to this article. Who is editing these out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What the IP was doing is not vandalism, and the way to proceed here is to gain consensus before modifying the article to include this material. FWIW, I agree with CapsCap that this material should not be in this article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Alexbrn - Please state your argument clearly! Capscap requires us to mention all aspects of the PRISM debate - including the discussed counter meassures. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit war discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --pcworld (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does someone keep adding this stuff back to the article? It seems to me that it's clear that most users are against it for good reason. From right above without scrolling, I can see manual, notnews, and undue. I've tried to fix the article by reverting, but I was just notified of a rule only allowing 3, so someone else will have to fix it. 202.71.129.154 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there are users who try to block those who are in favor of WP:NPOV. These users are 202.71.129.154, Pc-world and Capscap. NPOV requires us to report the full picture of the PRISM debate which also includes discussed counter meassures. If you think that leaving this aspect out of the article than you are required to present a plausible argument in favor of a violation of NPOV. Unless any of you three users come up with a argument, you are just not acting according to NPOV! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And again, someone gives you reasons and you ignore them. You obviously don't care about what anyone else thinks, so I'm not going to waste more effort trying to explain it to you again. Just see the comments here from everybody except you. Capscap (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention me here, I've nowhere stated that I were for or against having such a section. --pcworld (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of participation violates WP:NPOV!!!! </sarcasm> Capscap (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a single "opinion" can now substitute for a consensus. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I would fix it, but I'm trying to stay out of an edit war Capscap (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Kulturdenkmal, what I meant by my last message above was add a sentence saying something along the lines of, "In response to the PRISM reveal, news source A, news source B, and news source C listed alternatives to cloud computing and encryption methods.(ref A)(ref B)(ref C)" There isn't enough weight to this for it to deserve its own section in this article and you are inflating the issue by trying to shoehorn in that info. I also agree with Capscap that it reads like a manual, which not only falls into WP:MANUAL but also falls outside the scope of the article, which is the PRISM program. We're trying to write an article about the PRISM program, not Internet privacy; that's what the See Also link is for, so as to link readers to that article because they might deem it interesting in light of the PRISM reveal. I'm gonna conclude this by saying that this kind of information is better suited for the Internet privacy article, whose scope does include these methods (and in light of PRISM, should probably seriously be re-worked). --RAN1 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Capscap WP:NPOV is not my single "opinion" but just Wikipedia policy everybody should follow including you!

@RAN1 Well the counter meassures are part of the PRISM debate. I speak primarily for the German media market and hints to PGP, TrueCrypt, VPNs etc. are just mentioned in many press articles - but as I have shown above there are also plenty of english-speaking articles which are covering the issue of counter meassures as well. So of course, WP:NPOV requires us to reflect the most basic counter measures in the article which include not more than just naming them each and present one sentence for every counter measure - not more but also not less than that! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is not the policy-to-rule-them-all. It also does not support your belief that since countermeasures are included in some PRISM articles they must be included in Wikipedia. Describing countermeasures is not a view or an idea that is in line with NPOV; however, describing the fact that various news sources are describing countermeasures is. Describing these countermeasures in the context of PRISM is promotion because they fall outside of PRISM's immediate scope, but describing them in Internet privacy is not promotion because it is directly relevant to the article's scope. This is where other policies and considerations come into play. I would encourage you to read WP:Scope, as that provides some more information about what scope is. I would also encourage you to read WP:Consensus, as that is very important to solving problems such as these. --RAN1 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm.. No. "Countermeasures" are a different subject than the one at hand. No, its not OR, but you are trying to create an article within an article. Link to Internet privacy, bam, you're done. Anything more and its too much. I'm glad you are passionate, but again please post them to the INTERNET PRIVACY article, and add it there. Kulturdenkmal take the privacy information to another article. Wikilink to it, don't just copy it all wholesale to this article. If its somewhere else already, well, then a link there will suffice. Int21h (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no consensus for keeping the section, I'm gonna go with WP:NOCONSENSUS and blank the section. If anybody wants to argue for the keeping of the section, they should go here and discuss it before reverting. --RAN1 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the section and its sources throughoutly and found it to have multiple instances of WP:OR claims, which I then fixed (link to last revision). Nevertheless, I strongly agree that this article is not the right place for that kind of information (Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical HOW-TO guide.) The material might still be very well-suited for a site such as wikiHow. --hydrox (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Kulturdenkmal: i appreciate your enthusiasm, but there are other ways to get your contriubtion across. if you can find a news article that discusses GPG/TOR in relation to PRISM, then quote it and link to it. otherwise Capscap is correct. the wikipedia rules are hard to get used to, but there are good reasons for them. for example - what if you are wrong, and GPG has been cracked by NSA? the article's priorty has to be an easy and comprehensive description of the subject for people unfamiliar with the topic, not always a how to guide. trust that the readers can branch off on their own if they want to fully investigate privacy technology. it fits better to have some short paragraph, second sourced, that links to a bigger article on privacy technology. good luck to you and keep editing. Decora (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How about adding a wikilink in See Also section now before reaching a consensus? New worl (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How is Anonymous related to PRISM?

I noticed that Anonymous (group) is linked in the see also section of this article. Is there any relationship between Anonymous and PRISM? Jarble (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I found a related news story about leaks of DoD documents in response to PRISM by Anonymous. Should this information be added to the article? Jarble (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I noticed two edits going back in the last few days. A was by Hydrox (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 9 June 2013 having added "IBM and the Holocaust" as a See Also - and Theitalian05 (talk | contribs) at 03:25, 10 June 2013 having added "Anonymous (group)" to See Also. Both should and can be removed. There is no link yet in the news referenced by wikipedia. Fatum81 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The leaks by Anonymous already have been mentioned in the news: why should the links to Anonymous be removed when they are clearly relevant to this article? Jarble (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

They are tag-alongs for publicity. One writes says their actions were not significant. [6] "Anonymous says that it leaked a bunch of government documents, but that might not exactly be the case." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The documents leaked by the group Anonymous are not classified secret and are publicly available since being published in 2008. There is no direct link to the PRISM project or to the whistle blowers."'How little rights you have:' Anonymous leaks more PRISM-related NSA docs" and "Department of Defense: NetOps Strategic Vision". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatum81 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs a section on what data was collected

This is a question most people are asking, but the article only covers that with a short section in lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any lead story already listed here reveals what was stolen from computers by the NSA spying program, but if it is a program that anyone or someone can access - then they are't logging into to look and inform the media. At least not yet? I'm not sure video, e-mail, audio, documents, hard drive data, health documents, tax returns to employment receipts, or anything digital is enough to just say without furthering the investigation, or have the lead foot drop and admit the whole thing on TV. Good luck finding that out. Fatum81 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo controversy

Yahoo is asking sometimes his users(especially from abroad countries) to "move personal info to another country server". They justice it by "fastening answer time and mirroring". However this is probably because the data on the European servers, according to European law is not so easy to obtain by forces, and as shown above in Google case NSA can obtain it without search warrant(impossible generally in European privacy law sphere). Yahoo! according to leaked documents joined the Prism in 2008, The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by the Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft." Argued by 89.74.109.107

Skype and Microsoft controversy

After Microsoft acquired Skype they changed P2P mode(peer-to-peer client machines) to centralized P2 thousands of Linux(ironically Microsoft fought with open source in the past) boxes 2 P mode. They defend it by saying it will harden it after hacker attacks, but this creation made situation when every talk, even between for example Andorra and Monaco users would go via USA, and can be easily obtained(see Google court laws) without warrant, and probably is stored on the servers for some time. Microsoft according to leaked documents joined the Prism in 2007, Skype in 2011 (was marquee of the Microsoft years before) The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by the Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft." For BBC the latter said industry and government officials had told it that Skype "has expanded its co-operation with law enforcement authorities to make online chats and other user information available to police". Before the change from p2p Skype said: We can't comply with police wiretap requests for CNN. Argued by 89.74.109.107 Argued by 89.74.109.107

I moved this here, it appears to be non-English discussions from the Guardian News Paper in the UK. Fatum81 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Blackmail?

"Bipartisan majorities have approved them." It seems that programs like this could actually destabilize modern republics in the long term. 75.70.89.124 (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ken Langone, Home Depot co-founder, expresses views

Ken Langone, Home Depot co-founder, said on Fox News that this leak is no different than the leak of the Pentagon Papers. He also said that in regards to Snowden "I'd throw a party for him, I'd congratulate him, I'd say 'Thank you for helping protect Americans' privacy rights"

Unfortunately I don't see a written transcript. You can see the interview on YouTube. Keep your eyes peeled if it gets written, or find a way to cite the news broadcast. It was an interview with Neil Cavuto. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• I found an official Fox News video link so I used quotes and time marks. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Logo placement

Why is the logo so far down? Shouldn't it go at the top? Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Google may be more involved

Google Mapathon which caused security concerns in India may have been an action of surveillance. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/drawing-the-line-on-google/article4693193.ece http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/cbi-may-take-up-google-mapathon-case/article4637680.ece AnnaLin9 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)AnnaLin9

Comments

Denials are pouring in. http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/

I think the companies are most likely lying, but to be NPOV it should be noted.

Denials are fine. If you read the article on Room 641A it is referred to in AT&T internal documents as a "Study Group Secure Room." I'm fairly certain that no company is going to come out and blatantly say that they are working on intercepting communications with the NSA. That might be bad for business and consumer trust. We should note which companies have denied working with the NSA and possibly incorporate some of the graphics that have been distributed with articles showing when those companies signed on with the NSA. Aneah|talk _to ^me 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone kindly specify Anonymous' new contribution because I can't find it. 117.221.182.58 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Help Me

The image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Upstream_slide_of_the_PRISM_presentation.jpg shows that data was collected at three spots Guyana, Kenya and South India. This should be added. 117.221.182.58 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Eye

Reach of Hand

Was information collected on foreign political, judicial or military members? If so how much do they know?117.221.182.58 (talk) 06:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Eye

I don't think anyone has comments regarding the individuals being examined by the NSA at this time. Please read the article that anyones digital information passes through the US companies listed there and the data is available to the US Government and its sources. Fatum81 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden

The whistleblower behind these documents has revealed himself; please assist with the new article Edward Snowden. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be participating over on his WP article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph should not call him a 'whistleblower'...at best that fact is in dispute. Word should simply be deleted, so the sentence would read, "...leaked by Edward Snowden..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.77.61 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul comments

Re: The comments clearly have little or nothing to do with PRISM and the source confirms he was talking about Syria not PRISM) (undo) Below a copy of RP coment Ron Paul

• "He's [Snowden] done a great service, because he's telling the truth and this is what we are starved for. The American people are starved for the truth. And when you have a dictatorship or an authoritarian government, truth becomes treasonous," "For somebody to tell the American people the truth is a heroic effort, and he knows that it's very risky, he knows he's committing civil disobedience, and he knows that he could get punished." [7]June 10
• "They're entrapments and the FBI's involved and they get out of hand and then it's, 'oh, we just saved you from ourselves.' So no, that's all to build fear and intimidate people and make them willing to sacrifice their liberties at the expense of thinking they're going to be safer."[8]
• "What they're saying is as we speak on the phone today that they're not literally listening right now. But there's a recording of this made and there will be flags and then they can go back and listen to what they want. "[9]Jun 10
• "It's crazy. We[the part of US gov?] have all these wars that we're losing. We've lost in Afghanistan, total chaos in Iraq – there was no al Qaeda in Iraq and now there is. Al Qaeda's over there helping the rebels in Syria and now we're joining al Qaeda and helping them to overthrow Assad."[10]Jun 10
• "Ultimately this policy is going to backfire on not only the United States, it's going to backfire on Israel because these countries end up taking over, or the rebels that take over are usually radical Islamists who are going to be more anti-Israel and yet we're supporting them. It's a foolish policy,"[11]Jun 10 {but isn't some there hoping for the backfire? We have been seen when the policy backfire and US suffer e leder Zionis' say "we are benefiting from"[12] it. Do trylions wasted and thousands ded bring any benefit to US?}

The later two in particular clearly have nothing to do with PRISM. I removed them once earlier, I don't get why they were added back [13] but the IP has now been blocked for mostly unrelated reasons so hopefully it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Did the NSA stop Najibullah Zazi?

"Looks like surveillance defenders just lost their main talking point in defense of the NSA's (formerly) secret phone and data tracking programs: Najibullah Zazi, the would-be New York City subway bomber, could have easily been caught without PRISM. That's according to a devastating rebuttal from the Associated Press out Tuesday, which further explains that those employing the Zazi defense didn't even get the details right on the attempted plot in the first place." [14] [15] [16]. Fatum81 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the AP source unfortunately I don't think it's reliable. It really reports on nothing that wasn't already known, and its central point, that Zazi's e-mail could have easily been found without PRISM, is pure synthesis without any sourcing -- no quotes by legal experts, law enforcement experts, prosecutors, or defense attorneys. The piece gives no opportunity for the government to respond. Effectively it's no more than an opinion piece. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss, if any source makes a thesis that "Zazi's e-mail could have easily been found without PRISM" then it's not synthesis. WP:SYNTHESIS is when a Wikipedia editor makes a conclusion from two sources which did not have that particular conclusion. Now we still have to follow rules regarding editorials versus straight up journalism. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It has to be a reliable source, which I don't think this is. I'm not saying it violates WP:SYNTH, I'm saying it violates WP:RS. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations says "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

• So even if the AP piece hasn't quoted any of those sources, surely the statements of fact (Zazi being watched for two weeks contrary to what Feinstein said, backpacks being unrelated, bombs not have been completed yet) could be verified in other pieces too? Do some editors argue "AP is usually reliable?"

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is reliable for those facts. Where it's not reliable is for the assertion that the e-mail could have easily been obtained without PRISM. That's opinion because it's unsupported by any authority whatsoever. For all we know the author did no research at all. If the article had said "legal experts agree that..." then that would be a completely different story. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the supporting evidence from the AP article: "That's because, even before the surveillance laws of 2007 and 2008, the FBI had the authority to — and did, regularly — monitor email accounts linked to terrorists. The only difference was, before the laws changed, the government needed a warrant. To get a warrant, the law requires that the government show that the target is a suspected member of a terrorist group or foreign government, something that had been well established at that point in the Zazi case." - What the article is saying is: at that time the government already had Zazi under suspicion as being a member of a terrorist group, so all they needed to do was get a warrant and they could search his e-mail. Since the Associated Press is generally considered a high quality RS, there may be Wikipedians who say that the article should be enough to cite it. Even then, perhaps there's another source which also says "Zazi had been suspected as a terrorist at that time." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So I found: "Robert S. Mueller, III Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Bureau of Investigation Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington DC ." (Archive) Federal Bureau of Investigation. May 24, 2004. - It says "In addition, the PATRIOT Act permits similar search warrants for electronic evidence such as email." and "Today, a judge anywhere in the U.S. can issue a search warrant for a subject's email, no matter where the ISP is based." WhisperToMe (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No no, what I mean is that the author conducted an independent analysis -- one that I personally suspect is correct, btw -- but then appears not to have sought any corroboration from experts or given anyone the opportunity for rebuttal. The fact taht the analysis is grounded in verifiable facts is beside the point. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding a journalist conducting an independent analysis based on facts should be okay, while a Wikipedian doing so is not. Also it seems like if the FBI had the authority to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist, and Zazi was labeled as a suspect, it seems fairly straightforward that the FBI can do that. If you want, I can get a noticeboard involved, maybe those for WP:V or WP:RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In most cases news reporting is reliable, but in this case it's not because (IMO) the journalists didn't conduct due diligence on the centerpiece of their story. The reason I brought up in my initial comment the absence of anything that wasn't already known is because it appears that the authors did zero (or very little) independent research beyond reviewing the existing news reports. You or I or any newspaper columnist could have written the same article without picking up the phone. In that sense it's an opinion piece in the guise of a news story. I'm happy to continue discussing this here, at WP:RSN, or in another WP:DR forum (though I think WP:RSN would be most appropriate). --Nstrauss (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

New discussion started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PRISM_and_an_Associated_Press_article_discussing_the_Najibullah_Zazi_case WhisperToMe (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolved with WhisperToMe's discovery of the following source: Pilkington, Ed and Nicholas Watt. "NSA surveillance played little role in foiling terror plots, experts say." The Guardian. Wednesday June 12, 2013. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Movement to lift FISA gag order

There should be a new section about these tech companies asking the attorney general to lift the gag order so that they can disclose more about the number and scope of FISA requests.

Sources:

• http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2340002/Google-asks-FBI-allow-disclose-FISA-requests-data.html
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588845-38/justice-dept-weighs-googles-request-to-lift-nsa-gag-order/
• http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/11/technology/security/google-government-data/index.html?section=money_topstories
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-11/business/sns-rt-us-google-nsa-transparency-requestbre95a118-20130611_1_requests-government-transparency-fisa
• http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/google-facebook-microsoft-push-us-public-disclosure-security-requests-6C10282723
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/google-nsa-national-security_n_3423064.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.59.103 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM and no not leave legal proceeding requests here. I see only blog postings by Google, Microsoft, and Facebook. You may reference these if you like, but these sources do not mention a gag order, or the attorney generals office to request any comment. Fatum81 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for discussion on Talk:NSA call database

I started a thread on whether to move NSA call database to "MARINA (surveillance program)" on Monday, as I'm uncertain about whether this is the right move. Unfortunately I haven't gotten any feedback. It seems there's a lot more interest in PRISM then in the telephone records leak. Would anyone care to weigh in? --Nstrauss (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, I think you are right to treat that as a separate topic. I can't offer much more, but I do think there is confusion between two very separate systems of data collection, both factually and legally. Syncalin (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede 1st. paragraph

Just reading it now it reads as if the program deals exclusively with "foreign" communications. The RSs I've seen are mostly talking about how Prism may be infringing on the privacy of Americans within the USA, and thus the 4th. amendment to the U.S. constitution. May122013 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; seems ok again. May122013 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Description of Prism

Our first 2 sentences need to better reflect the sources, I think, e.g. the USA source describes prism as "the clandestine national security program to ferret out terrorists". I think we need to use the word "clandestine" if the sources do ( it must have been since this article was just created 4 days ago :) and also to frame its purpose as the sources do, perhaps as "to identify terrorists" rather than the term "anti-terrorism" which the sources are not employing. May122013 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead sentences better reflected the canonical sources, until this very poor USA Today article was introduced. I think this is the result of the author conflating the Verizon CDR/call meta-data and the PRISM program. If we have to use a USA Today source, than a more accurate USA Today article is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/08/dni-declassifies-prism-data-collection-nsa-secret-program-obama/2403999/

and it says much more accurately and clearly:

The National Security Agency's classified PRISM program is an internal government computer system used to manage foreign intelligence collected from Internet and other electronic service providers, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in a statement Saturday.

The above is USA Today quoting the DNI on PRISM.

Notice it says nothing about "terrorists," "anti-terrorism," or a purpose "to identify terrorists." This is because the program is not just targeted at "terrorists." It is targeted at "foreign intelligence" whether it is terror related or not.

Additionally, the Guardian, which broke the news on PRISM shows the cover slide from the PRISM training materials. You can view it here:

https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/6/6/1370557489060/Prism-008.jpg

Notice it clearly says nothing about "terrorists," "anti-terrorism," or a purpose "to identify terrorists." Again, this is because it is not an counter-terrorism initiative. It is a SIGINT program. Counter-terrorism is but one area on which they tasked the collection program.

The lead should be based on the original Washington Post and Guardian articles, as well as the canonical materials that were leaked.

Jsheehy (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree to leaving out "terrorists," "anti-terrorism", etc. in the lede as the thrust of the secondary sourced articles about PRISM have been focusing on the privacy aspects. If you wish to change that its a good idea. May122013 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I was bold and fixed the lead, and the unused ref is here for reuse:

program designed to identify terrorists. Feel free to improve further by making closer to sources. Widefox; talk 13:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems good imo now. Thanks. May122013 (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I have submitted this for dispute resolution, since Somedifferentstuff appears unwilling to participate in the talk page and keeps reverting many different users' edits to the lead. Jsheehy (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jsheehy. Saying in the very first sentence that the program's purpose it to combat terrorism puts a spin on the article that isn't supported by all of the reporting. The original articles indicated that it is a program for covertly gathering intelligence. It's operated by the NSA, so it's clearly intended to gather intelligence involving national security issues. That doesn't mean that the sole kind of intelligence it is intended or used to gather is intelligence involving terrorism. The program may have any number of uses, many of which may very likely remain classified. The USA Today article is not the best source. Dezastru (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and think it's highly POV not to mention that it's an anti-terrorism program. I've added a section below. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to say that it has been used to combat terrorism further along in the article. The problem is with spinnng it as an anti-terrorism tool in the first sentence or first couple of sentences, foreclosing consideration of the broader uses it may have. Dezastru (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources below back up its use to deter terrorism. Even the first paragraph of this article's History section states, "PRISM was launched in December 2007 to replace the Terrorist Surveillance Program." Not mentioning terrorism in the first paragraph of the lead is not a neutral formulation. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with mentioning that the program has been labeled as a "counter-terror," "counter-terrorism" or even "anti-terror" program in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence and not in a sentence that connect PRISM with is and any of those words. Also, I think we need a better source the USA Today article that's been used so far. There's plenty of non weasel-word language that can be used that does not inaccurately state PRISM is only a small piece of what it is. It's not NPOV to use the language of one side in this contentious issue. I like the phrase 'The stated objective of the program is...' with a solid source as a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsheehy (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Your argument would have us rewrite the intro to the Wikipedia article on cows as, "Cattle (colloquially cows) are a species of large domesticated ungulates that are raised as livestock for meat and milk." Or the article on oil as, "Petroleum is a naturally occurring liquid used to produce gasoline, or petrol, and other fuels." Dezastru (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's your argument for not including info that the program is used to identify terrorists??? - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is about using the proper language and sources. If the government made a bolt and shipped it to Afghanistan and it was put in a Humvee that was used to hunt down terrorists, does that make it a counter-terrorism bolt? If a dog is used to track people who happen to be terrorists does that make it a counter-terrorism dog or is it really a tracking dog used for, among other things, counter-terrorism?

Again, I am happy to use accurate language with a quality source to say something like 'The primary objective of the program is....' at the end of the lead paragraph. I think that is very fair and balances the different viewpoints. Thanks. Jsheehy (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-terrorism program

Regarding PRISM being an anti-terrorism program. Source 1 states, "The disclosure of details about how marquee U.S. tech companies co-operated with PRISM, the clandestine national security program to ferret out terrorists, shows how methodically and conservatively the program is being carried out."[17]

Source 2 states, "CBS News has also reported that the so-called PRISM program, that tracked Internet activity, helped foil the plot to detonate bombs in the Grand Central and Times Square subway stations during rush hour."[18]

Here's another source: "Online surveillance has been effective and is an important tool in the fight against terrorism. Lawmakers have said that data mining stopped attacks in the United States and overseas. The programs also provide U.S. authorities with leads on potential and existing terrorists. One NSA official told the Washington Post that PRISM provided a “field of dots” which allowed authorities to connect the relevant ones. But the best justification for the program has been what has not occurred. Since 9/11, there has only been one major terror attack on U.S. soil."[19] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm with the majority on this one. "Source 1" is the only reliable source I can find suggesting that the primary purpose of PRISM is anti-terrorism. No other reliable sources say that, including the USA Today story Jsheehy identified. "Source 2" doesn't speak to the purpose of the system, just its use on two occasion. Those uses could have been incidental to its primary purpose. Somedifferentstuff's third source is an opinion piece and clearly not reliable. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nstrauss's points. May122013 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Source 1 states, "PRISM, the clandestine national security program to ferret out terrorists,"

Source 3 is not an opinion piece which is clearly indicated by the heading on the source page.

As the article stands, terrorism isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead. PRISM is just some surveillance program that has nothing to do with monitoring terrorist related activity, even though it "was launched in December 2007 to replace the Terrorist Surveillance Program." That's definitely neutral (sarcasm mine). - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Prism aim supposed to be terrorist surveillance program. Somehow it diverged to surveillance also anti-terrorists, those all common people who are usually against terror. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• You already made your point about Source 1. Our point is that it's an outlier and it isn't even supported by subsequent USA Today sources.
• Source 3 is absolutely an opinion piece. "Here are five reasons that PRISM is no big deal..." -- that is the language of an opinion piece, not news reporting. What "heading on the source page" are you referring to?
• The language in the body about the program being "launched in December 2007 to replace the Terrorist Surveillance Program" is unsourced and violates WP:SYNTH. I'm removing it.

--Nstrauss (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• You still haven't bothered to look at the heading of source 3 which clearly isn't an opinion piece.
• Here's another source[20] (new on Forbes), "The stated purpose of PRISM is to fight foreign terrorism by monitoring users’ Internet activity." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the above section, where this topic was started, I am very happy to add to the lead paragraph 'The stated objective of the program is...' with a solid source as a reference. I think Forbes is fine for this reference, we can probably find a better one. Propose some language to add "The stated purpose of PRISM is to fight foreign terrorism by monitoring users’ Internet activity." to a new sentence at the end of the lead paragraph. I think it is a very reasonable compromise, which accurately reflects the situation.

The best sources, which you have previously cited do not support that this is a counter-terrorism program. The Washington Post says The court-approved program is focused on foreign communications traffic, which often flows through U.S. servers even when sent from one overseas location to another. They avoid calling it a counter-terrorism program. The article also says PRISM "may be the first of its kind," also fails to support your conjecture that PRISM is a counter-terrorism program or in any way a successor to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Jsheehy (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's another great quote from the Washington Post that directly contracts you citing of this article as supporting that PRISM is a counter-terrorism program:

To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in.

This states that the intent of the program is at least both counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism.

I agree with Jsheehy. Somedifferentstuff, in response to your latest comment, I don't understand what heading you're talking about for Source 3. Where do I find it? What does it say? As for your Forbes source (let's call it Source 4), I don't think it's reliable either. It's on a blog (probably not independently edited) and it also has opinion-like language (e.g. "Let’s be clear about what PRISM really is," "The lesson here is that," "This is an important fact to keep in mind," "That’s why it’s important to," "big news events like the PRISM revelations are opportunities," "Companies need to understand." --Nstrauss (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The Fiscal Times article (source 3) is an opinion piece, and it is not reliable for making the statement Somedifferentstuff wants to include. The Forbes article is also an opinion piece and not much more than a blog post. The hyperlink the Forbes author provides for explaining PRISM's stated purpose as being to fight "foreign terrorism" appears to be broken, so there's no way to try to confirm that argument by looking at the source he is using for it. The Washington Post article Somedifferentstuff is trying to use to justify inclusion of a statement about the Terrorist Surveillance Program does not say at any point that 'PRISM replaced the Terrorist Surveillance Program.' The actual quote is: "PRISM was launched from the ashes of President George W. Bush’s secret program of warrantless domestic surveillance in 2007, after news media disclosures, lawsuits and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court forced the president to look for new authority. Congress obliged with the Protect America Act in 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with U.S. intelligence collection." That quote does not mention terrorism. And "rising from the ashes" is not quite the same as "replaced."

All of the reporting does agree that DNI Clapper said PRISM "continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security." It would be appropriate to reword the third paragraph to include this statement. Something along the lines of:

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has said that PRISM, which he calls "one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security," 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.[8] Clapper issued a statement and "fact sheet"[9] to correct what he characterized as "significant misimpressions" in articles by The Washington Post and Guardian newspapers.[10] Former intelligence officials told the Associated Press that sometimes intelligence agencies must destroy material on U.S. citizens they should not have seen, passed to them inappropriately by the NSA.

Dezastru (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Dezastru, I agree with your first paragraph but not with the second. However I think this is appropriate for a separate discussion thread. This thread is about whether we can say that PRISM was designed to ferret out terrorists. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't want to include that Clapper statement. I only proposed it by way of compromise. Dezastru (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the lede is too large now and that the Clapper and William Binney paragraphs ( 3rd and 5th) should not be in the lede but just in the responses sections below. I also don't think the RS articles address PRISM in the context of it being an anti-terrorism tool to an extent that justifies using that terminology in the lede. The focus is on surveillance in those articles, I think. May122013 (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, exactly May122013, I'm with you 100% on all points... except... check out this new WaPo article, which says that PRISM was created "in order to track foreign terrorism suspects." Then there's this new NYTimes piece, in which Sen. Feinstein "revealed that investigators had used the database for purposes beyond countering terrorism." So I think there's some flux in what's coming out in the news. This is clearly a rapidly evolving story. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about rapidly evolving; not wanting to inject OR, but it appears to me that the story is getting more "legs" and evolving more in Europe now than in the USA. Yesterday CNN just dropped it like a hot potato, it appeared to me. We will see how and where it evolves now. May122013 (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Computer System vs. "Electronic Surveillance" program

I'm concerned about the description of PRISM as a "surveillance" program vs. the computer system used to manage data acquired from service providers pursuant to national security letters & FISA warrants. The original media reports seemed to have all walked back their assumptions that the NSA has "direct" access to servers via a PRISM, and all sources seem to point to PRISM being the name of the software used by NSA to manage its program, rather than a separate code-name for a covert activity. It seems to me a serious POV issue to accept the original characterization based on the source of a leak, in the face of developed information from official sources as well as the uniform responses of all the private companies involved. Either you go with the official sources and characterize the rest as "allegations" -- or you write things to express both sides: what the officials say vs. what others claim -- but you can't simply disregard the official info in favor of the leaked source. This is especially true now that the source has been revealed to be a low level, short-term IT employee who was not in a position to have operational knowledge. The fact that the source had IT responsibilities actually supports the conclusion that PRISM is the name of software, since maintenance of a computer system is the one thing that would be within his zone of responsibility.

Can we go back to the lead describing PRISM as a computer system, sourcing the government-issued factsheet and Compusearch description, with any allegation that it encompasses a wider surveillance program to be appropriately sourced? Syncalin (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We usually put reliable secondary sources content up front. I could be wrong but I think the government issued fact sheet fits our description of a primary source:"a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person." May122013 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Do Feinstein talked/leaked about secret prosecution in prism ?

qoute:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a defender of the phone and Internet surveillance programs that have come into public view in recent days, said on Sunday that she would consider holding hearings about them.

“I’m open to doing a hearing every month, if that’s necessary,” she said on the ABC program “This Week.”

But, she added, “Here’s the rub: the instances where this has produced good — has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all classified, that’s what’s so hard about this.”

Ms. Feinstein’s remarks came two days after President Obama commented on news reports, based on leaked government documents, that revealed details about the surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency. The president said he welcomed a debate over the right balance between security and privacy.

Who else argue that attacks were prevented by nice talking to terrorist without disrupting by force discovered plots'. How otherwise, instead of secret prosecution can be called secret use of force? What is better fitting word for such use of force by government ?

To pre-empt above wiki-claim 'editor mistake in source', other sources confirm the same quote [21] and here i found actual trascript pbs also no difference in quote. If nobody will argue tomorrow morning please put back secret prosecution with perhaps the last pbs source.

Dianne Feinstein is one of few person in legislative branch of US gov with prior knowledge on PRISM. If we belive hiding somewhere in stone jungle leaker we should also believe in words of US senator and add it to the article. The article may be helpful for readers preparing for the debate for which President Obama asked, so please if you can better understand and not obscure by superficial checking of souces. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no mention of the word prosecution in the source you cited. Prosecution means the act or process of prosecuting; specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment According to Webster's [22]. The article talks about neither prosecution or secret prosecution (this would be a huge news story).

Also, I don't think this NYT blog is a great source, since it mostly summarizes other sources, which are already reference in this article, such as the Guardian. I am not opposed to putting a section in here that lists the terrorist attacks stopped and not-stopped since 9-11 thanks to PRISM or the CDR Collection Program. Feinstein would not want to see this type of summary in print. Jsheehy (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I just posted text discussing four terrorism cases in relation to PRISM and Boundless Informant. Is this what you had in mind? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you not reading carefuly. I did propose pbs insted of nyt. But to be constructive if prism is not for prosecution. What about:

Prism is ... and secret preventions and also secret distruptions of secret terrorists plots by secret methods

Tihs sound bit wordy but if one know beter fix in art. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(ps)re: Feinstein would not want to see this type of summary. < I hope she dont know exactly what is Prism and it may be leaked soon. Why? Only root on computer system may know whats going on. Was she root? Who is root on PRISM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find:

• Apuzzo, Matt and Adam Goldman. "NYC bomb plot details settle little in NSA debate." Associated press. June 11, 2013. It describes what the government says, but it says: "In the rush to defend the surveillance programs, however, government officials have changed their stories and misstated key facts of the Zazi plot. And they've left out one important detail: The email that disrupted the plan could easily have been intercepted without PRISM."

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)i movet you down, please dont jump over wont be clear who say what

OK. But Najibullah Zazi article just confirm my understanding and is contrary to Jsheehy who object that Feinstein words are not related to prosecution. Feinstein looked up at clandestine ops. which has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is **all** classified,. OK but how happened out of blue this super secretly disrupted plot hanging in wikipedia from 2009 , 8y+10d round of 9/11? The prosecution apparently later was not so secret and he was bring to non secret court. Will anybody still oppose to put prosecution as understanding what Feinstein say in this quote? Is the talk on prosecution over or not? Was he prosecuted or not? Prosecution is good word for government and for not government are other good words. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, two sources about PRISM in relation to Boston bombings:

• Shalev, Chemi. "An Israeli 'Big Brother' as seen through the PRISM of mass surveillance." Haaretz. June 11, 2013.
• "O’Reilly Slams NSA Program: 'Gov't Intrusion Didn't Stop Boston Bombers'." Fox News Insider. June 10, 2013.

Shall this summary be written?

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Harez also quote Natenyahoo say they benefit when USA suffer. Is it respectable source? See up. However this info is post factum. Nobody mentioned PRISM then there and who sourced this info? But the news is priceless it just prove Israel connection may have more intel than US sources. If you find there any info who is root on PRISM post it too. Now this wiki-article mention only who was operator and data entry. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

South China Morning Post article on reactions from Mainland China in its "left" and "right"

I found this South China Morning Post article on reactions from Mainland China in its "left" and "right"

• Li, Amy. "Snowden revelations divide 'left' and 'right' in China." South China Morning Post. Thursday June 13, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg

File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'Domestic response' section tagged for neutrality - discuss

I notice the 'Domestic response' section is tagged for disputed neutrality. What do we need to do to get that tag pulled? Let's discuss and act, thanks. Jusdafax 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

More pro-PRISM / anti-leak commentary. Right now it's way out of WP:BALANCE with the breadth of published opinions. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actual information vs. reactions

I am hoping somebody could take the time to improve this article. Right now this article hardly says what exactly PRISM is, what it does or how it does it. The vast majority of the article focusses on reactions toward PRISM, but it is never revealed how it works. Those are some informations I would like the article to explain:

- What data is collected (raw data, metadata, filtered data, encrypted data, what kind of data in general)?

- How is it collected?

- How is it used?

- What legal arguments are there for and against it?

- Additional technical aspects (how is the program supposed to collect foreign data? Because that point about "everything routes through the US is nonsense)

IMO this is far more important than Ron Paul, Anonymous or some noname MEP. The "Applicable law and practice" is a good start but it needs to much more information, so...some focus please?

I think many of us would like to know the answers to your questions. But we don't. The documents leaked by Snowden are the most detailed source of info we have, but they can hardly be considered a reliable source. I've seen a lot of speculation and I guess we could put some of that in here but I don't know how useful it would be. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the unsigned IP, we need to focus more on the details of the program that we know of rather than on the reactions. There's more out that that's not in the article. The two measly paragraphs about the operational details of PRISM are hidden in a section called "History," which doesn't make sense. And, the fact that most of the sources aren't of sterling reliability doesn't disqualify them as they can be referenced with attribution. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In regards to reactions, an anonymous user removed George Takei, Ken Langone, and Richard Stallman (and the Avaaz petition) on undue grounds. With Avaaz I agree since a primary source was used on the cite. For the others, I'm undecided. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed them in an attempt to clean it up since these are really just reactions by unconnected notable people while the reactions themselves don't seem to actually be notable. The removed reactions have received virtually no coverage and seemed to be given undue weight in this article. If you compare the coverage/significance of George Takei (1 article), Ken Langone (2 articles), and Richard Stallman (0 articles) with that of the EFF and ACLU, it becomes more apparent that their reactions probably don't warrant being in the article. This might apply to some I din't remove, but I didn't want to wipe the section. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Langone would technically count as one since I used one source to state who he is (longtime Obama critic) and that source doesn't talk about his stance against PRISM. So, this means if I find more articles discussing George Takei's stance against PRISM, then more "weight" can be added to his views? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry I was a bit confusing. I was basing those numbers based on my quick google searches. Langone also was mentioned here. My main impetus was that these views seemed irrelevant other than the fact that a famous person said them. The speakers just didn't seem to have any connection/expertise that was particularly relevant (i.e. Takei was "concerned."). I'm sure you know more about WP guidelines than I do, but I was going based on "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I'm just asking myself if this stuff would ever be in an encyclopedia. Obviously this is just my opinion so if you feel it should be included, we can put it back in. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Takei had been in the Japanese interment camps during WWII so in this article he says he is suspicious of the usage of these government powers because the government had previously abused its requirement for due rights and interned all of the Japanese. Because he was interned, he is very concerned about this program. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The ACJ article in itself is quite valuable as it talks about splits within the Republican Party. Langone could be discussed in that context. The article is:

• Galloway, Jim. "NSA leak splits a GOP torn between national security and limited government." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Wednesday, June 12, 2013.

Thank you so much for finding it, 69.127.235.74!

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy about NYT changing its editorial article - where does it go?

There is a controversy about the New York Times changing its editorial article line by adding "on this issue" to the administration losing all credibility. If it does not go in this article, where does it go?

Source:

• Byers, Dylan. "N.Y. Times changes scathing editorial." Politico. June 7, 2013.
  • Byers argues "To the Times' critics, and to Obama's, the change may seem like an attempt to soften the blow. It shouldn't: The Times is still unequivocal in its condemnation of the president's abuse of his executive power. That is the important point, and it remains unchanged."
• Vorhees, Josh. "The New York Times' Small But Significant Change to Its Blistering Obama Criticism." Slate. Friday June 7, 2013.
  • "After that "lost all credibility" line spread like wildfire on Twitter and around the Web, the Times brass apparently had second thoughts on its word choice. The version that's now live, and the one that appeared in this morning's paper, includes a small but significant change:[...]As of this morning, there's no note to readers informing readers of the change. It's three small words, but they make a world of difference."
• "New York Times secretly edited critical Obama editorial ‘for clarity’s sake’." The Washington Examiner. June 7, 2013.
  • No further summary

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't go anywhere. It's simply not noteworthy enough in the long view. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:10YT. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't lead to further commentary, I suppose we can leave it out. But we should check to see if it will lead to ongoing questions about journalistic independence or the NYT's independence. If so, it may be worth including. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

POV Check: Lede Section

POV tag added because it seems that the opening paragraph simply repeats they hyperbolic claims of early press reports, without reference to or mediation by information from the response of government or corporate sources since then:

• News Media Claim: PRISM is a clandestine national security electronic surveillance program operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007

• Government / Corporate sources: PRISM is "an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government's statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a)."

Either the opening section should present both sides (official statements vs. media contentions), or should be modified in light of later-developing information, with a critical approach to separate what is known and acknowledged or documented from what is merely alleged. Syncalin (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "program" is pretty broad so I don't think there's a material issue with the underlined part. I don't think it implies "software program" if that's what you're getting at. I wouldn't characterize the debate on that portion as one of POV. However, I do think that the court supervision part should show up in the lede- and I have taken a shot at adding it. I also think the WIlliam Binney paragraph should be removed from the lede. It's receiving undue weight in the lede and, for the purposes of the lede, relies too heavily on a single primary source. 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Binney part from the lede. I noticed on his article that he left the government in 2001, way before this program was started, so the matter-of-fact statement seemed strange. I checked the source and noticed that the paragraph was misrepresenting it: It omitted the first sentence of Binney's reply, saying that he "just saw the report [on PRISM], and [he] wasn't aware of that program." i.e,. he was just speculating. Snycalin, I hope you don't mind that I replaced your POV tag with one that is specific to the lede since that seems to be where the issue is (there is already another tag in the other disputed section (domestic responses) 69.127.235.74 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

PRISM is a clandestine national security electronic surveillance program operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007. PRISM is a government codename for a data collection effort known officially as US-984XN and is operated under the supervision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The existence of the program was leaked by NSA contractor Edward Snowden and published by The Guardian and The Washington Post on June 6, 2013.

A document included in the leak indicated that the PRISM SIGAD was "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports." The President's Daily Brief, an all-source intelligence product, cited PRISM data as a source in 1,477 items in 2012. The leaked information came to light one day after the revelation that the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been requiring the telecommunications company Verizon to turn over to the NSA logs tracking all of its customers' telephone calls on an ongoing daily basis.

PRISM 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. Clapper issued a statement and "fact sheet" to correct what he characterized as "significant misimpressions" in articles by The Washington Post and The Guardian newspapers.

Thanks, I do think that your changes are an improvement. However, I still have POV issues with the characterization of PRISM as "a clandestine national security electronic surveillance program" when the word "PRISM" appears to refer to the intelligence collection and sharing application that has been used by the DOD since around 2006 and is not clandestine. (See Army Field manual reference published in Mother Jones article at http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/what-prism-do-2 & the description of PRISM at p. 13 of SAIC 2006 annual report at http://www.saic.com/news/pdf/annual-report2006.pdf ) The sofware is neither clandestine nor does is it used for surveillance, although it very well could be used to collect and share information that was obtained through clandestine surveillance. But the point is, there seems to be a confusion of terminology. (Even more confusing because there are at least 3 different software programs called PRISM that are used by government agencies, but the SAIC PRISM description and history of its use seems to be the most likely).

Given that this article is titled "PRISM" I think it should correctly identify what PRISM is - or if that is in debate, to summarize the different views of what it may be. The government says that it is software -- there are now plenty of secondary as well as primary sources to cite for that view. The source of the idea that it is a surveillance system seems to be an interpretation of graphics depicted on some very clumsy PowerPoint slides, but those graphics are all entirely consistent with the software interpretation as well.

I'm not debating whether or not the NSA does clandestine surveillance. I am sure they do, given that it is their job to do so, at least of foreign targets. But I'm saying that the weight of the evidence is that PRISM is not the name for whatever secret surveillance programs they have, but rather the name of the software program they are using to manage and share the data that they are collecting from various sources. Syncalin (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The SAIC connection seems like it may be original research / not verifiable in a reliable source. The PRISM acronym may apply to more than one thing. I searched for a RS but could not find any. NPOV means we also should pay attention to WP:UNDUE 69.127.235.74 (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the WP:UNDUE problem goes the other way. Multiple news sources, including major outlets like the New York Times, have reported on and described the software function. The Washington Post walked back its original reporting and adopted and explained the software/computer system process, or at least acknowledged that the original reporting was likely based on a technical misunderstanding of the use of the word "direct" in one of the slides. The only source of the "clandestine surveillance"=PRISM position appears to be the informant, who by his own description of his job duties would not have been in a position to have operational knowledge as to what was going on, although obviously he was in a position to be able to hack into one or more protected computer directories and steal documents. So why is the word of a one person who work in IT taken as gospel over the words of the Direct of Intelligence and the numerous Congressmen & as well as many others with operational knowledge who have weighed in on this? Whether it is the SAIC software or some other identically named software is hard to know (there are at least 3 separate data management programs called PRISM created by software manufacturers who contract with the US Government -- the SAIC one just seems like the most likely candidate) -- but I don't see that computer-system POV represented at all in the lede. It is very one sided and there does not seem to be any information developing over time to confirm the Snowden/Greenwald POV. 23:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syncalin (talk • contribs)

Regarding "information from the response of government or corporate sources"; those are primary sources and/or responses and have no business in the lede, imo. May122013 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Following up on May122013's comment, I note that the news sources are reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG. The Washington Post and the Guardian are both established, well-respected outlets with well-developed oversight/editorial processes. The fact that some aspects of their reporting has been questioned or denied by the involved parties is worth considering but of relatively little moment. The "Government / Corporate sources," on the other hand, are much less reliable as they are WP:PRIMARY sources and they have obvious motive to distort the truth. Note that Clapper has already perjured himself on the subject. His statements have no business in the article as reliable sources. As Slate's Fred Kaplan wrote, Clapper has disqualified himself from participation in the debate. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If The Washington Post and The Guardian sources did not accurately portray what PRISM is (they were the first to break the story so this is of course possible) then the article needs to reflect this. The best solution is to cite relatively recent RS's and use their description of the program (which should generally reflect the current consensus in the news media). As the article stands, the first 3 sources are from June 6 which is problematic. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, this PRISM "controversy" (it really isn't -- as many people pointed out, the NSA was/is doing what it was basically ordered to do by Congress) is in garbage time. Both the Post and especially the Guardian dropped the ball with their initial coverage, allowing the Internet to quickly fill up with a lot of second guessing and disinformation following along ideological lines. Snowden seems to be a bit of a flake and the general news media doesn't seem willing to use tech/spook experts to help sort out the details, including even little things like what exactly is "SFTP," so, unless there is a new, authoritative revelation (even something by Anonymous), there is likely going to be only infonoise from this point on. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In response to Somedifferentstuff: I added an AP article from yesterday to the first line to help satisfy concerns that the lede is relying on stale reporting. As of today, most media reports continue to describe PRISM as an NSA-operated surveillance program. Also, I have added a note, off of the first line, that mentions that some writers have raised the possibility that PRISM refers to the tool for carrying out the surveillance rather than to the surveillance program itself. Dezastru (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

@209.6.38.168: Your disparagement of the original Guardian and WaPo PRISM reports is noted, but it's a huge stretch to say they dropped the ball. The source you cite (by Ed Bott at ZDNet) is itself not particularly reliable and appears to have a huge axe to grind against those sources. On numerous occasions Bott incorrectly says that Greenwald has walked back on his previous assertions. That's patently false, as far as I can tell. All he said is that government sources have contradicted certain aspects of the original story. Well, duh... so did Clapper. No surprise there. And those agents confirmed major aspects of the story, too. Bott also says the vehemence of various companies' objections to the original PRISM stories refutes certain aspects of the stories. I call B.S. on that one -- that simply isn't the standard by which we evaluate the reliability of sources at Wikipedia. In sum, you the Bott piece is quite interesting but I don't think it should affect our article in any meaningful way. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but as one of -- apparently the few -- people who has been paying attention to all these post-9/11 laws that Congress has been authorizing and pushing, and what the NSA and other similar agencies have been doing even before 9/11, the news coverage of this PRISM stuff has been awful: sensationalistic, out of context, very lacking in both background and any technical wherewithal, and just poorly researched overall. This is not helpful since directing all this confused focus on the NSA's supposed activities draws attention away from the laws and politicians enabling these activities. It's telling that tech/security-based publications have had a different take on all this than general publications like the Guardian and the Post. At least the Post has tried to return to some form of more responsible journalism -- but Greenwald has taken an overtly defensive route that makes him and claims less and less credible. As far as Ed Bott of ZDNet goes, he's more typical than not of the reaction of media techies in regards to how this PRISM story has been handled. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald was very clear on this on June 14, saying that partisan critics are trying to discredit all of the revelations by pointing to what they claim are inaccuracies, yet neither he nor his publisher have revised their reporting:

Our story was not inaccurate. The Washington Post revised parts of its article, but its reporter, Bart Gellman, stands by its core claims.... The Guardian has not revised any of our articles and, to my knowledge, has no intention to do so. That's because we did not claim that the NSA document alleging direct collection from the servers was true; we reported - accurately - that the NSA document claims that the program allows direct collection from the companies' servers. Before publishing, we went to the internet companies named in the documents and asked about these claims. When they denied it, we purposely presented the story as one of a major discrepancy between what the NSA document claims and what the internet companies claim, as the headline itself makes indisputably clear....

Dezastru (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone slipped the word "allegedly" into the opening line, so that now the lede begins, "PRISM is allegedly a clandestine national security electronic surveillance program operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA) since 2007." Just so that we are clear, here is a sample of how most of the major media outlets have been referring to PRISM over the past few days:

"Recent revelations about 'Prism,' an electronic surveillance programme, will be causing the whole institution great neverousness." op-ed in Financial Times June 14

"The furore over US surveillance methods has focused on two important programmes run by the intelligence services. One collects data on telephone calls.... The other, called Prism and disclosed initially in The Washington Post, is used to sift information from emails and online chats – even though the extent of the data that are handed over to the authorities by technology companies is still the subject of some dispute." Financial Times June 13

"U.S. officials have confirmed the existence of a huge, secret U.S. Internet spying program, codenamed Prism, which according to documents leaked to the Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper has given them access to data from firms such as Google, Facebook and Skype." Reuters June 11

"The European Union's chief justice official has written to the U.S. attorney general demanding an explanation for the collection of foreign nationals' data following disclosures about the "PRISM" spy program. U.S. officials have confirmed the existence of a secret program to draw data from the Internet, codenamed PRISM, which according to documents leaked to the Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper has given them access to data from firms such as Google, Facebook and Skype." Reuters June 12

"Facebook, Google and Microsoft had all publicly urged the U.S. authorities to allow them to reveal the number and scope of the surveillance requests after documents leaked to the Washington Post and the Guardian suggested they had given the government "direct access" to their computers as part of a National Security Agency program called Prism." Reuters June 15

"So Yahoo became part of the National Security Agency’s secret Internet surveillance program, Prism, according to leaked N.S.A. documents, as did seven other Internet companies." NYT June 13

"Facebook’s disclosure comes after negotiations with the federal government that began after the first news reports a week ago about the National Security Agency’s secret Prism surveillance program." NYT June 14

"It is too early to say what impact the disclosure of widespread Internet spying in the United States government’s Prism program will have on the European public." NYT June 14

"Still, the way Mr. Snowden’s leaked document about Prism — the National Security Agency program that collects data from online providers of e-mail and chat services — was published is hardly typical." NYT June 14

"Speaking in his 13th floor office in Brussels, Mr. Barroso voiced alarm at recent reports that a secret U.S. surveillance program had invaded the privacy of Europeans. The program, known as Prism and revealed by a former National Security Agency computer technician, Edward J. Snowden, “certainly raises serious concerns in Europe,” he said." NYT June 16

"A fourth program, Prism, exposed recently by Snowden, forces major Internet firms to turn over the detailed contents of Internet communications." AP, SF Chronicle June 16

"Cooperation between nine U.S. Internet companies and the NSA’s Special Source Operations unit came to light along with a secret program called Prism. According to a slide deck provided by Snowden, the program gathers e-mails, videos, and other private data of foreign surveillance targets through arrangements that vary by company, overseen by a secret panel of judges." Bloomberg June 14

"The European Union said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder provided “assurances” about the Prism surveillance program amid concerns over its impact on EU citizens." Bloomberg June 14

"The role of private companies has come under scrutiny since Edward Snowden, a computer technician who did work for the NSA, disclosed this month that the agency is collecting data under a U.S. government program code-named PRISM." Bloomberg June 15

"Revelations about the scale of the U.S. National Security Agency’s Internet surveillance program Prism have caused much anger in Germany, where data privacy is seen as an important aspect of personal freedom—so much so that even Google Street View has raised hackles." WSJ June 16

"In a statement to lawmakers from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies said the two programs—one that collects phone data from millions of Americans and another that collects communications of foreign targets from Internet companies—have helped thwart “dozens of terrorist plots” in the U.S. and in more than 20 other countries…. The Internet communications monitoring program, known as Prism, that provides access to the communications through several Internet companies such as Google and Microsoft, targets foreigners who “may have foreign intelligence value,” the statement said." WSJ June 17

"Looking to shield itself from a growing public backlash over damaging revelations that it turned over user data to the National Security Agency's clandestine Internet surveillance program Prism, Facebook said late Friday it had reached an agreement to divulge some details about the government requests it receives for information about its users." LA Times June 14

"Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who has said he is deeply concerned about the programs in question, was invited to a briefing last November at which U.S. officials informed lawmakers about the details of an Internet surveillance program known as PRISM." CBS News June 15

"The existence of the programs, including a surveillance system known as PRISM that collects certain information from major technology companies including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo, became known after a former National Security Agency and CIA contractor leaked information to two newspapers." CNN June 15

"Along with the online surveillance program known as PRISM, the information-gathering has helped disrupt dozens of plots in the U.S and more than 20 countries, the document reported." CNN June 16

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the Internet surveillance program, known as PRISM was helpful in catching Afghan-American Najibullah Zazi, who pleaded guilty in the 2009 plot to bomb the New York City subway, saying he had been recruited by al-Qaeda in Pakistan." USA Today June 13

"The White House declassified a handful of details Tuesday that credited its PRISM Internet spying program with intercepting a key email that unraveled a 2009 terrorist plot in New York." AP, St Louis Post-Dispatch June 12 Dezastru (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)