Microsoft,Yahoo,Google,Facebk, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple-Order in which they joined PRISM

[kpete]

Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple. That is the order in which they joined PRISM



The N.S.A.-briefing slides mix corporate cheer and disturbing revelations. There are the logos of the nine companies involved: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple. That is the order in which they joined PRISM. The Post describes Apple as a holdout (it acquiesced, coincidentally or not, after Steve Jobs’s death). Each of these companies should explain what it did and what it thought its options were. The slides refer, too, to another metadata program, code-named BLARNEY, the summary for which was “set down alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat.” PRISM’s logo looks like a teen-ager’s drawing of the “Dark Side of the Moon” album cover. The tackiness is a depressing touch.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/06/america-through-the-nsas-prism.html

[NYC_SKP]

1. Here's a slide from the PowerPoint that seems central to this story.

I hope some good comes from all the excitement arising from this "news", but I'm not optimistic.

[ucrdem]

22. Is it just me or does that black text NOT look like PowerPoint font?

"Dates" etc? Because if you take that out there's not much left to talk about.

[NYC_SKP]

24. All the slides look like some 1997 Freeper attempt at graphic design.

I'm seriously suspicious of the authenticity of these.

They use a common header and footer, but they look like shit, outright.






A few more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/

[ucrdem]

25. You got a point there.

And a PowerPoint is not exactly evidence of a massive data-mining operation anyway.

[ProSense]

2. The companies are denying this

Internet Companies Deny Offering Government Access to Customer Data
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022961600


According to the Guardian, which also had the initial story, five of the companies deny the story, with several saying they have never heard of PRISM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022960169

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. The irony of this post tickles me pink...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022961600#post1

Either they're denying honestly, or as you stated in your response to the post... ...at least we know there was a "court order."

So which is it?

[ProSense]

7. Ah, the

"Either they're denying honestly, or as you stated in your response to the post... ...at least we know there was a "court order."

So which is it?"

..."court order" is why they're denying it.

After all, why else would they?

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. So there was no real point to your post then, other than obfuscation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2961752

[ProSense]

10. Are you denying that the companies are denying it?

What's your point?

[cherokeeprogressive]

14. You knew

WHY they were denying when you posted that they were denying it.

You need to tell whoever is supplying you with your talking points they need to do better.

[ProSense]

15. Yeah,

"You knew WHY they were denying when you posted that they were denying it.

You need to tell whoever is supplying you with your talking points they need to do better."

...obviously I'm inside their heads just like you're inside mine.

You know, you can disagree with my opinion without resorting to idiotic claims about "talking points."

I suppose that's impossible when your entire argument is bullshit based on such claims.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. LOL. Okay.

[NYC_SKP]

17. The reply above yours reminds me... Did you get Friday's talking points yet?

Mine usually come by unmanned drone at 7:22 pm, marked "Secret Special Talking Points- Shhh!", but not tonight.

Also, my DLC provided Escalade won't sync with my OFA provided iPhone5.

Are you having that problem?

[lordsummerisle]

3. I just saw on CNN

that Apple has said that they have never even heard of PRISM.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. More confirmation that Apple's best! They joined last! Buy Apple! n/t

[limpyhobbler]

6. So will Obama arrest the person who leaked this to the press and charge them with espionage?

Or conspiracy to aid associated forces.

This aids Al Qadea or associated forces since now they know which web services to avoid. Somebody was definitely communicating with the enemy here.

[morningfog]

12. You know it's coming. It would be funny if not so serious.

[sweetloukillbot]

9. Party of the program is called "BLARNEY"?

With a Shamrock and Leprechaun hat for its logo? This seems more farfetched as I read more about it... This feels to me like a hoax to discredit the people reporting on it.

[Robb]

11. That would be something, wouldn't it.

[marions ghost]

13. I find myself wondering...

A lot of people work for those companies and nobody questions this kind of data mining by the government? Nobody?

[ucrdem]

18. Apparently the Guardian's "top-secret document" is a 41-slide PowerPoint

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

Which makes you wonder if Andy Borowitz has gone to work for the Guardian.

[marions ghost]

19. Let's see it

before we mock it.

[ucrdem]

20. Here's one slide, more at the link:

Not exactly incriminating but a lovely PPT isn't it?

[marions ghost]

21. It's enough

to open the can of worms.

[ucrdem]

23. It looks like a proposal, and it's definitely not a subpoena. nt

[marions ghost]

26. What is ethical and just in this--not only legal?

We do not have enough legal protections for this kind of surveillance currently. The technology has outstripped our system of laws, and checks & balances. We need new legal protections. Urgently.

------------

Here is a good essay from the Washington University School of Law in 2012. This one talks about the "chill" on discussion of political and social issues--ie. the way that societies censor themselves when there is too much surveillance.

I read this whole essay in a short time--it is so well written and clear. I urge everyone to click on the link to the PDF and read this now, and send it to others. It will give you an overview of the issues in a very readable format:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf

"The Dangers of Surveillance" by Neil Richards

Excerpt:

"Existing attempts to define the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they have generally failed to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this essay, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.

At the level of theory, I will explain when surveillance is particularly dangerous, and when it is not. Surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties, and because it gives the watcher power over the watched. In terms of civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about their political and social beliefs. Such intellectual surveillance is particularly dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state oversight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.”