I think this article shows exactly how two-faced the denials made by FB and Google really are. The NYT is talking about PRISM here, which is implemented via FISA.
While it's possible that NSA does not have "completely unfettered" access to all Google/Facebook/Microsoft databases, it's obvious that they have direct access to a system which provides real-time data. For example in the case of monitoring Skype conversations (voice, video, data), email, and web searches, of a previously identified target. Yes, they sign off at the start, and then they let the system RUN.
Of course data is sent "automatically" and "in bulk" but by themselves these words mean little to nothing. I think the question is do they even bother identifying foci for the search? For Verizon "meta-data" they didn't bother, they just suck it all up. Note well, that URLs are considered "meta-data", even though in most cases they fully describe the content. Note well, GPS location of your phone is "meta-data".
A true and honest debate about whether we want to live under this type of "total surveillance" would require a lot of education for the average American to understand what these systems are truly capable of. Senators Wyden and Udell have been whispering warnings for years, but even they are gagged by FISA. It's so insulting to hear Obama claim he welcomes debate on the subject, while he continues to obfuscate the true scope of the surveillance.
If the PRISM slides are accurate about the "2 degrees of separation" then even targeting an individual at the start is meaningless. 2 degrees of separation along what axis? You think it's just 2 degrees of "sent mail"? There are spooks who do nothing but think about this shit all day long... "Two degrees of separation" could mean the warrant automatically broadens itself up to 2 hops from the foci, based on any "contact" along:
- Outgoing / Incoming email
- Facebook, Skype, Google Groups, contact lists
- IRC channel members
- Common web searches
- Common URLs visited
- Common brick & mortor shops visited
You can taint a LOT of people with only 2 degrees of separation if you starting thinking along multiple dimensions of contact.
It's specifically this "social network" which the FBI is interested in. You need these "support systems" installed at Google/Facebook/Microsoft if you want to build the graph out efficiently. The document was leaked, the government acknowledged how vital and important they believe it is for them to have access to this data. I'm not sure what more do you need to see?
Frankly, the blog posts the way they are worded don't deny anything at all. If Google was willing and able, they could tell us unequivocally the process, format, and scope of the data they share with the NSA. A Google Analytics for "NSA Spook Activity, Quarterly". Then we can start to have the "public debate".
Wait...how is it "obvious" that "they have direct access to a system which provides real-time data"...? Isn't that direct access what Google and Facebook are said to have explicitly denied?
The NYT doesn't seem to be talking about PRISM here. It seems to be talking about FISA. From the WaPo and Guardian's reports, I thought that PRISM was concocted as a response to what the NSA saw as "shortcomings" in FISA?
FISA doesn't preclude "real-time" data - that's one of the points of the surveillance. The original intention of the law was to listen to phone calls as they happened.
What's unclear between the original descriptions of what the slides called Prism and these descriptions is just how automatic the system is - if the steps of lawyers individually reviewing each request still exist.
While it's possible that NSA does not have "completely unfettered" access to all Google/Facebook/Microsoft databases, it's obvious that they have direct access to a system which provides real-time data. For example in the case of monitoring Skype conversations (voice, video, data), email, and web searches, of a previously identified target. Yes, they sign off at the start, and then they let the system RUN.
Of course data is sent "automatically" and "in bulk" but by themselves these words mean little to nothing. I think the question is do they even bother identifying foci for the search? For Verizon "meta-data" they didn't bother, they just suck it all up. Note well, that URLs are considered "meta-data", even though in most cases they fully describe the content. Note well, GPS location of your phone is "meta-data".
A true and honest debate about whether we want to live under this type of "total surveillance" would require a lot of education for the average American to understand what these systems are truly capable of. Senators Wyden and Udell have been whispering warnings for years, but even they are gagged by FISA. It's so insulting to hear Obama claim he welcomes debate on the subject, while he continues to obfuscate the true scope of the surveillance.
If the PRISM slides are accurate about the "2 degrees of separation" then even targeting an individual at the start is meaningless. 2 degrees of separation along what axis? You think it's just 2 degrees of "sent mail"? There are spooks who do nothing but think about this shit all day long... "Two degrees of separation" could mean the warrant automatically broadens itself up to 2 hops from the foci, based on any "contact" along:
- Outgoing / Incoming email
- Facebook, Skype, Google Groups, contact lists
- IRC channel members
- Common web searches
- Common URLs visited
- Common brick & mortor shops visited
You can taint a LOT of people with only 2 degrees of separation if you starting thinking along multiple dimensions of contact.
It's specifically this "social network" which the FBI is interested in. You need these "support systems" installed at Google/Facebook/Microsoft if you want to build the graph out efficiently. The document was leaked, the government acknowledged how vital and important they believe it is for them to have access to this data. I'm not sure what more do you need to see?
Frankly, the blog posts the way they are worded don't deny anything at all. If Google was willing and able, they could tell us unequivocally the process, format, and scope of the data they share with the NSA. A Google Analytics for "NSA Spook Activity, Quarterly". Then we can start to have the "public debate".