Talk:PRISM/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"Edward Snowden Q&A: Dick Cheney traitor charge is 'the highest honor'". The Guardian. June 17, 2013.

It's a primary source but a fascinating read, and it will be heavily covered in the press tomorrow. --

Does anybody know whether Wikimedia or one of its sister projects is affected by PRISM ? I am wondering whether NSA wants to know the e-mail addresses of all Wikimedia users. See also Commons talk:Privacy policy#PRISM. --Bautsch (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-12/News_and_notes --agr (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/ --

talk

) 17:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Tangentially related: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on the NSA leaks Dezastru (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; good info in a short interview and I think directly related; Jimbo seems to me to be saying that SSL encryption will soon be the norm ON Wikipedia and elsewhere and that PRISM type peeping toms won't be able to get off by spying on people's private activities. May122013 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies like the NSA employ lots of mathematicians and they can break codes, and likewise break the encryption. However this is still a good move as it frustrates it and alone can make less experienced intelligence agencies unwilling to spy on connections. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

An editor removed information from this resource due to concerns about recentism:

• "Obama's approval takes a hit over NSA leaks." The Guardian. Wednesday 19 June 2013. Retrieved on 19 June 2013.</ref>

Perhaps it can be seen as "recentish" now, but I think there will be more articles on how this impacts Obama's approval rating/perception as a president, and so we should keep this as a note, and revisit it later when more sources come out WhisperToMe (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, just because there are multiple sources reporting on a subject doesn't mean it's not recentism. Polls go up and down. Ten years from now no one will care that a week or two after the disclosures the polls were down 4%. If this becomes a turning point in Obama's presidency then that's another matter, but that hasn't happened yet. --

talk

) 21:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if more sources come out there is a higher likelihood of a "turning point" being exposed or a conclusion that the PRISM reveal did not have a significant effect on Obama's popularity. Either way, we have a significant aspect. If there are multiple sources but they all say "it's 4%" and have hardly any analysis then it's just recentism. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

More on Obama approval ratings published today. Dezastru (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Full citation: Cillizza, Chris. "The remarkable consistency of President Obama’s job approval numbers."

Washington Post. June 19, 2013. -- It argues that the numbers have not significantly changed despite many scandals. WhisperToMe (talk

) 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not only aware of that, but I'm also aware it's a work in progress. A "lack of a turning point" would also be significant, as in "the response by the public was anemic" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, depending on what was reported in the source. --

talk

) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna Lekas Miller wrote the following article: Miller, Anna Lekas. "If your name is Ahmed or Fatima, you live in fear of NSA surveillance." The Guardian. Wednesday 19 June 2013. Retrieved on 20 June 2013.

I do not know if she is Palestinian. I have this there so editors have a list of resources in case this becomes something bigger. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the person that reverted your edit. I think she is an American living in Palestine. Your edit used her piece to discuss a potential outcome of the of the PRISM program. An article about the potential ramifications of PRISM on a British website by an expat living in Palestine does not seem to fit under "Domestic Response." What does "in case this becomes bigger" refer to? PRISM? Me removing your edit? DouglasCalvert (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean the implications of Arab Americans. Even though the piece was posted on a British website, it's about the potential ramifications of PRISM affecting

Muslim Americans - which would be domestic. If the surveillance programs cause more concern among Arab Americans or Muslim Americans, it would become bigger. WhisperToMe (talk

) 18:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You do understand why I thought "potential ramifications" did not fit into a section on "Domestic Ressponse"? Potential ramifications are forward looking whereas domestic response describes things that have already happened. DouglasCalvert (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case it sounds fair. I'll wait and see what else comes up related to the subject WhisperToMe (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The following language was/is in the lead section:

According to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, PRISM cannot be used to intentionally target any Americans or anyone in the United States. Clapper said a special court, Congress, and the executive branch oversee the program and extensive procedures ensure the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of data accidentally collected about Americans is kept to a minimum.[16] Clapper issued a statement and "fact sheet"[17] to correct what he characterized as "significant misimpressions" in articles by The Washington Post and The Guardian newspapers.[18]

I removed it with the comment: "remove Clapper as not reliable even with attribution due to WP:PRIMARY and prior perjury. Statements from Obama or other officials would be more appropriate."

Somedifferentstuff reverted with the comment: "What are you doing? There is no violation of WP:Primary. Every source here is secondary except for the fact sheet which is attributed."

Clapper's statements and the fact sheet are indeed primary sources. They're accounts by a person directly involved in the issue. Primary sources must not only be attributed but they "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." As indicated by discussions above and the edit history of this article, Clapper's statements were added to the lead not to explain the government's formal position on PRISM but to add "balance" to reliably sources, i.e. news stories by the WaPo and the Guardian. In contrast, Clapper's statements are not at all reliable. Aside from him being a highly interested (i.e. biased) party, he's perjured himself on this very subject. We simply cannot lean on his statements, especially in such a prominent place as the lead, without explaining this. Otherwise we're giving equal weight between his statements and the WaPo and Guardian, which is WAY out of

If the decision is to give some voice to the government in the lead then we would be much better referencing other officials such as... President Obama perhaps? --

You have a clear bias against Clapper. The 3 sources are here: [1][2][3]. Aside from the "fact sheet", they are all published secondary sources. Since everything stated by him is attributed, Wikipedia policy denotes, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." There is no violation here as no interpretation has taken place. As the

neutrality when set against the last sentence of the first paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk

) 01:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Clapper's remarks should not be in the lede. May122013 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In any controversy about the actions of an organization, that organization's response belongs in the intro per NOPV. We need reliable sources to verify that the response is indeed the official response of the organization, but it is not for us to judge the credibility of the response. As long as the response is clearly attributed, our readers can make that judgement.--agr (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's true in all cases, but even if it is I don't see why we can't substitute Clapper's statements with a different official's. The way things are now our article might be read as endorsing Clapper as a legitimate spokesperson when there are serious, verifiable doubts about the veracity of his statements. --

talk

) 18:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Obama would be better than Clapper for the lede, as has been previously suggested; I think that's a good way to go. May122013 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Done (yesterday). --

talk

) 18:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Three sources:

• Halliday, Josh. "MoD serves news outlets with D notice over surveillance leaks." The Guardian. June 17, 2013.
• Greenslade, Roy. "Edward Snowden spoke, so why did the British press turn a deaf ear?." The Guardian. Thursday June 20, 2013.
• Sweney, Mark. "NSA Prism programme a game changer on web privacy, says Sir Martin Sorrell." The Guardian. 19 June 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the reason Ron Paul's opinion should be included? [4] Widefox; talk 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul is the current unofficial leader of the American libertarianism. He has millions of devoted followers. The fact that he doesn't currently hold an elected office is of little moment. His opinions carry more weight than most of the other opiners in the "domestic reaction" section. --

talk

) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

why not? It has a radically opposite point of view, if compared to the bipartisan establishment.

and why is it useful to include the opinions of the author of "The Wire" ?

btw, Ron Paul is seen worldwide as the only alternative (aka opposition) to Bush-Obama political agendas.

I'm from Italy and i can say that from outside the US the political scenario appear like this:

There's the "bipolarism party" in the US, it's composed by 2 political right-wing factions (republican and democrats). These factions have the very same :political program.

So, if opinions should be included here, at least let's put also some opposition* opinion.

• (opposition in the US means: outside the Democratic/Republican party agenda: aka "left-wing")

Ron Paul has been a Republican candidate, but he was different and the opposite of the other republicans and was in total contrast with the official :"Republican party agenda", indeed he's "libertarian".

can you say the same ("leftist") about some FOX tv anchormen guys or some tv series producers/authors?

I dont think so.

As EU citizen i think people here dont g*ve a f**k about the "TV people' opinions" or Obama/McCain/Bush/etc opinions, we already got enough of those POV: :everybody already knows about the political opinions of those people.

I think that "establishment propaganda" is ok to put in a wiki article, but we also need to compensate/balance with some Critical Thinking

example: Two people from two opposite political parties express the very same opinion: It is unuseful!

It's way better to post the opinion of two people expressing very different opinions. 87.2.112.110 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. As long as we consider

WP:WEIGHT, especially the size and position (in the article) of his opinion, in the context of US and world opinions. Widefox; talk

18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to be lacking information about the Netherland's leaks revealing it taking part in Prism, Belgium too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.70.216 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please find sources describing such involvement WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/justice_minister_wont_comment.php 216.96.229.201 (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this! I checked out http://www.dutchnews.nl/aboutus.php and it seems like Dutch News would be an RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

On the DuckDuckGo page I added:

• "In June 2013, as a result of the exposure of
  PRISM and other programs operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) were leaked by Edward Snowden
  , DuckDuckGo's traffic increased significantly. On Monday July 17, 2013, it had three million daily direct searches. In all of May 2013 it had 1.8 million direct searches."
• Source: Chan, Xenia. "The anti-Google: DuckDuckGo search engine gets traffic boost after Snowden leaks." South China Morning Post. Thursday June 20, 2013.

Does this fit under domestic response... or should it be a new section? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be noteworthy for the

talk

) 17:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note the source, South China Morning Post. That is a Hong Kong-based news media source. The U.S. is currently in the process of trying to extradite Snowden from Hong Kong. Remember that Hong Kong is a fully-owned territorial possession of China. I'm not denigrating the legitimacy of South China Morning Post. In fact, since Snowden is in Hong Kong (as far as I know), it is likely to be a very good source! But that depends on what subject matter they are covering. Website traffic trends are notoriously difficult to gauge. Criteria varies widely, even according to presumably credible sources. SEO types can vouch for that. I really like DuckDuckGo as a search engine. If that is correct, that it only had 1.8 milion direct searches during the entire month of May, I will be very sad, as it is such a small number. More significant, per your quote, WhisperToMe:

"On Monday July 17, 2013, it had three million daily direct searches."

That's the wrong month. Today is 22 June 2013. At the very minimum, that warrants additional scrutiny. --FeralOink (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Feral: Oops! "July" was a typo on my end (I meant June). I did a text search on the article and "July" appears nowhere. The article directly states that, according to the website's Twitter account, it had 1.8 million direct searches in all of May, but that it had three million daily direct searches on the day of June 17 2013. Quote from article: "The website said on Monday that it hit a daily average of three million direct searches; it recorded only 1.8 million direct searches for the entire month of May. DuckDuckGo posted the figures on Twitter:" WhisperToMe (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources that could be useful:

• Carrell, Severin. "Bill Clinton on NSA: Americans need to be on guard for abuses of power by US." The Guardian. Friday 21 June 2013. On speech Bill Clinton gave in Scotland
• Cohen, Michael. "Is Obama presiding over a national security state gone rogue?" The Guardian. Friday 21 June 2013.
• Roberts, Dan. "Mysterious privacy board touted by Obama has deep government ties." The Guardian. Friday 21 June 2013. -- Discusses the "Privacy & Civil Liberties Board (PCLOB)"

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

As i said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=561052904&oldid=561052715 i ask for the removal of protection for this page, 'cause its locking was based on clumsy excuses.79.25.98.5 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Make a request, and WP editors will assist you; or better still become an editor yourself. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP's suggestions have been

talk

) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The point, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&action=edit&undoafter=560938400&undo=560939116, is that nobody asked Google about a backdoor, and also PRISM's not about "backdoors". A backdoor is usually something that a developer put inside the code of a program so that it can access that program without alerting the legitimate user. In this case (PRISM) there's nothing like backdoors because the firms (Google/FB/etc) are the maintainer of those systems.

It's stupid to think that they'll put backdoors in their own systems to allow access to somebody else. The only option that make sense could be they (Google/FB/etc) allowing direct (not hidden, aka not backdoor) access to their system, letting the NSA use the very same interfaces that their (Google/FB/etc) sysadmins use every day to do maintenance of the system.

Backdoor is the bad term because it means something hidden, and this (PRISM) is not the case since Google/FB/etc are accused of being well informed and of collaborationism with the NSA.

Like for example the AT&T case with NSA rooms copying traffic some (5 or 6) years ago: Was it a "backdoor" ?!? obviously NO! it was an entire room and AT&T was aware of that.

Ok i can change that sentence and put "although a backdoor is not a necessary requisite to grant the government that kind of access". 87.2.112.110 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please find a source for this

WP:OR / your own opinion. This has been removed by at least two editors several times, rewording it doesn't help. Widefox; talk

18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the public statements by most of the companies involved the NSA has no direct access to user's private information. I believe that Google, Twitter and Facebook (I am less sure about Microsoft, PalTalk, Yahoo or Apple) only respond to properly issued warrants, and these do not give access to users information to anyone. These companies are under gag orders for some of these warrants, meaning they they cannot be made public for them to prove their point, but this still doesn't give the NSA or any other government agency access to all user's information. To claim otherwise, it seems to me, that you need further corroborating evidence. A leaked power-point doesn't cut it. It is obvious there is a dispute about the reach of the NSA into user data -- but the most plausible explanation so far is that the power-point presentation in question is either wrong, or it is not saying what people think it is saying. The problem is that even my analysis here is

WP:OR. But either way, if you want to make claims about the NSA having unrestricted access to these company's user data, the onus is on you to substantiate this beyond a mere power-point slide. 2620:0:1000:2602:BE30:5BFF:FEDB:B96 (talk

) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

<ref>[http://books.google.de/books?id=RgSBGXKXuzsC&pg=PA49&dq=Backdoor&hl=de&ei=nCwfTJvGKM-VONCdsKEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false "Computer Security - Protecting digital Resources", ISBN 978-0763759940, Robert C. Newman, Februar 2009, Pg. 49]: "Backdoor software tools allow an intruder to access a computer using an alternate entry method. Wheras legitimeate users log in through '''front doors''' using a userid and password, '''attackers use backdoors to bypass these normal access controls.''' [...]", books.google.de</ref> (as found on https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/backdoor ) 87.2.112.110 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

87.2.112.110, Wikipedia works by consensus. Please stop re-adding the "Google backdoor" material until consensus has been reached here. If you continue edit-warring you will be blocked. See

The best way to resolve this, 87.2.112.110, is to see if a newspaper source makes this exact argument (you want to avoid accusations of

87.2.112.110 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think i can haz conzenzus now.

Since there're no complains (the last post of Nstrauss edit warrior was at 19:14 and now it's 21 o'clock) and there was no valid motivation to the previous removal of information, i replace those sentences were they were. 87.2.112.110 (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This material clearly violates

talk

) 21:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There IS consensus, since you have find no clear explanation in support to your view. Tell me how those Google sentences fit in the definition of "backdoor".

In those words they clearly state that they "have not put a backdoor" on their own servers.

How can that even make sense?

please explain.

I'm still waiting (since 18:56).

This is clearly a "Sky is blue" case.95.236.41.160 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(conflict)

@Nstrauss

As you also said here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nstrauss&diff=560965023&oldid=560964177

"I'm not even going to dignify you with a reason"

I'm (no more) going to dignify you with more reasons , and i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal.

Consensus doesnt mean that i write something and then you come here deleting it without "dignify me with a reason".

for info-removal the first rule is: REASONS before!

i'll came back here discussing as soon i see a valid reason that will prove that "sky is not blue" or that "self-backdooring is a common practice in IT corporations"

bye

95.236.41.160 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No explanation until you remove the offending language, sorry. --

talk

) 21:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "offending language"? i've only written one time after your post at 21:08 95.236.41.160 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything you've added about Google. --

talk

) 21:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

-_-

seriously, are we playing a quiz show now?95.236.41.160 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is totally out of control! The following is conjecture, like the sort that people engage in, in forums and comments sections:

"google's PR people incompetence (since they work for an IT firm but they don't even know some basic facts, like what backdoor means) or google's deliberately talking BS, hoping to calm people down..."

It shouldn't be the basis for an encyclopedia article. Also, stop saying that Google is a "collaborator" with the NSA! The NSA is a U.S. Federal government agency, and Google is incorporated in the U.S.A., as well as having its servers (some of them), under U.S. government jurisdiction. Until stated otherwise by Rule of Law and due process, Google is law abiding and so is the NSA. It is misleading and inaccurate to write anything to the contrary, not here. We still don't know what happened, this is an ongoing event, and anyone who reads this article should not be inadvertently deceived by content alleging that Google or the NSA have been charged with criminal misconduct. The entire back doors thing is still conjecture, as we STILL don't really know what Prism (PRISM?) is. --FeralOink (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

@FeralOink: (OT: are you saying that google is collaborationist with NSA? Nothing wrong if you say that. You also stated the real thing: "Google is a corporation with almost all its servers [99%?] in the US and the NSA has authority on those servers. So what's strange in saying that? also you post says that!)

Have you (AT LEAST!) read the definition of backdoor? Please try to read it, maybe you'll understand why the google claims about "backdoors" are pure nonsense. 95.232.103.38 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not our judgment to make. --

talk

) 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It is. Please talk for yourself when you write that. If you don't understand the meaning of backdoor it's not other users fault.

The declarations, as i said before, totally contrast with the definition of backdoor.

Ok. I'll wait to see if someone else, that knows (at least) a bit of computing, has an opinion about this fact. 95.232.103.38 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what other editors thought about the title of the article. The program is called PRISM but that is just a redirect to

I, for one, think that for now the title and redirect is just fine. I like to think of 'Prism' (lowercase) as the NSA program of surveillance. And I like to think of 'PRISM' (uppercase) as the tool for culling important communication via data mining. Until it is all sorted out (the Edward Snowden episodes) everyone attaches the terms Prism/PRISM to secret surveillance. Hence, the article title is just fine. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

• Laird v. Tatum, a Supreme Court case involving US military spying on US civilians. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Fusion center is also relevant per [5] [6], etc. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Page is not protected now. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are Wikipedia articles for the surveillance scandals involving the the Maryland State police (2008) [7] or the NYPD (2012) [8]? 86.121.18.17 (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• I found the Maryland stuff in Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, which is unfortunately rather full of DHS/DOJ spam. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

— 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

Edit request on 23 June 2013

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

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

 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 [9]: "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)

[10] 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 [11] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I really think we need to have one central

• 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

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.

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. --

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. --

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. [12] and [13] "The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding what is reasonable is at the center of the national debate over the NSA's data seizure ..." according to the protestors today. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

79.6.38.82, if you can support any of those assertions with reliable sources then we should add them to the article right away. If you can't, then you shouldn't be using them to support the inclusion of the Dotcom quote. I'll give you a few days. --

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

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

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