Talk:PRISM/Archive 2

The reality of treating foreign nationals as terrorist targets by PRISM allows the NSA to forcible confine individuals for internal affairs and this allegedly could be broadened to include US citizens.^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatum81 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2013‎ (UTC)

Here's a HUGE new story that just came out and puts a lot of stuff into perspective: Gellman, Barton (June 16, 2013). "U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata". Washington Post. Mandatory reading for anyone working on this article or anything related.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 June 2013‎ (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The photo showing that the company Apple is a provider for PRISM is incorrect. 17.26.244.103 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done According to whom? Do you have a source saying that? Widefox; talk 22:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional slides show apple is indeed a PRISM provider. Apple case notations start with "PA" --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This brings the total to 8.

Some things to note: the surveillance and "stored comms" chosen by the analyst may happen prior to FISA or "S2 FAA Adjuticators" (slide 1)

Prism Case notations explainer.

(slide 3)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ --71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the edits of "19:50, 27 June 2013‎ Someone not using his real name"? I believe he/she put some webpoll there to make Prism-scandal more 'digestible' for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 (talk)

It's a poll by CNN/ORC; full doc for it is here; see q 19. Quite reliable methodology ("A total of 1,014 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage.") Obviously not at all a webpoll. The question was rather complex though. I've moved it down in the article and added the full text of the question. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The section should be expanded with the other polls, because there have been more than one according to : "Poll after poll suggests that Americans support the NSA's surveillance tools. But, as demonstrated in a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News this morning, we are also aware that there are significant details about the programs which remain unclear — 65 percent of Americans want public hearings on their use." Feel free to contribute. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

is any of this new and notable? May122013 (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes! four of those are new.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Very interesting!" — TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to go off-line now, but this should be covered. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good eye! I'm reading the article now. Interesting that UK media reports before US media! To wit: "New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies. Exclusive: Edward Snowden papers reveal 38 targets including EU, France and Italy. Berlin accuses Washington of cold war tactics — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I really think we need to have one central 2013 NSA leaks article, which links all of the ones that have been created and expanded ever since the Guardian began punlishing on June 6.

• Guardian – NSA files timeline (up to Jun 23)
• Guardian – NSA files, full coverage

BigSteve (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what we have at Edward Snowden#Media disclosures? --Nstrauss (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. These two articles are closely related, yet properly separated: (PRISM and Edward Snowden) — Good work, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is it all caps? Some other reason? It should be noted in the article somewhere... Hires an editor (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources, including worldwide services, are beginning to say "Prism" which also implies it is not an acronym. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably an acronym whose definition has not been declassified/leaked. Stephen Colbert said it stands for "Planning tool for Resource Integration Synchronization Management", but a RAND report says that this definition is for a different program named PRISM. See this reference. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The slide set that was the source of the name and logo also bears a reference to PRISMFAA which in turn leads to information about the software program used by the FAA, from a company called Compusearch http://www.compusearch.com/node/179 -- which definitely provides software to US Government agencies. The US Government factsheet says "PRISM" is the name of the computer system -- and there is no evidence to the contrary. Of course it is likely that the basic software has been modified and customized for the NSA's use, but it makes sense that they would use an existing software app. Compusearch capitalizes PRISM but the page I linked to doesn't explain the acronym. The software is designed to support grants management and requisitioning -- a different function - but it's quite possible that the basic structure of the software could be adapted and repurposed for the NSA's need. In a sense, the return of data sought via a National Security letter or FISA warrant could be seen as a "requisitioning" task. Syncalin (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FAA in this context appears to be a NSA organization or program, not the Federal Aviation Administration. One slide is labeled "FAA702 Operations." Prism is a common enough name. There is no reason to believe the Compusearch software has anything to do with the NSA PRISM program.--agr (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right -- the software does not appear to be the Compusearch program as I thought, but rather the military intelligence application developed by SAIC (described at page 13 of their annual report at http://www.saic.com/news/pdf/annual-report2006.pdf ) -- and described in the section of the Army Field Manual here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/what-prism-do-2 -- so I was mistaken as to which software it was, but I think it's pretty clear that the software program in question does exactly what is summarized on the slides Syncalin (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we can be fairly confident at this point that Prism is not an acronym. It possibly refers to splitting Internet trunk lines in two, with one branch going to the NSA. (That idea might be meant as a metaphor; Snowden has not leaked how Prism is implemented.) As for the all caps, the DOD has a predilection for those.

I agree that sources have stopped using all caps for "Prism". The Guardian, which is the main outlet for this story, uses "Prism", and so does the New York Times, America's paper of record. The Washington Post, which also broke the story, is still using all caps, but it is close to DOD types, after all.

I propose that Wikipedia stop using all caps for "Prism". All caps look very grating to the contemporary eye: for example Unix, which also is not an acronym, was also originally written in all caps, but is not anymore. – Herzen (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't discount WaPo because it's "close to DOD types." If anything that makes WaPo a more reliable source. The fact is that WaPo and the Guardian are the most reliable sources, as they've been working on the story longer and have access to Snowden and more documents that haven't been revealed. Since they're split on this it seems to me that both "Prism" and "PRISM" are correct at this point. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why PRISM is written in capital letters if it is not an acronym ? I guess it is "Program of Internet Surveillance and Monitoring", but there are not hits by Google so far - it is just a secret programme. --Bautsch (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And even USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym ! --Bautsch (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The DoD has an acronym for everything. Basically a penny of every federal tax dollar goes to bureaucrats trying to think up [cool | lame] acronyms. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

CNET claims: "Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management": see What is the NSA's PRISM program? (FAQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bautsch (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What the Prism people call themselves should be given top precedence — look at the top of this article to see the logo: "PRISM". And the CNET claim just noted seems right. Thanks, Bautsch! [CAPS-answer is "good enough for government work"] ;-)  :-) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What's in a name (and logo diagram)? While the article is to not include original thought (one Wikipedia founder thinks this is a WP weakness) we can use the TALK page here for connecting the dots, so to speak. And if 'Prism' refers to the effort, and 'PRISM' refers to the tool of the effort, what can be made of the choice of the logo and codename? Suppose it is not about the letters forming an acronym but rather the physics of prism-optics? Editors can watch for information about Prism/PRISM taking the information stream of all bandwidth in USA/world and splitting it to interested departments of national interest, such as the IRS, DHS, NCS, CIA, WH. Just a concept to watch for and which explains better than searching for an acronym. We didn't find one. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is too much following the sensational story of The Guardian. The US government, the involved internet companies and a number of IT and intelligence specialists say that PRISM is more of a intelligence management system, than a raw data collecting platform. The Washington Post, which initially broke with the same story as The Guardian, has already stepped back from the initial claims. See for example: How did mainstream media get the NSA PRISM story so hopelessly wrong?. Also PRISM is either an acrynom, or a nickname, not a codeword. Military and intelligence codewords are classified (there are no classified acronyms), which apparently isn't the case here. Therefore it's likely to be a nickname. But as there's also the acronym PRISM (expanding to "Planning tool for Resource, Integration, Synchronization, and Management"), which is a widely used military and intelligence web tool, is also possible that the PRISM of the Guardian is even one and the same thing as this webtool, see for example: Is PRISM just a not-so-secret web tool?. Considerations like this are now only mentioned in "note 1", but I think it should be part of the main text of the article. Greetings, P2Peter (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the title "Prism" is simply inspired from this image about the working of the Naurus Nsystem : http://narus.com/solutions/narus-nsystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.42.174 (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh - Prism is a commercial product from Voxeo Labs that does at NSA exactly what it is intended for... ok, maybe its slightly modified... ;) see here: http://voxeolabs.com/prism/ I read this that often across the web that I even don't remember where I first encountered it... --Jussty (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a new section/paragraph to Restore_the_Fourth {Amendment} since there were 10,000 protestors across USA yesterday, Independence Day. To wit: To get back to the "original intent" of the Constitution can be Republican, Democrat, Independent, Conservative, or Liberal; even Libertarian or Green. For example, Liberals and Conservatives both do not like the government spying on citizen eMail to an intrusive extent. Hence the protest against the NSA Utah Data Center by a small group of Restore the Fourth people. and "The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding what is reasonable is at the center of the national debate over the NSA's data seizure ..." according to the protestors today. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Kim Dotcom's quote as I felt his opinion was no more notable than any other tech entrepreneur's. 79.6.38.82 added it back with the comment: "Kim Dotcom 's notable since the PRISM program is not only about mass surveillance: It's also about economic/industrial spionage/operations. Eliminating KimD. they advantage US firms vs non US ones." A follow-up comment by the same editor said: "Btw the problem is not only the snooping of communications between K.Dotcom and that firm. Problem is also the manipulation (*alteration*) (by Nsa) of such communications. (that's what PRISM is all about))."

79.6.38.82, if you can support any of those assertions with reliable sources then we should add them to the article right away. If you can't, then you shouldn't be using them to support the inclusion of the Dotcom quote. I'll give you a few days. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We all know (and i think you can find that in the Guardian articles and maybe also in this wiki article) that the PRISM program is not only about snooping, right? It's also not only about Google, FB, Twitter etc. snooping. You can find that in many sources it is reported that NSA is able (and it's using that ability) to *tamper* with data, aka "altering communications between two parties involved in such a communication". This also goes beyond the collaboration of NSA and Corporation (like Google etc). In fact it involves *also* foreign traffic that transit in the US. Some of the many leaked slides document that the NSA is also tampering the traffic data and the goals are usually:

1) attacking the computer of the user. (some way it can be done? Here's an example:

The victim (let say he/she is French) is watching a Flash Video from a chinese server.

That traffic passes through the US. If it doesnt pass through the US it anyway passes through some US ISP (like Verizon, Level3, etc) Hop_(networking)s in Europe (like, for example, the (in)famous Frankfurt Level3 HOP where you always have to pass through to connect to some russian servers [example: to connect to RT.com], but there're many other similar examples ).

At this point the US can alter such traffic in real-time in order to exploit some software bugs on the computer of the victim in order to gain control of that computer (access to files, further communication snooping etc)

I'm from Italy and i can guarantee that ALL (or something over 90%) of Internet connections traffic from Europe to China/Russia passes through US controlled network infrastructures. If you're not in the US just try (for example) to traceroute sina.cn or www.cctv.cn and you'll see that there is always at least one US hop in the middle (they just need one to intercept and/or alter the traffic). It's the very same type of insecurity you can find while connecting to the Net using a wi-fi hotspot (but with the 'plus' danger that you're sure that there's the US gov doing nasty things to connections [i mean: on an hotspot you're not 100% sure that there's the "bad guys" danger ])

2) alter the communication between the two (or more) parties involved: Since the traffic pass through the US (at service level: in Google/FB/Twitter/Yahoo servers. Or at ISP level: because much of the global traffic passes through the US, also when there's no communication endpoint in the US [it's only transit traffic] ). It's a well documented pratice used also in Iran and other similar countries, you can find info about such Internet abuse in the Deep_packet_inspection#Iran wiki page ("enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes."), where it says that via ISPs collaboration the Iran governement disrupt and/or manipulate communications between the dissidents (using Western equipment by Siemens/Nokia/Ericsson).

About the business/economic/industrial espionage: It's not a news. It was already known many years ago that all the US "echelons" are used mainly for economic spionage to advantage US firms. Only now it's became a mainstream talks' topic. For example the European Union is saying that it can't trust no more the US and that new trade agreements are at risk because "we [Europe] can't make deals about economic policies with a country that spy us and our country firms"

I hope i resolved all your doubts.

Note: i am 79.6.38.82. (It's better for me to explicitly say it now. Just in case you finished your arguments again and you still want to use it again as a "sockpuppeting argoument pretext" in order to censor my informations or to "protect" the article again)

Bye 79.40.17.213 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to convince me of anything. You just need to find me reliable sources that support your position. No reliable sources, no Kim Dotcom. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You dont need to simply tell me "i'm not convinced". You just need to tell me:

WHY you're not.

WHAT doesnt convince you.

What is the argument you need info to understand?

Just EXPLAIN!

Do you need info (sources) about the EU considering the global snooping an economic menace?

Or do you need a source that explains that intercepted traffic is manipulable?

Please keep in mind that i'm NOT in your head.

So you have to tell me exactly what kind of source you are in need. (what is/are the info/s in need of sources here for you to be able to understand the argument?)

87.2.112.195 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

http://rt.com/usa/nsa-prism-slides-surveillance-435/ <-- see the NSA slide where it says "protocol exploitation" (aka manipulation of traffic data to trigger an exploit so that they can get control over that computer/communication aka "compromise the system")

need something more? 87.2.112.195 (talk)

Oh btw: i am 79.6.38.82 (just for safety ;) 87.2.112.195 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What I'm not convinced of: The statements you made in your edit comments in support of your re-addition of the Kim Dotcom quote. Why I'm not convinced: Because I haven't seen those statements made by reliable sources. Show me the sources. Put another way: prove to us that you're not trying to use Wikipedia as your own personal soapbox or as a platform for your own original research. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So the problem is that you cant find sources about these two facts i was referring to (in the "edit comments" section [aka "edit summary"]) in the history of the article?

If this is the case (i've to say that you're not so precise/explicit in saying me what you want me to document) the 'needed' sources are for:

1) PRISM consists not only in simple interceptions but also in *manipulation* of the traffic of some Internet users.

and

2) With PRISM, as in the Echelon case, the NSA main goal is to spy on non-US firms in order to steal industrial secrets (or to do sabotage) in order to create advantage for US corporations.

I hope i win the quiz of discovering your info-gaps.

1) NSA also manipulate the traffic (to disrupt or to subvert communication , or to hack into the pc of a user) :

http://rt.com/files/news/1f/99/b0/00/prism-slide-7.jpg

(from http://rt.com/usa/nsa-prism-slides-surveillance-435/)

and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_2.jpg where it says that it's not only about big Corps traffic. It is also about transit traffic and it means that someone from (for example) Swiss can connect to a Chinese server and the traffic will pass through the USA territory, with all that this implies.

2)Economic espionage:

"Echelon: Big brother without a cause?" (from 2001, now we know why 911 it all happened ;)

Mr Campbell believes that when the Cold War ended, this under-employed intelligence apparatus was put to use for economic gain.

and: But former CIA director James Woolsey, in an article in March for the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged that the US did conduct economic espionage against its European allies, though he did not specify if Echelon was involved.

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm)

And this is also the reason for EU politicians' concern when PRISM was made public. Some reactions:

"The NSA paper also allegedly refers to the EU as a "target" "

According to Der Spiegel, the US surveillance system spied on some 500 million telephone and internet recordings in Germany each month, ramping up fears that the United States was not simply collecting data to prevent against acts of terrorism, but was involved in full-scale industrial espionage.

http://rt.com/news/us-eu-prism-snowden-trade-694/

Need more? (It's so cool to have somebody else do the research for you on the Net, isnt it? ;)

Tell me if ya need something else (i've a nice list of some websites, people call'em "Search Engine"s)

I hope i've informed you enough now.

ЧАО ЧАО !

79.20.37.179 (talk) [aka 79.6.38.82, for the friends XD ]

This seems like classic original research to me. You're cherry picking sources that don't actually say what you're saying and then extrapolating with no basis. That's not what we do here. You cite the reference to "transit traffic" in the PRISM slide as proof that the purpose of PRISM is to manipulate data, rather than to collect it? Where does that come from? You cite an article about ECHELON to draw conclusions about PRISM. You also rely on an unsubstantiated accusation by a British intelligence expert (Campbell) as conclusive proof. And then you rely on claims of a "ramping up" of "fears" of industrial espionage (broken link, btw) to "prove" that PRISM is used for industrial espionage. Sorry, these sources don't come close to cutting it. And yes, the Wikipedia community expects you to do your own research if you're going to throw around such unsubstantiated allegations.--Nstrauss (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. You're the same Italian IP-hopper who provoked a very disruptive discussion earlier and was responsible for this article becoming semi-protected. Funny how you didn't disclose that. You're being uncivil and you also seem to have chronic WP:IDHT. Please drop this pestering or we'll go back to the noticeboards for further sanctions. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

i didnt disclose it???? And what have i done when (some posts ago) i wrote this?

<< Note: i am 79.6.38.82. (It's better for me to explicitly say it now. Just in case you finished your arguments again and you still want to use it again as a "sockpuppeting argoument pretext" in order to censor my informations or to "protect" the article again) >>

but ok, it's not a news that you not only complain without arguments: you dont even read the replies!!

And btw i never said that "the purpose of PRISM is to manipulate data rather than collect it". I only said that data manipulation is being done by NSA. (i never said that it was their main activity). Please stop attributing me things that i never wrote.

and about the "broken link": i can see NO broken link. The BBC and the RT link are the only links i've posted. I've just checked them and they all works good. (maybe NSA's at work against your connection ? XD )

And about the "IP-hopping": It's called dynamic ip. It happens each time the connection restart or the router reboots. It's nothing strange, it's called Dynamic IP. Somebody has static IP somebody dont. Just keep your heart in peace with it, 'cause i'll not change. Maybe you can find useful information about networking, here on the Net.

Btw how my connection works and what my IP is, is NONE of your business. I always revealed my identity here, so the IP-hopping accusation is simple BS.

I started with a comment saying that i'm the one who used ip 79.6.38.82, and then i also said that i'm the one of the "backdoor discussion" (i say that when i'm pointing the fact that last time you already used my ip as a pretext ['cause you were out of arguments ] to lock me out from editing using the "protection" of the page)

(And yet, i'm still 79.6.38.82)79.11.238.206 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. Do you work for the NSA? Your nick also made me think that Ns = National security ? dont take it as an offence. I'm just asking, since there's some rule here on wiki against conflict of interests and i noticed your disruptive behaviour when it comes to handle facts that could damage the public image of the NSA or the US gov. 79.11.238.206 (talk)

You failed again in explaining why the Kim Dotcom comments are not ok in the article (and the WP:OR has nothing to do with this, since here we are in a Talk page and that pretext doesnt work here, since the Talk page goal is to allow the users to use ORs.) The part you removed contain sources (The Guardian and the chinese newspaper). (and i'm still 79.11.238.206)79.6.100.101 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@NsAtrauss: oh good you 'protected' the page again? Is this your normal behavior or was it $haped by money? you're nuts(<- removed according to WP:PA)79.6.100.101 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Domestic Response section was tagged as being too anti-PRISM. Rather than just leaving the tag there and making no effort to adjust the balance, can someone suggest what material to add that shows support for the program? I've tried a number of searches looking for support from the usual political commentators, but so far I am not coming up with anything useful. Dezastru (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm guilty of drive-by tagging. I meant to work on this but then I forgot about it. I'll look for pro-PRISM sources tomorrow, but in the meantime, I do recall both Thomas Friedman and Bill Keller being pro-PRISM. (Or anti-Snowden? I can't remember.) Keller is particularly notable because he was embroiled in the warrantless wiretapping scandal in 2006 I believe. I'm sure there are lots of other columnists, editorial boards, and other high-profile folks who have come out pro-PRISM, e.g. it's necessary to protect us from terrorists. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You could probably add more of the polls to that, not just talking heads. See . There might have been more since then. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This blog post about finding Paul Revere very simply explains how limited meta data actually contains a lot more info than you might suspect if you can cross reference it. Not sure whether this article can absorb the ideas - perhaps it ought to be in analysis of metadata or somewhere else similar? EdwardLane (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be concise, and of course it should be WP:BALANCEd. Can we please get rid of the Keith Alexander statement, which is largely redundant with the Obama statement? It's also been heavily contested and critiqued by a variety of reliable sources. As things currently stand it sounds like we're endorsing the government's view on this. At one point there was language in the lead that attempted to balance the Alexander statement but it just read as a back-and-forth, which was really inappropriate for the lead section. In my view we should focus on concision. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with moving the Alexander stuff to the body of the article, and have done it myself. It's a convoluted issue, too big for the lead. I'm inclined to think that the Obama quote could be moved as well; it's basically well-summarized by the "U.S. government officials have disputed some aspects of the Guardian and Washington Post stories and have defended the program" statement, which comes right before it. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Cramming it into the lead doesn't allow more context, like mentioning that Obama's statement was made exactly on the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, a fact that was remarked by the press. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the attendance to the Obama Berlin speech says something for itself: "But the Barack Obama who spoke in front of the Brandenburg Gate to a few thousand people on June 19 looked a lot different from the one who spoke in front of the Siegessäule in July 2008 in front of more than 200,000 people, who had gathered in the heart of Berlin to listen to Mr. Obama, then running for president." The NYT article has more context-related commentary, which again doesn't fit in the lead. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This one has more precise numbers: "Officials said 4,500 people were present, fewer than the 6,000 tickets distributed — perhaps reflecting the scorching heat. Even so, that was far fewer than the 450,000 who saw Mr. Kennedy or the 200,000 who packed a park to hear Mr. Obama in 2008, when he was a presidential candidate. Then, Ms. Merkel had discouraged his use of the Brandenburg Gate site, saying it should not be used for politicking. This time she invited him to use it." Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

These would be the documents that show Yahoo! "objected strenuously" to federal demands for customer data.

http://www.zdnet.com/yahoo-wins-motion-to-declassify-documents-following-nsa-prism-debacle-7000018089/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources on Microsoft and PRISM:

• Greenwald, Glenn. "Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages." The Guardian. Thursday July 11, 2013.
• Bekker, Scott. "PRISM and Microsoft: What We Know So Far." Redmond Channel Partner. June 20, 2013.
• "Microsoft helped the NSA bypass encryption, new Snowden leak reveals." Russia Today. July 11, 2013. Updated July 12, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Also and which are not only completely contradictory with each other, but only a day apart. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been some edit warring activity over "under the Bush Administration" or "by the Bush Administration" in relation to the passage of the Protect America Act (PAA). First off, "Administration" should be lowercase. Second, why are we fighting over this? Why does someone feel the intense need to point out that the PAA was passed during the Bush years second sentence of an article about PRISM? Why not say that it was passed by the 110th Congress? Isn't it enough that we have a link to the PAA and curious readers can click on it to learn more? Why not leave out this silliness altogether and please, please don't edit war? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was set to quickly agree with Dr. Fleischman but decided to read some of the Protect America Act of 2007; specifically this portion:

The bill he submitted to Congress would address these new technologies, Bush said, as well as restore FISA's "original focus" on protecting the privacy of people within the United States, "so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations." He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess, stating that "Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our nation. Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country".[8]

So, now I'm thinking maybe there should even be more emphasis on who invented this product as well as the acceptance and continuation of it by current political leaders. In other words, we do seem to be dealing with an evolving invention similar to air travel wherein a complete encyclopedic article will start with the early inventors; i.e. the Bush team, and show the systematic continuation and/or growth of the invention up to the present day; that is if the RSs present it as a continuation rather than a chaotic development. May122013 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

1 thing's for sure; the U.S. Constitution's 4th. amendment is in shambles because of Prism et al. and there are a lot of RS articles about that effect which may be worth including at some point, I think. May122013 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for an expanded explanation of the legal origins for PRISM (supported by RS's, of course) but please keep a couple of things in mind. First, Congress passed the bill. They're a separate and co-equal branch of government and they had no obligation to accept the Bush administration's lobbying. Second, the lead section is no place for such a detailed history. The lead is already long enough as it is. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true; the lede is too long already. May122013 (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In the section "Responses and involvement of other countries" the subsections about Germany and about India have gotten mixed up. These two subsections need to be separated.

Also, perhaps the German section could be augmented with the following: "The German Army was using PRISM to support its operations in Afghanistan as early as 2011." Reference: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bild-bericht-bundeswehr-soll-von-prism-gewusst-haben-a-911531.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

These German articles mixed things up: the PRISM used in Afghanistan is the military Planning tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization and Management (PRISM). From the fragments published by the BILD paper, it's clear that they are talking about a tasking tool used for collection management, as can be seen in this german video report. P2Peter (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are they? I can't find one place where all the slides revealed so far are. I count 10 of them as of 11th June. It's very disapointing that they are not all in this article, isn't that what Wikipedia is for? www.dearunite.com has made an attempt to track them.2.30.166.12 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an image repository called the Commons which should have all of them: Commons:Category:PRISM (surveillance program) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Great but why isn't this link in the main article? 2.30.166.6 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Have added link to the Commons slides, this is probably the item of most interest to many readers of the article so I think it deserves a high billing, wouldn't like to see it buried in the article. Amazed it wasn't there.Dbdb (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/17/196962/skeptical-congress-turns-its-spycam.html This one also admits that surveilance targets are approved "two or three" contacts away from suspects, instead of just two as per the leaked 2009 procedures. more reporting on the same hearing. Even more, with quotes, e.g. by Rep. Ted Poe (TX): "Do you see a national security exemption in the Fourth Amendment?" EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be included, its especially notable in the admissions of surveillance extended to people beyond what procedures permit. May122013 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to move most of the national and international responses to the PRISM disclosure to the article 2013 mass surveillance scandal? This article here is really overloaded: it's giving hardly any specific information about PRISM itself, but, in my opinion, a way too long and detailed listing of all those responses. I think that would fit much better in the other article, which is more focussed on the "scandal". P2Peter (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

22,000 readers went to this "PRISM" article the past 2 days and one tenth that many- about 2,000 - went to the "2013 mass surveillance scandal" article. That's one reason I'd say leave the info here. May122013 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, people will google "PRISM" and that brings them here. But are they looking for information about the data collection program, or for a detailed listing of all the responses worldwide? I think the first, and that's hard to find here. Personally, I don't really see the relevance of mentioning all those responses, and if it may be relevant, I would say put it in a separate article, and make a link to that article here. P2Peter (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that while Twitter may not be party to a direct arrangement with the NSA, it is nonetheless providing its public tweets to the Library of Congress. And announced this in a press release.^[1][2][3]

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with PRISM. It probably belongs in the Twitter article, and perhaps in the Library of Congress article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter article has a reference already. I would be highly surprised if the NSA can't access the LOC's Twitter Database. I've seen no press so far on the issue. Right now it's in my "note for future reference" pile in case the issue appears. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course the NSA can access the LOC's Twitter database. That's the point of the LOC, to keep a record of all published works. Tweets are public and LOC's archive is publicly accessible. It's the exactly opposite of PRISM, which collects largely private data and allows extremely limited access. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Which sections should http://phys.org/news/2013-07-tech-firms-business-prism-poll.html go in and how should it be reported? Some excerpts:

"The Cloud Security Alliance said 10 percent of its non-US members have cancelled a contract with a US-based cloud provider, and 56 percent said they were less likely to use an American company.... The alliance includes some 48,000 individual members and corporations involved in security and other Internet-based businesses.... 36 percent of US firms polled said the revelations would make it more difficult for their company to do business outside the United States, while 64 percent said it would not."

EllenCT (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

We need a new section for this and the DuckDuckGo stuff (see thread above). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The failed Amash amendment to a recent spending bill would be a great addition to this article. The house narrowly rejected the amendment 205 to 217 along bipartisan lines that would have defunded parts of the NSA's data collection activities.

Sources (I know how partisan Wikipedia talk pages are, so I provided a ton of links from all ends of the news-media spectrum):

• http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/24/amash-amendment-fails-205-217-along-bipa
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595391-38/house-narrowly-rejects-bid-to-curb-nsa-domestic-surveillance/
• http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/justin-amash-nsa-amendment-94722.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/justin-amash-amendment_n_3647893.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.46.132 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By Rep Rush Holt: "Surveillance State Repeal Act"

• Repeal the Patriot Act
• Repeal most of the Fisa Amendments act of 2008
• Alters the terms of appointment of FISA judges
• Makes its own amendments to FISA
• Requires a Probable-cause warrant for all collection on US Persons
• Forbids the government to mandate backdoors to devices and encryption
• Strengthens protections for whistleblowers

http://www.holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200&Itemid=18

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was suprised to see that this aricle doesn't cover http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-nsa-procedures-document yet. Page 5 is particularly interesting. (Ever sent or received email to someone in a foreign country? You're exempt from NSA privacy protections which nominally apply to US citizens.) is a good secondary New Yorker fact piece on it. and collect many other sources on the same topic. EllenCT (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the single public opinion poll reported in this article is both out of date and happens to be the poll most favorable to the surveillance program. Public sentiment has been turning against the program rapidly. Here is the most recent poll as of today.

(I added updated polling data.) EllenCT (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Another thing is that there does not seem to be a discussion of the revelation that the program involves FBI-owned equipment on the large Internet corporations' premises, which was revealed a few days after strenuous but carefully-worded denials from those companies which strongly implied that they were not participating in any such programs. These omissions should be corrected.

Finally, the slides are low resolution versions of the partially redacted Guardian versions, instead of the more informative Washington Post slides. EllenCT (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

All excellent suggestions. Feel free to jump right in and improve the article. Dezastru (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are also government promises to disclose evidence collected by surveilance and used in prosecution and subjects' right to standing which the Supreme Court recited from government arguments, which have some implications of Interest on this topic. EllenCT (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm swamped but will get to all this eventually. I'd be happy if others could include some of this. In the mean time here is an interview of Richard M. Stallman by Sophie Shevardnadze which covers international as well as US-specific effects. EllenCT (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

New Pew Research poll. I swear I will get to all this stuff sooner or later, but many many thanks to those who've been leapfrogging my talk page notes into the article. <3 EllenCT (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Search engines such as DuckDuckGo, Ixquick are gaining popularity.

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo is getting more press so I would focus on that. Here are some sources:

• Lennard, Natasha (June 19, 2013). "Popularity boost for search engines outside NSA dragnets". Salon.
• Neal, Ryan W. (July 15, 2013). "NSA PRISM Leaks Boost Private Search Engines: StartPage And Ixquick Pass 4 Million Daily Searches". International Business Times.
• (for balance:) Sullivan, Danny (June 22, 2013). "Duck Duck Go's Post-PRISM Growth Actually Proves No One Cares About "Private" Search". Search Engine Land.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is another great article from a very reputable source (USA Today) to the pile:

• Oberman, Ethan (July 23, 2013). "How to dodge PRISM through use of free tech". USA Today.

--Akh81 (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

SAIC 2006 Annual Report Mentions PRISM by name on page 13 of the pdf report. Here's the link for confirmation/challenge: https://www.saic.com/news/pdf/Annual-Report2006.pdf PRISM isn't secret in this public report, making it public domain information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC) The main PRISM access point is here: https://prism.leidos.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa LEIDOS is part of SAIC and is the cropped form of kaLEIDOScope, making PRISM and LEIDOS dovetail into the optics theme. A secondary access point is here: https://onesaic.esl.saic.com/login.jspa?referer=%252Findex.jspa Cheryl Aycock and Barry Fiebert are key personnel for the PRISM program at SAIC/LEIDOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.132.236 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

These other NSA programs are confirmed by name and described in and :

"... both UPSTREAM and PRISM may be only the tips of a much larger system. Another new document released by Snowden says that on New Year’s Eve, 2012, SHELLTRUMPET, a metadata program targeting international communications, had just 'processed its One Trillionth metadata record.' Started five years ago, it noted that half of that trillion was added in 2012. It also noted that two more new programs, MOONLIGHTPATH and SPINNERET, 'are planned to be added by September 2013.'"

-- http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/aug/15/nsa-they-know-much-more-you-think/?pagination=false

Do they need their own articles, or redirects? EllenCT (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you spefic knowledge and contents to the programms, then create new articles. Otherwise redirect them to List of government surveillance projects#United_States and 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. The sources you posted are already included in the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures site. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really confusing to me. I was reading Techdirt's coverage of today's emergency NSA hearing to prevent their Section 215 program from being de-funded, and the author points out that, "To date, every example (of disrupting terrorist attacks) given (by the NSA to Congress) falls apart under scrutiny." And, "You'd think that the NSA and the FBI would be trotting out the good examples first." I'm completely baffled by this. Could there be a disgruntled middle management in NSA which is purposely releasing stories which they know will fall apart upon research by the press? More importantly, how should the article cover this aspect of the reaction? EllenCT (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

More on the same topic here. Still no verifiable examples of terrorist plots foiled, officials still claiming 30 or 50 exist. Still no explanation of why the original public examples were mistaken. Very very odd. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

ABC News (video)

"these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents. And it’s all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst," Greenwald said.

But the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee told Stephanopoulos he would be shocked if such programs existed.... "I was back out at NSA just last week, spent a couple hours out there with high and low level NSA officials," Chambliss said. "And what I have been assured of is that there is no capability at NSA for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail.... no emails are monitored now. They used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago."

"NSA officials are going to be testifying [under oath] before the Senate on Wednesday, and I defy them to deny that these programs work exactly as I just said," said Greenwald, who will join via video-link a separate bipartisan congressional group hearing from critics of the NSA’s surveillance programs on Wednesday.

Further details are promised at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nsa early this week. EllenCT (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

ABC article has been added with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Superfluous "citation needed" tags. In half the cases so far, the citation is one sentence after the tag.

PRISM is a clandestine mass electronic surveillance data mining program.

Note: PRISM does not refer to the software actually used in collection. One piece of software known to be associated with PRISM is the UTT.

The NSA can use these Prism requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the Internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier,[10][11] and to get data that is easier to handle, among other things.[12]

Conflating PRISM with upstream. They are unrealted in the main. Prism from ISPs (Google, Yahoo, etc), Upstream from the providers of actual internet backbone(AT&T, Verizon, etc) there are no documents supporting the assertion that prism controls Upstream. The best explanation of Upstream actually is contained in the 2011 declassified Fisa ruling. Prism and Upstream both rely on FAA 702. Though it appears from the Wall Street Journal, that at least one upstream program, BLARNEY, predates the 9/11 attacks.

PRISM was first publicly revealed when classified documents about the program were leaked to journalists of the The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden[citation needed] – at the time an NSA contractor – during a visit to Hong Kong.[1][2] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.

There are now 10 Slides online, (9 published by Post and Guardian, one as a fragment in an O Globo Infographic. There are now an additional 2 document fragments published, detailing millions in payments to PRISM partners from SSO to cover their costs

--Paulmd199 (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at

Talk:Lavabit#RfC: Should information about Lavabit complying with previous search warrants be included?

At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:

Before the Snowden incident, Lavabit had complied with previous search warrants. For example, on June 10, 2013, a search warrant was executed against Lavabit user Joey006@lavabit.com for alleged possession of child pornography.

Your input on this question would be very much welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

E.g. (i.e. ) and the section just after that one (which is entirely my fault because I've been working on other things.) Related questions:

What is the current status of examples where NSA surveillance thwarted terrorist plots? They've in the past had trouble identifying any.

What is the status of the government purchasing exploits on the black market and leaving them unpatched? I.e. per , , , , ? Is there any way to do that which doesn't effectively fund organized crime?

Also asked at Talk:United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court#Examples of terrorists thwarted? Buying exploits and leaving them unpatched? Repeal?.... EllenCT (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/10/21/france-in-the-nsa-s-crosshair-phone-networks-under-surveillance_3499741_651865.html

Le Monde also disclosed new slides, provided by Glenn Greenwald, coming from the famous "PRISM/US-984XN Overview" - See Page 4, 7 and 8 : Le Monde - Documents

LectriceDuSoir (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Added your material at the The Slides section of the PRISM (surveillance program) page and the Media Disclosures section of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures section. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC). Thanks LectriceDuSoir (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Slides also available on Cryptome.org :

NSA PRISM - See pages 4,7 and 8.

NSA Boundless Informant

NSA Wanadoo Und Alcatel

=> Can someone put it in Wiki Commons (I'm not aware of the process) ?

LectriceDuSoir (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This may be bordering on NPOV and issues of relevance to the specific focus of the article itself, but could we consider adding some information that would better educate readers about their online security, as well discussing methods they could pursue to ensure the privacy of their personal data and activities? For instance, under "See also" we could add internal link to Internet privacy (although this may not be a good example, since the current article has multiple issues) and work in a minor section detailing common methods that consumers use to overcome privacy concerns, such as encrypted VoIP communications and full disk encryption.

If not here specifically, then perhaps another article related to NSA surveillance. 98.86.117.86 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

While this would certainly benefit some readers, it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to offer advice or explain step by step how to accomplish particular tasks. See WP:NOTHOW. Jojalozzo 16:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it should be possible to reference other people's Privacy How Tos or to include one in the External links section. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

.> A New Twist in International Relations: The Corporate Keep-My-Data-Out-Of-The-U.S. Clause > Snowden Says Surveillance Is Worse Than Orwell Envisioned>> NSA to No Longer Keep Phone Records Under Obama Plan>> Obama outlines changes to US spying>> Obama: Spying won't damage ties with Germany>> Trust in Governments Slides to Record Low Amid U.S. Spy Programs>>v US tech giants to reveal spy agency demands>> US sees Russian hand in envoy's bugged call >> US senator: CIA searched Senate computers(Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)).

Headline: "How The NSA Hacks Your iPhone (Presenting DROPOUT JEEP)"

• http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-30/how-nsa-hacks-your-iphone-presenting-dropout-jeep

This article mentions PRISM with a diagram of 'hacking' into iPhones. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Headline: "Apple denies 'backdoor' NSA access"

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/10545720/Apple-denies-backdoor-NSA-access.html

This came in just two hours ago. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Headline: "NSA can spy on offline computers wirelessly, says security expert"

• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-can-spy-on-offline-computers-wirelessly-expert-jacob-applebaum-says/

This was two days ago. Did you see it? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Headline: "BUSINESS: Apple Denies Working With NSA on iPhone Backdoor — Unaware of Alleged NSA Program Targeting its Products"

• http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303453004579292532452727884

You need to be a WSJ subscriber to read. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)