No one should be surprised by this. This program was simply another extension of the US's march towards authoritarianism. Much like the patriot act and our secret warrants, founded on a dubious premise that over the last 20 years have largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them. This is a system designed to protect the larger system from any civs who may be getting a little too rebellious.
The "Patriot Act" is so maliciously named its more funny than sad.
Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1]
An good example he used to show this is the condition the fighters get from shock in combat. In WW1, it was called Shell Shock, a terrifying name. The same condition in WW1 was called Battle Fatigue, a nicer name. In the Korean War, the name changed to Operational Exhaustion, removing any humanity from it. After the Vietnam War, the name because Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When you compare the terms "Shell Shock" and "PTSD", it's obvious what the intent is.
The intent isn't to make it softer though. "PTSD" is more accurate than "shell shock". In WWI they thought that the accumulated shockwave exposure from constant shelling caused mental issues in soldiers. Today we know that all sorts of stressful situations can cause PTSD; it doesn't require being in the trenches taking howitzer fire day and night.
The point Carlin was trying to make is that the human experience is removed from a term such as "post-traumatic stress disorder". Yes, it might be more medically accurate, but fighting for the rights of people who experienced "shell shock" might have been more impactful. When your experienced is buried underneath medical terms, you bury the humanity of it.
A plausible counterpoint is that renaming can also remove a lot of the social stigma, leading to more people getting treatment. As an example, I believe many prefer using the term "post-traumatic stress/PTS" now because it removes the "disorder" stigma. I.e., it better communicates that it's a natural reaction to such stress and nothing to be ashamed of
You might be right that this motivates the 'euphemism treadmill', but if so I think that's misguided. It's my personal belief that the stigma follows the condition itself (particularly when untreated), not the name given to the condition. When I was a kid my friends and I all knew that you had to step light around some people's fathers because they were Vietnam vets with hair triggers that would go ballistic for seemingly little reason. In retrospect these men obviously had PTSD, though as kids we knew it as 'He's an asshole because Nam fucked him up.'
To be clear, I don't think the nomenclature is the sole driver of social stigma, just a contributor.
As an analogy, I doubt anybody thinks the social stigma around trisomy-21 is solely attributable to previous politically incorrect terminology but continued use of those former terms doesn't help alleviate that stigma.
That's a good point, and your PTS sans-D reference exemplified it well IMO. I think at this point it would be justified to label every one of us with PTSD, after suriving the pandemic so far, and I for one would prefer just post-trauamtic stress, instead of tagging myself with a "disorder" as if I had done something wrong.
Shell Shock isn't a better description of the problem than Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; the problem is that not enough people care to make this a priority.
Not everyone who gets fucked up got fucked up due to being shocked with shells. Your mom didn't get shocked with shells; she got shocked with your dad's fists (maybe even after he got Shell Shock).
Bad things happen to people, and sometimes they cause lasting trauma. The direct cause might be different but the effect is similar enough that the words used to name it should change.
I don’t think your comment has any kind of negative intent, but I feel like the idea that grouping any consequence of civilian experience with those of military combat certainly cannot be a reasonable association.
I don’t think Carlin’s point was so much to comment on the accuracy of the description, but rather to say that these descriptions have become longer and longer as time has advanced and thereby lessons the guttural impact they “used” to command.
> I don’t think your comment has any kind of negative intent, but I feel like the idea that grouping any consequence of civilian experience with those of military combat certainly cannot be a reasonable association.
... even if we've since established that said consequences exist along the same cognitive spectrum? From the perspective of a clinician (whose use of the term PTSD is scientifically driven), does it matter whether the conditions that caused the disorder were military or civilian?
Actually we're getting increasing evidence that there are two different disorders/diseases here.
1. is the low grade TBI(traumatic brain injury) that is fairly called "Shell shock"
2. is the psychological weight of traumatic experiences
The evidence is pretty strong that part of why soldiers PTSD is so hard to treat(not that PTSD is easy to treat in general) is that their neurons have been damaged so it's literally more difficult for them to learn new stress responses and make use of CBT(Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) to manage their inappropriate, for civilian life, stress responses.
Well "fatigue", "exhaustion" and "shock" imply you could just get over those, as medicine advanced we got a better picture of what it is, hence the more precise term now.
As for the "Patriot Act", it's funny how ironic of a name it is.
There was a predecessor name to Shellshock of "Soldier's Heart" back in the American Civil war. In such a brother against brother civil war it wouldn't have been judged shameful but with later militarism could have implied "weakness" against the propaganda dehumanized foreign menance. Assuring memory held to WWI and it wasn't an independent rediscovery/reinvention "shell shock" dodged the character image driven denial of having it or its existance by implying more physical damage as even valiant brave men are not immune to bullets and explosions. Men were facing charges of cowardice after fleeing vast trauma and it eased accepting "the man who fled after a many months long bloody stalemate isn't a craven but bearing invisible injuries sustained for his country so executing him would be a terrible wrong". Thus ironically shell shock could be called an ego saving euphemism itself.
And well authoritarians have no sense of irony - what they think is "ironic" is presenting their true self when it unacceptable and passing it off as a joke. Thus they destroy freedom to protect freedom the same as they destroy the village to save it.
> And well authoritarians have no sense of irony - what they think is "ironic" is presenting their true self when it unacceptable and passing it off as a joke.
(squints) I think you've actually uncovered a true case of irony here. How would you know that the dictator considers their propoganda ironic? The fact that people read it and still laugh it off is the true irony.
> The "Patriot Act" is so maliciously named its more funny than sad.
> Reminds me of George Carlin's show about changing words to make them softer.[1]
“Patriot” isn’t exactly a soft word, though? I never understood why this brand of nationalism is so completely embraced and unquestioned in every fraction of the American political spectrum. It’s not like nationalism is unproblematic.
Could one use NLP/ML to score a metric on the distance between the phrase and the concept? I think it needs some historical context as well.
Like when "School of the Americas" got renamed to, "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation" which are both names for sniping civilians and throwing people out of helicopters.
I could see _eating a copper banana_ as a euphemism for assassinating a south american labor leader.
>largely borne no fruit in terms of protecting our freedoms and safety but have instead eroded them.
If we actually want to convince people that this needs change, we need to hold both sides of the debate to the same standard. We searched for any concrete evidence of these measures adding safety, found none, and then concluded it didn't add safety. The next step is to look for concrete examples of how this erodes freedom for a normal American citizen. Otherwise you are arguing one theoretical with another and most people will tune out.
The act of secretly (or I guess not so secretly now) monitoring civilian information is a loss of a freedom in and of itself. Freedom from undue government interference in an otherwise normal citizen's life. It's existence is confirmation in and of itself, another overreach.
What do you mean in tangible and concrete terms? How has my life been made worse by these laws? You need to explain that because these abstract concepts don't seem to motivate people to action.
Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve. Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came
..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making.
Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving. Most large acts of rebellion were put together by a small band of agitators often high ranking members of the establishment who for whatever reason decide they've had enough then publicize and promote it and then often pay the common folk to fight. The US for instance was majority founded by a bunch of rich people who were tired of the type of taxes levied on them. The continental army for instance was paid to fight. My point being is any action is going to be taken by people who care about the abstract notions, the rank and file will be paid to care or provided some equal material value.
>Your life is worse because the government is openly antagonist towards the populace it was created to serve.
What does this mean in relation to the debate about NSA spying? How is the NSA antagonizing me? What is one example of a material impact on my life?
>Even if it doesn't effect you now all you need to do is look at historical examples from other nations going down the same path. There's a reason the poem "First they came ..." exists and it's a direct counter point to the argument you're making.
This is getting into slippery slopes and hypotheticals that don't seem to motivate anyone and they are the exact arguments that are used in defense of this spying. If we demand examples of the safety this spying supposedly provides, we need examples of the freedom this spying destroys.
>Otherwise I don't know what you want here, historically the masses mostly don't do anything until they start starving...
I am looking for anything that will motivate people to political action. It doesn't need to motivate people to overthrow the government. A simple here is why you real life is worse so vote for this candidate, volunteer with organization, donate to this cause, etc.
Something being bad doesn't have to have a material impact on you to be bad you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing. Government over reach is a slippery slope and is bad therefor spying via overreach is bad. I'm not your personal savior I don't really care what you believe and I wasn't here to convince anyone of anything let alone you, I stated my personal beliefs.
Edit: I'll also leave off with where if your beliefs don't include government spying being bad you and I likely are coming from very ideologically different starting points and I have no intention of trying to spend my time walking you from A to B I'll leave that for the evangelists I have other things to fill my time.
You can reread my comments and you will see I am not against you on this. I started my first comment with "If we...". I am including myself in with the people who are failing.
I believe we need to get better at explaining this issue. We need people who are "trying to spend [their] time walking you from A to B" because flatly saying "you should be against it simply because in principal it's a bad thing" is not going to motivate any political change.
To be honest the entire thread sat weirdly with me, not sure why.
That said I just disagree with you that the masses typically are motivated about anything not just government spying I think action and change will come from a small group of people with vested interest, at least initially.
Everyone has that personal issue but it turns out that everyone's "I want this to change" issue is typically pretty different from one another so finding that similar group and banding together there to fix the problem I expect to be better than finding some key to ignite the masses.
And FWIW if the argument from the government is "See these people don't care about it so it can't be bad" is in itself a super weak argument. People and the government haven't cared about plenty of things that, at least in my set of morals, turned out to be super bad even if only a small set of people initially protested so.
Isn't this something that has been shown in history time and time again? Look e.g. at recent German history: Nazis abused data collection to find and kill Jews and political opponents, and soviet Stasi invaded privacy to find, imprison and torture political opponents. Beyond this concrete evidence, there is also the indirect impact by the "chilling effect". I believe many or most of us experienced this effect already. So I'm entirely certain that the negative impact is easy to see.
If wearing a mask stopped the government from being able to listen in on my phone calls I'd wear it in the shower. This new normal means I don't have to put on deodorant and I can get away with shaving every other day, I love it.
That's true but misses my point; people's perceptions of me haven't changed because nobody (should) be going close enough to me to smell me and because my mask conceals any stubble of mine.
At a recent happy hour, a friend-of-a-friend who is into all government conspiracy theories (including thinking Covid is a hoax) was there. It got kind of heated, and one question I asked him was "If the government is so hellbent on instituting surveillance technology everywhere, why would they also advocate for you to wear a mask, which hinders current face recognition capabilities?" Unsurprisingly, he didn't have an answer.
>...why would they also advocate for you to wear a mask, which hinders current face recognition capabilities?
Not a very good conspiracy theorist!
Obviously 'person' recognition tools, facial recognition included, are good enough that models work without facial data, hindering America's enemies but giving America the upper hand. This uses the assumption that miltech is anywhere from 10-100 years ahead of bleeding edge/experimental public/research tech.
The dumb counterfactual assumption but "logical" reason is they already have a working facial recognition profile of everyone without a mask but they need more masked training data to work around it and can't simply digitally add a mask to their old training set.
Contradicted by what we know about current facial recognition technology but in a "make sure that the bullets are sterile, we don't want any wounded prisoners to die of an infection before we get any intelligence" sort of way.
What examples do you have an authoritarian slide caused by PRISM? I see plenty of examples of authoritarianism in the current U.S. administration, none of which can be traced to PRISM.
The NSA is not a part of the "administration?" Or are you just being overly sensitive and defensive of the "administration" because in the current paper-democracy four-year cycle, it happens to be run by republicans (who are always good and entirely infallible)?
It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Who specifically do you think is concerned about civilians being a little too rebellious?
As usual, the truth is far less interesting. But, it has nothing to do with civilian unrest or authoritarianism at all. You are probably mistaking incompetence for malice.
Then again, most people still misunderstand what PRISM actually was.
The title is misleading, it appears to me, since the claim "did not prevent a single terrorist attack" isn't backed up with even a grammatically correct sentence.
> a judge ruled beginning of September 2020 that not [one single terrorist attack had been stopped with the help of the NSA's phone surveillance program (sic)
If you trail the linked articles you end up with this 9th circuit opinion:
> The panel wrote that to the extent the public statements of government officials created a contrary impression, that impression is inconsistent with the contents of the classified record.
It's my reading that pertains specifically to the case before the court and not a conclusive determination about the entirety of the PRISM program.
If I understood correctly(?), the claim is that PRISM data was used in only one case, and in that case it was later judged to be irrelevant, therefore PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. But I'm not sure this is right, I found the article pretty confusing on the subject of what actually happened, so I'm not sure. Personally I agree with Imnimo's comment that this is just an overly confusing way of analyzing a surveillance program.
> PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction.
I think it's worth noting that this is also fairly normal for signals intelligence of all types. If you want to use intelligence as evidence in a trial then you have to make that evidence available for scrutiny by the defense which is something intelligence agencies almost never want to do.
As I understand it (obviously Im not very informed here!) you'd normally use intelligence to identify suspects, then gather further evidence with which to secure a prosecution so you don't have to rely on the original intelligence in court. I believe GCHQ in the UK have in the past gone so far as to abandon a strong cases that hinged on intelligence data so as to not reveal the source of the intelligence.
[]u.s police departments have dropped cases that relied on evidence collected by stingrays. Anyways, using Intel to build a case so the Intel and methods aren't exposed is called parallel construction and it should be illegal to do against citizens except in extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not when police departments get bored and use the ray to take down the boys slinging bags on the block.
The HN title certainly seems to be. My understanding is that 9th circuit opinion was talking about the bulk phone metadata collection program (which used to be enabled under section 215 and even done before ("stellar wind")), not about 702 collection. But that 702 collection is certainly part of PRISM as we understand it.
> It's my reading that pertains specifically to the case before the court and not a conclusive determination about the entirety of the PRISM program.
I understood it to be somewhat generally about bulk metadata collection under 215 (which is not all of PRISM).
You'd think if it had stopped any attacks, the program's proponents would be shouting it from the rooftops. But no- nothing. Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...")
I have, maybe naively, always believed that the U.S. operates at a level of secrecy and complexity where dozens of terrorist attacks are thwarted every year, and that this surveillance plays a hand in it (but to admit that would hinder its effectiveness).
Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year, considering the population of our country, the amount of ideological extremism domestically and internationally, and the States' interventionism?
Maybe it is possible, in which case the U.S. has been very successful at convincing my generation it's a larger issue than it really is (I was a toddler when 9/11 happened, so it's all I know).
> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year
Last time I checked, the USA didn't need terror plots 'against the country'; they have enough problems with "deranged individuals" shooting at schools, events, protests, etc.
Why would you label those who could be your child, parent or neighbor, and disagree violently with those who have a different opinion than yours, as terrorists against the country? /s
If you subscribe to a definition of "terrorist attack" that includes "someone with political beliefs I don't like possessing a handgun in violation of the law" then sure, dozens per year thwarted sounds about right.
'Politically-motivated violence waged against civilians in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism.
I'm curious why you appear to imply this definition of terrorism is unsuitable.
> Politically-motivated violence waged in violation of the law' (excluding situations of organized war) is the most likely the least controversial definition of terrorism.
It is not, nor is it even compatible with the protoypical example from which the term terrorist derives, since the original Terror and the Terrorists who executed it operated entirely within and through the power of the State. Non-state terrorism is a more recent extension of the definition. Nor does it even capture the mechanism of intended effect which defines terrorism (the whole part that motivates the reference to "terror".)
Britannica and, somewhat surprisingly, WordNet have probably the best general definitions I can quickly locate, "calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective" and "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear".
Not OP, but probably because the patriot act was passed in the aftermath of 9/11 when the understood meaning of terrorist attack was 9/11 scale not a dozen people max.
If you take that definition and follow its logical implications to the extreme, you'll find that you can prevent a lot of terrorism by just legalizing handgun possession. Well.. ever heard of a country called United States of America?
There is still a lot of unrest in Portland and Seattle, but Federal police (US Marshals, FBI, BORTAC, et. al.) have used regular old police work (cameras, under cover anarchists, wiretaps with warrants) to arrest a ton of these people when the city prosecutors simply wouldn't do a damn thing or catch and release them.
Now many of these people are facing federal crimes. You can get some serious years for swinging a sledge hammer at a US Marshal, as what happened at the Federal Courthouse in Portland. (Remember, three of those Feds are now blind in at least one eye from the green lasers?)
But the Anarchists/Antifa types that are burning down Portland are also being thrown together with the McCloskeys who were arrested for having guns out, while on their lawn, after people broke into their gated community. Or Jake Gardner, who the DA ruled as acting in self defense, with a full video clearly showing him acting in self defense after both he and his father were attached.
We're starting to see real terrorists conflated with what are clearly political prisoners from local officials.
You’re not going to garner much sympathy for the McCloskeys. One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot, and she pointed it at people with her finger on the trigger.
> One vital rule of gun handling is to never point it at something until you’re ready to shoot...
Not so much, never point a gun at something unless you're willing to shoot -- a double barrel shotgun has a lot of power to make someone rethink their life choices when pointed at them without having to actually shoot.
What they tell you and what actually happens on the battlefield are two different things.
I've pointed weapons at people without the intention of shooting them while covering other solders and on occasions where they "just didn't look right" -- can't just randomly start shooting people but you also don't want to be caught off guard if they decide to start shooting at you. The last time this happened some car rolled up on our guard post and all of us were pointing our weapons at said vehicle while we sent someone out to figure out what they wanted (which turned out to be the main gate so they could find out what happened to one of their relatives who was arrested or something). Nobody intended on shooting them but if they didn't stop short or acted suspiciously we would've lit them up with the .50cal.
I'm sorry for what was done to you in the military. Please try to find a different way of existing in our society. People you'd never suspect have firearms, and will use them to kill you in response to the behavior you describe here.
My preferred formulation is "Never point a gun towards anything you don't mean to destroy". Including things within a reasonable solid angle of your target.
Well in her case, she knew the gun wouldn't fire. It turned out the firing pin was assembled backwards for it to be used in a play. (The police took apart the gun and put to back together to charge her; it's in the evidence documents)
But I agree, she should have treated the gun like it was armed and ready. She flagged the back of her husband's head several times.
BUT, that isn't in and of itself criminal. In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
The law they're charged with says they were in violation of "brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner," but nowhere in the law do they define "threatening" .. it's ambiguous, it's a badly written law and it conflicts with federal laws and the 2nd amendment.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes are two lawyers who have done some incredible breakdowns on this case:
> Well in her case, she knew the gun wouldn't fire. It turned out the firing pin was assembled backwards for it to be used in a play. (The police took apart the gun and put to back together to charge her; it's in the evidence documents)
Along with never pointing your gun at something you don't want to destroy, you always assume a gun is loaded. That's not just a gun you pickup, that's any gun anywhere. If someone else is holding it then it's loaded too.
> In fact, nothing they did was criminal. They were in a gated neighborhood, people ripped the iron gate down, and I think it's clear they were reasonably defending their homes.
Bullshit. Brandishing is a crime in pretty much every US state and Canadian province. There are affirmative defenses to Brandishing, like real physical threats to life or property, but that gate was community property and not theirs alone.
I could see them getting out of the charges and having enough reasonable doubt to do so. Right now it's being leveraged as a kulturekamf headline to make 2nd Amendment nuts get angry.
But make no mistake, if you point a real gun at people, with a finger on the trigger, you're implying you're going to kill someone. You'd better have a damned good reason for it, and be ready to stand to any consequences; "judged by a jury instead of by St. Peter", etc.
Sorry but I don't think engaging with you will result in the interesting conversation that HN strives to achieve. I'm not trying to dismiss you outright, and I'm sure there are a few incidents that match your theories but that you are extrapolating to a trend that doesn't exist but has been reinforced by Fox News etc.
> Is it really possible we only have <5 terror plots against our country in a given year
That depends on your definition. If you're talking about organized 9/11 style attacks, absolutely. It's hard to bring plans like that together no matter how strong your convictions. If you're talking "random mentally ill person unleashes devastation on a group of US citizens" then no, there's certainly far more. That said, situations like that are best handled by local authorities. The Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is a prime example of that because as the story unraveled it became clear that the shooter had a history that was well known to the local police (and FBI if I recall?).
I'm not sure I believe the whole "oh the CIA and FBI stop a ton of stuff and they just don't tell us" thing.
The FBI made a huge deal about them stopping the plot to kidnap the Michigan governor and take over their capital building. Why would they hide other stuff?
Yeah, at least the CIA claimed that "enhanced interrogation techniques" was yielding actionable intelligence.
I remember a story from years ago that some lab was working on a lens for a satellite for the NSA with a resolution that would be able to discern different coins on the ground from space. They were complaining that, after all their work, the job was cancelled, and they weren't going to get paid. What it meant, of course, was that they had found a better alternative.
The fact that the NSA isn't even bothering to lie about this is telling. The linked article says they won't even be trying to get Congress to let them continue the process, and this is even more telling. But what it's telling me ISN'T that it does not work, and it's certainly not because they suddenly grew a conscience about the Constitution. It's just that they don't need this particular vector to get the sigint they're looking for now.
Identifying a coin from orbit is almost certainly physically impossible due to the diffraction limit[0] and the maximum payload diameter of existing space launch vehicles.
As for the PRISM replacement, it's fair to assume that the NSA simply buys whatever social contact graphs it wants from Facebook and commercial data brokers.
Regarding the story that you recalled some years back - There is conjecture that the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) repurposed some NSA technology. Not exactly a definitive source but Wikipedia has some details.
They're not going to tell you about wins or loses, it would be silly to think otherwise. I'm not saying I agree with the program in any capacity, but those of us that have worked with government have a simple saying "loose lips sink ships".
I subscribe to this belief as well. Presidents have the power to declassify information at will, and I haven't been alive to see a president that isn't spending lots of time singing their own praises; popularity contests tend to select people of that ilk.
The reality is that actual terrorism makes the papers, and real terrorists get tried and convicted. This is just mystery-mongering by people with nothing to do but defend a budget.
There's been a lot of statements about the efficacy of parts of PRISM, just not about the metadata collection. Obviously not the end-all-be-all but the PCLOB reports about 215 and 702 are worth skimming.
One reason not to do that is to hide your methods. The usual tactic to show good anti-terrorist results is to inject provocateurs into fringe groups and paint them as thwarted terrorists. I hope that US is not going that route.
Most of the Islamist terrorist plots federal authorities have 'broken up' over the past twenty years have involved undercover agents leading on people who are too dysfunctional to be dangerous to do things for which they can be convicted.
> Not even attempts to lie ("oh, we stopped several attacks, but we can't tell you anything about them...")
What if that wasn't a lie? If they truly couldn't tell you "anything" about them, they couldn't even acknowledge they existed. Whether or not a government should be allowed to keep such secrets is another matter.
I would think the opposite: If the program was greatly effective, I would want a blog post just like this to capture the bad guys' attention. That way they might tend to be less careful and make it easier on me.
why? even if you are extremely confident in your ability to thwart terrorists, wouldn't it be better to discourage them to the point where they don't even try?
Oh definitely discourage them, but don't give away how you know. In the defense world the secrets are usually classified lower (sometimes much more so) than the sources.
While I'm absolutely opposed to PRISM and similar programs, I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the only potential value was from stopping terrorist attacks. Look at this leaked powerpoint slide:
If you want to argue against PRISM-like programs, it would behoove you to tackle their actual purpose. We shouldn't just argue that PRISM isn't good at catching terrorists, we should argue that the total value of intelligence gained from it is not worth sacrificing our privacy for.
That's a good point. While we don't know the details, it's entirely possible that it didn't stop any terrorist attacks because the intel gathered allowed the USA to remove the conditions that would have allowed an attack to be planned in the first place. Ideally, that's how it would happen, just like it's better for an organizations IT department to proactively prevent networking problems than trying to mitigate issues that have already surfaced.
The big difference, I think, is that dx87's post encourages the reader to make fewer assumptions and to keep an open mind ("While we don't know the details, it's entirely possible..."), while your bullet points are statements that encourage the reader to make more assumptions.
There's no need to qualify that with "many authoritarian or the like use". There's no way to know whether or not PRISM has had any impact. Even if the program were to stop today, if everything remained the same, you could still argue that the effects of the program were so great that they've essentially collapsed the US-targeted terrorist attack industry, possibly forever.
The only real discussion that can take place is whether or not the potential safety afforded by the surveillance is worth the real erosion of freedoms. Those in favor of the surveillance are winning that discussion where it matters, whether its through emotional appeal, fearmongering, corruption or whatever. Its a totally opinionated case at this point, which even the ballot box wouldn't help as you'd just be shifting the onus of persuasion from the military leaders to the American people, who definitely don't know enough of what's happening overseas to make a reasonably informed decision.
Its the most complex issue voters would be straddled with, everything pales in comparison.
> Its the most complex issue voters would be straddled with
Which is unfortunate because the point of representation is to remove much of that onus from voters. If your representation just becomes a selfish risk factor, may as well do direct democracy.
It's too bad there isn't something like what lawyers, doctors, or fiduciaries must adhere to but for politicians.
I think the larger point is that the goal of vast majority of intelligence gathering programs - and judging by the slides this seems to include PRISM as well - has nothing to do with stopping terrorist attacks, which is a tiny subset of what intelligence agencies do. Judging their utility by counting the number of terrorist attacks they've prevented is mostly a meaningless exercise.
that argument assumes that those other things have high value for the cost and that they couldn’t have been gained in any less privacy-invading way. those are high hurdles requiring only light proof to easily cast doubt on any invasive counterterrorism program.
I want Snowden to be pardoned. And I think the data collection network was both illegal and morally wrong.
But that doesn't make me believe these kinds of articles. Most of these types of articles for the past numerous years have the same formula. Case X proves it was useful, case X is determined to not be relevant to the data collection methods, typically by someone biased. And it's always a judge out of one of the most liberal places. (and I'm liberal / democrat)
It's weaksauce, and most of the people here are unwilling to see past it because they also agree with my first paragraph. We can have freedom and "live more dangerously". That's pretty much the entire point of how America came to be. We shouldn't spy on all of our people - and yes that comes with consequences. That's not the same as spying on specific people that we know will or may cause harm.
I basically agree with your sentiment, but that's where politics (literally- persuading enough fellow citizens or legislators to your point of view) comes in. People think politics is this dirty, awful business, but it determines the legality or illegality of these kinds of programs. If you want to effectively advocate for change, you have to play the political system.
And, telling the general public that PRISM isn't effective has a decent shot at getting these practices outlawed. Telling the general public 'sure, a few terrorists will get through here and there, but that's the price of living in freedom' is pretty much guaranteed to get you the opposite result. You have to focus on effective persuasion, and regular people won't/can't think about hard tradeoffs
It has been argued that PRISM was more about corporate espionage under the ruberic of counter-terrorism than anything else. In the book The Shadow Factory, James Bamford points out the ridiculously low prices that were available for overseas traffic to be routed into the US and then back to a neighboring country, sometimes even a different region of the same country... anything to get overseas telecoms to route traffic through a PRISIM splitter (the allegation Bamford makes is that bribery was involved to get these routing deals in place as well).
It’s certainly a fanciful story but does anyone really doubt that the post 9/11 US government would do this?
'Whatever makes the rich richer is what they're doing' is probably a decent first order approximation, and under that logic corporate espionage does seem very likely.
I am fairly certain that Bamford did not even come close to making the claim that PRISM was more about corporate espionage. If you have a citation that contradicts this, I’d love to see it.
Yes, not only do I doubt that the post 9/11 government is spending billions (or even millions) to spy on corporations, but I’d flip your question and ask does anyone really believe that they are doing that.
Before someone brings up the Petrobras example, I’ll pre-emptively point out that this isn’t in any way suggestive of what’s alleged above, and it wasn’t related to PRISM.
It's a look at the reporting of PRISM and other Snowden leaks by the guy who first broke the leaks. Pet jarring look at how the program can't to be, and how it evolved.
I referenced PRISM in a comment to a recent Apple article on HN a couple of days ago. It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators.[1]
Anyway, it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance. Members provide access to ALL user data/information to NSA et al. Here are some technology/telecom company members (and approx. date joined):
The problem is that what you are saying is false, and the links you provide don’t back up your assertion in the slightest.
Perhaps some of these companies ‘joined’ prism willingly, but Google and Apple both deny having done so.
The dates you quote are from slides indicating when prism started to acquire data from these companies. They have nothing to do with membership or joining.
Data was obtained from these companies without their particpation, and they have taken measures to harden their systems since this was made public, for example in Google’s case prism obtained data by intercepting their underground fiber optic cables. Data was previously sent unencrypted between data centers along these, but after the intrusion was discovered, Google moved to encrypting this traffic.
If you can find evidence that either of these companies willingly became members of prism, then please present it.
You are correct that parent is wrong (and horribly wrong, to the point of downright fabrication beyond anything Snowden has ever said), but actually you are also wrong. Under PRISM, data cannot be taken without participation. The simple reason for that is that “participation in PRISM” more or less means you respond to court orders.
You are confusing it with other programs. The one you are referring to was reported as a joint operation with GCHQ called MUSCULAR.
Google and Apple’s denials of PRISM participation are kind of semantic. One, they do not refer to it by any NSA codename, so they can truthfully say they don’t participate in something called PRISM, whatever PRISM supposedly is. Second, PRISM was incorrectly described as direct server access without approval. Both companies can truthfully claim that they do not participate in such a program, whether that program is PRISM or not. The truth is that they do “participate”, but that isn’t what PRISM actually enables.
That’s the best denial they can give due to the nature of the gag order.
From trumancenter.org:
If the NSA’s descriptions are accurate, the NSA’s PRISM program allows them to seek electronic data on non-U.S. Persons under FISA warrants applied to foreign electronic traffic travelling through U.S. servers with filters and controls to prohibit use of data of U.S. Persons that may get caught up in the dragnet. The expressly prohibits the use of FISA warrants toward U.S. Persons, but it is not as clear as to what happens to data on U.S. Persons that get picked up in large dragnets aimed at non-U.S. Persons. Much of the accuracy of claims depend on the certified disclosures to Congress by the Attorney General that such safeguards exist and are in place.
So, “participation” means you respond to FISA warrants, which isn’t optional.
We know they respond to fisa warrants. Nobody claims otherwise.
But - also know from Snowden we know that that PRISM is not just an aggregation of responses to fisa warrants.
PRISM also involved intercepting Google’s bulk traffic from their fiber without Google’s knowledge, and various other kind of interception.
If you equate PRISM with aggregating fisa warrants responses, then what you say is true.
However it is not actually accurate to make that equation.
And even if court ordered data was aggregated as part of PRISM, that doesn’t constitute ‘participating’ in PRISM in any by the most semantically stretched way, since they didn’t know about it.
If you are going to argue like this, you may as well say that the end users ‘participated’ in prism, by giving their data to these companies. In a way that’s true.
But it’s not true in the common understanding of what it means to participate.
This is what I meant by quasi-voluntary. They were not oblivious and hacked without their knowledge (under PRISM, that is - they were other ways), but they didn’t exactly have a choice.
Replying to the person stating I provided "false" info, which is all supported by links and sources!:
It’s always “conspiracy theory”...until it becomes “conspiracy fact” years later.
Read Google’s (or Apple’s, or Yahoo’s) denial of participation in PRISM. The statements are examples of “Lying by Omission.” Verizon actually shared documents/orders it received from NSA, astonishingly. If one understand the basics of law, the omissions and doublespeak deniability are the most revealing and damning:[1] [2]
* “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers.”: The NSA is not “the U.S. government”; neither are the contract intel companies that have access to data as middleman for NSA.
* “...does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers.”: But Google does not deny “indirect” access or a ‘door’ – otherwise its crafty attorney would have stated “neither direct nor indirect” and certainly would not have narrowed the access point to only a “back door.” Doublespeak.
* Regarding giving data to the government upon request: “Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.” ‘Frequently pushes back’ – that’s laughable.
* “Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period.” Perhaps the press stated ‘open-ended’ but that’s not what Edward Snowden stated or leaked in documents. The prism program is not about “open-ended” access.[2]
The similarity of statements by the legal teams of Google, Apple, and Yahoo leads one to believe they are adhering to NDAs and FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) restrictions about what they may say about PRISM or whether they ever heard of the program. So Apple, Yahoo, and Google all used doublespeak deniability in the carefully crafted legal pressers.
[6] A money paper trail: NSA paid the companies for compliance! (but these companies and their legal teams denied – and continue to deny – either having known about the PRISM program or making data accessible to the NSA and related contractors via said program): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...
___
When in doubt, check your assumptions...because your assumptions are likely invalid.
The NSA is a component of the US government, and if the NSA has something the US government also has it, so in the context of the sentence at issue, yes, if access was given to the NSA it was given to the US government.
I think you're correct in general (in terms of standards of evidence), but if we are to accept Google's claims at face value, then why would you not also accept the leaked emails as evidence of collaboration?
Specifically, this[1] email exchange:
NSA Director (Keith Alexander) to Google's CEO :-
"It was good seeing you recently after the meeting earlier this month"
"Google’s participation in refinement, engineering and deployment of the solutions will be essential."
The problem is that evidence of collaboration doesn’t substantiate anything at all about participation in prism or any other illegal or underhanded scheme.
We know that Google does have portals to service lawful government information requests.
It’s also entirely possible that Google participated in some kind of analytics development based on their web indexing and nothing to do with private user data.
Either of these would be at least plausible explanations for these comments as “they joined prism and handed over all data to the NSA”.
It triggered HN and Apple fans and the comment ultimately got shadow-banned by moderators.
No, the moderators appear to have done no such thing. But with that opening sentence, and closing with the equivalent of "wake up, sheeple!", I can see why it got downvoted to a light gray.
>it’s astonishing that so many people willfully continue to use products/services offered by the core companies that are members of PRISM surveillance
I don't think it's practical to expect either ordinary consumers or tech-savvy people to completely avoid all use of any Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, YouTube, Apple, Dropbox, or Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint/AT&T product or service, or to use Tor or I2P 24/7 as that website seems to suggest.
In how many cases were those companies essentially forced or heavily pressured to participate?
There was a shoe bomber who almost took down an airplane. [1]
Shoes, when they are not inspected, are rational places for people to hide explosives.
While it may or may not be a 'valid' tool, it's not rational to say it's 'pointless' when it's literally a known - and used - vector of attack.
It's not 'pointless' - the question is, 'is it a good policy given the likelihood of attack, the effectiveness of 'shoes through the scanner as a means of thwarting, other tradeoffs' etc..
It is pointless. It's stupidly pointless. Shove the bomb up your ass, they can't check in there. "But the scanner..." Ok, so opt out and do the pat down. I opt out every time.
The TSA is completely hairbrained. They don't proactively think of anything, they only react to stuff that has already happened. Always one step behind. So useful.
If it's pointless, then so is putting your bags through security, and by extension of some of your comments 'all airline security pointless'. You must have some amazing deep insights that the rest of the world does not.
The mere thought of paying to government for the privilege of keeping my shoes on is nauseating. How can you even consider that? That program exists as a pressure relief valve to ensure anybody with political influence (businessmen, etc) don't have a motive to lobby for reform.
Why not? Seriously. I feel like there are a thousand things in life that annoy me -- like sitting at a red traffic light when its clear I can go w/o any danger to anyone.
It just seems like its low cost. And maybe of some value that I don't understand since I don't really study terrorist methods.
Because a computer/smartphone is practically an organ, a brain extension. Letting other people read its content without limitations is like letting them read your actual memory and thoughts (including those you'd like to keep private between yourself and your partners of all the kinds - business, sex, whatever) and probably even plant a backdoor for spying on you in future (I don't know about the US TSA but Chinese border authorities are known to do so). I wouldn't feel comfortable about that.
> I don't really study terrorist methods.
What if I, occasionally, do? Out of pure curiosity. I believe I have googled and downloaded a lot of content which could be found suspicious although I hardly ever had time to read that so far, pure curiosity and information hoarding are my only motivation.
I've never had to do that, but I haven't flown since 2016. If I was asked, I'd refuse. If they wouldn't let me though, I'd walk away and eat the cost.
I'll remember this for next time though. I'll be sure to check my phone and laptop. I could always just buy a book and not have electronic devices .. or maybe take a cassette deck.
AIUI the unlocking is usually requested at the customs checkpoint, which is after you've retrieved your checked luggage, and if you say no, you don't get to just "walk away" -- you risk finding yourself detained in legal limbo with no recourse.
I've experienced an unlock demand immediately after passing through TSA to get on a domestic flight. Had I refused I surely would have missed my flight and probably the wedding I was trying to get to. Maybe the consequences would have been even worse than that, but that alone was enough to coerce my compliance.
> Between 2014 and 2017, 13 Islamist terrorist attacks took place in Europe after which 24 offenders were convicted. All 24 of them - one hundred per cent - were already known to the authorities prior to the attack and had been classified as violent.
Right below:
> What we do need is better trained and better equipped police officers so that they can identify potential threats faster.
If the violent offenders are already known to police then how is training cops to identify threats going to help? The threats were already known by police to be violent.
The article doesn’t really provide any new developments. The company also claims to be the next Google with private security in mind. To me it feels like marketing blog speak.
There are not any new developments about PRISM as related to Big Tech but having it in the title will make sure it reaches #1.
I understand that it is impossible to prove a negative, but at the same time given the scope of the surveillance dragnet I'd hope they'd have something they could point to. At this point I would even circumstantial evidence as to the programs efficacy would go a long way, but it doesn't look like they even have that.
Its not proving a negative, its proving an existential query, there exists terror attacks that were stopped by PRISM. If the data was useful, then they could certainly point to the in-progress attacks that were thwarted - stopping an attack does not erase all information about its existence.
The government prevents thousands of terrorist attacks every year by being tolerable enough that the number of people filling rental trucks full of explosives is zero.
? There are actually a myriad of interlocking protocols that help to thwart such activities, to ignore them is not reasonable.
Most poignantly there is literally an Ammonium Nitrate security program. [1]
As for the 'number of truck bombings being zero' ... it did happen and the average is 'more than zero' and when we consider the implications (an entire building and 100's of dead etc.) it's a concern.
Obviously, it's hard to determine the effectiveness of the various programs because they all play a part, but that there haven't been any such bombings since then is at likely a positive sign.
> NSA surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack
Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation.
What the ruling said is that the NSA surveillance program resulted in only one conviction related to terrorism, and that it could have been made without it. i.e. it didn't help catch any terrorist, which is a different claim. The end result is the same: the NSA surveillance program is illegal and considered ineffective, but unlike the title claim, it is a fact.
> Because terrorist attacks that were prevented didn't happen, there is no way to know. We could only speculate by correlating terrorist attacks and surveillance, but there are so many external variables that it is effectively impossible to prove causation.
This is nonsense, foiled attacks make the news. The FBI foiled a terrorist attack against the governor of Michigan a few days ago and that certainly made the news.
There is a difference between a foiled attack and one that is prevented.
For example if you lock your bike and when you come back, you see bolt cutter marks on your lock and your bike it still there, you know that it stopped the thief.
But for one attempt like that, there are probably a hundred more potential thieves that just passed by, saw your lock and didn't do anything.
Seeing your lock untouched doesn't mean it is useless. It may or may not have prevented your bike from being stolen, but there is no way to be sure.
In the same way, a terrorist may have had plans, but because of surveillance, he knew he would never have succeeded, and gave up. Seriously I doubt it, but that's a possibility.
The submitted title is subtly editorialized to the point of being incorrect. The article only says that the phone surveillance program did not prevent a single terrorist attack. It does not say that PRISM did not prevent a single terrorist attack. These are very different claims.
Even where the article does use PRISM, it uses it incorrectly. PRISM is not the program that involved storing telecommunications metadata. The article claims that was one part of PRISM. This contradicts all public reporting on the two programs.
Bush and his crew had the Patriot act written before 9/11 and were simply waiting around for a circumstance to justify enacting it.
Honestly I'm surprised this is even a controversial opinion at this point. This is exactly what Snowden exposed. That these programs were as if not more focused on internal spying than anything else.
Quite an extraordinary claim, I'm surprised _you're_ surprised it's controversial: can you share a little bit more about how Snowden exposed the Patriot Act was prewritten & waiting for an excuse to be enacted?
You are conflating two things. I did not claim that Snowden exposed that the patriot act was pre written. I don't believe that to be true. Snowden exposed the underlying premise, not that detail.
That the legislation was in action before 9/11 has no bearing on the assertion that 'it was designed for something else'.
There were a few attempts to blow up the WTC in the 1990's and many security officials were 'sounding the alarm' on Al-Qaeda well before 9/11.
The conspiratorial views here are unsubstantiated.
Wether or not PRISM/Patriot are effective, legal or worthwhile is a huge and legit question, but they were implemented effectively for the stated objectives.
By Bush & Crew you meant to say Joe Biden, right? Or, perhaps all those who enrich themselves by warmongering, despite party affiliation? If you were to parse the mass edits of JB & Patriot Acts wiki pages you would find that Joe's substantial contributions to the Patriot Act have been cleansed from said pages.
And yet the OCA page still exists. The scripted narrative of politicos can't completely whitewash all historical facts. Yet.
Obama announcing his VP gave me pause back in '08. I voted for them anyway. After they retained/appointed W.Gates & T Geitner, I realized "Change" != change, apparently.
We now have two shit choices, IMO, and truly struggle to determine which is the least evil option through all the noise. Perhaps if we knew before casting our ballot who will be in each admins' cabinets making policy decisions we could make an more informed vote.
The supposed targets (terrorists) use tools and technologies that are invisible to PRISM and similar programs. No security expert with an interest in being truthful could have made a strong case that PRISM and similar programs would have a measurable effect on tracking down criminals and terrorists.
William Binney and Thomas Drake, two of the people who gave Snowden the insight to understand how well "normal channels" work against any whistleblowers.
Binney's thinthread program juxtaposed against what replaced it is a prime thing to start reading up to understand gp's point.
Edward Snowden's recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast[1] was extremely interesting, and they discuss this case, among other things. Snowden is a great speaker.
> You can't prove that would-be terrorists weren't dissuaded by the knowledge that PRISM existed.
This is the tiger repelling rock theory of anti-terrorism. I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work.
> I have a rock that repels tigers. There haven't been any tiger attacks when I'm around, so it must work.
Behind the scenes, the man with the rock is using it to kill every single kitten he sees when he's alone. He can't prove how useful the rock is without admitting to all the senseless murder of innocent bystanders.
The details of my anti-tiger operations are highly classified; whoever leaked this information to you will be vilified and hounded around the globe for the rest of their life.
I would expect more digging and investigation before inferring that criminal activity was not reduced in a more significant way. The linked source is a NYT article that makes conclusions based on a few selected reports.
I understand the intent, and agree, but Tutanota's blog posts are really low quality. I'm sure there are much better and more in-depth articles we could be reading about this.
That is spot on, yes? I wish more people "on the inside" lived up to their oath to defend the constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
But maybe the rachet had been tightened too far and they, if they even exist, just don't see a way?
Look at Ed Snowden. He lived his principles, and will basically live as an exile for the rest of his life. Most people with families and kids can't do that, no matter how principled and courageous.
This is a pretty garbage article. It confuses PRISM, which is a data integration project to ingest data from the FBI into the NSA's databases, with Stellar Wind, which is the phone metadata collection program that this article is about.
Why is there so little call for reform from congress and new administrations etc?
Obama or Trump had no part in building the original system so why do they continue it? Is the political class as a whole 100% on board with authoritarian, privacy invading, controlling America?
Most people don't care enough to bug politicians about it, so politicians don't do anything about it.
Most people have zero clue what PRISM is, and they just don't care. They're trying to pay rent and make sure their kids are learning long division over Zoom.
And/or that it's a local jobs program for enough representatives' districts that cutting it is a no-go, the same issue as with many other military-industrial programs.
I'm very much against government (and corporate) spying, but as a mental gymnastic, why was this program a flop?
Assuming it didn't stop one act of terror (as this article assumed/the judge ruled), why?
We know that in the hands of corporations and political machines all of this data can be used with pinpoint accuracy. Is sussing out "who's likely going to commit an act of terror" categorically different than "who's likely to buy a massage from a local spa" or "who's likely to vote for party X"?
In a word - Too much Data, not enough analysts to wade through it. The amount of ingested data from various fire-hose feeds was (is?) staggering.
The Signal to Noise ratio makes it practically impossible for any nation state to properly go through each and every 'flagged for human analysis' entry. Metadata analysis (who was in contact with who and when) are more than sufficient for prosecution and hoovering up the loose ends (after the fact). Parallel construction neatly masks some of the more interesting stuff.
I am Pro Privacy but still keep in touch with those that deal with this sort of stuff and the latest fad is "ML/AI will solve it for us". Good luck with that because - What do you use as a training data set?
"is" would be so much more descriptive in this case that one could argue the usage of "was" may be intentionally confusing, as to induce the reader to imagine either the surveillance ended or became legal.
It was recently found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court, no? This seems to be asserting a stronger claim that it was also illegal then, not that it has since ceased.
But we were told it would save lives and was for saving the world?
That means it's completely impossible for such things to be a lie doesn't it?
As long as you say something is for saving the world or doing good and accuse all others who might raise questions about it of being terrorists/communists/racists/nazis etc it simply has to be true doesn't it?
I mean as long as someone just says something is to save lives or for justice or to save the world you have to completely accept it without question don't you?
You don't question it at all right?
Or else that would make you pure black hearted evil wouldn't it?
To take something done in the name of good intentions and apply rational thought and reasoning to it in the interest of affirming whether or not it would actually do good for the world or others or to achieve its goals makes you the literally the equivalent of a rapist doesn't it?
I mean I just got done reading a recent hn article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24714880 that is completely unrelated in any way whatsoever at all to anything mentioned above and I am completely shell shocked, dumbfounded!
I mean how could this happen?
Seriously, we were told it was to save lives?
And it was said by people in official positions with credentials; which means it is literally physically impossible to be wrong in any way at all, we all know this is true!
God this is all too much to take, I really need a holiday. I really hope we have a complete coronovirus lockdown for as long as it takes to kill off this virus for good so we can get back to normal and I can have one.
If I had voted in the last election, I would have voted for Trump, just to hopefully have a more naked emporer. Lifelong politicians such as Biden and Obama, to me, are much more dangerous. People actually fall for their bullshit.
Edit: minor. Love the downvotes, keep them coming. You know your over target when your taking flak.
Not only did it not prevent any terrorist attack, but was used openly as a way to build opposition research on political opponents in the USA since 2016 but probably earlier.
