When was the NSA PRISM project first reported?

[Solly Mack]

Was it reported on years ago, using the name PRISM, or just in the last few days?

I'm well aware of the years of government spying. I'm not asking that. You can know about government spying without knowing about the various projects or their code-names - or how those projects work.

I'm asking when it was that the PRISM project came to light.

Everything I've read so far includes these qualifiers - "previously undisclosed program" or "has not been made public until now".

So, if the existence of the PRISM project isn't new information, does anyone have a link showing where the PRISM project was exposed (by name) at an earlier time?

From everything I've read the exposing of the PRISM project is new, it is news, and it is additional information to what was already known. (government spying)

[CJCRANE]

1. The thing about DU is we read about stuff a long time before it hits the MSM.

Sometimes it's inside information, unconfirmed leaks etc.

So while the name "PRISM" wasn't known before, I'm pretty sure the concept was known about, particularly the reporting on the "fusion center" in San Franciso (probably back in 2005).

[Solly Mack]

2. But the name wasn't known nor how it works, correct?

So we can call that additional info.

Yes, DHS has web pages dedicated to fusion centers. (locations, etc..) So that's info out in the public domain. And I'm sure PRISM plays a part in that.

[CJCRANE]

3. I though *the* fusion center

channeled and saved all US calls.

That's what I understood when I read about it back in '05.

Plus it's well known that the data these giant corporaitons hold isn't secure in the sense that they're quite happy to use it and sell it.

[Solly Mack]

4. There are multiple fusion centers if you're referring to the national/state security fusion centers.

Centers that collect "threat" assessment info./intelligence etc..

[CJCRANE]

5. There was a story about a single room in SF where *all* data and calls were routed

and collected.

Maybe it was an unconfirmed leak, it wasn't a conspiracy theory AFAIK.

[Solly Mack]

6. Perhaps we are talking about 2 different, yet similar, things?

AT&T had (has?) a splitter that gathered(gathers?) info for the NSA and it was/is in San Francisco. It would be a stretch to think they aren't all connected.

[CJCRANE]

7. Yes, I think that's it. I probably extrapolated out and made that assumption. nt

[Solly Mack]

8. It's all connected. Well, in my opinion it would all have to be connected

in one way or another.

[suffragette]

9. I don't recall anything specifically about "PRISM"

I think you raise an excellent point that the exposing of this particular project, under this name and with specifics on what it does is new and news.

Also, agree with the points made in this thread about this likely being connected to pieces we have been aware of such as fusion centers, etc.


I noticed a post today wondering if Palantir created PRISM:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022964378

That could be very interesting, if so, since Palantir was caught up in the HBGary mess that Anonymous exposed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x401827
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x401827#403922

Many more threads about that from that time period.

[Solly Mack]

10. Thanks!

I don't think new information should be so blithely dismissed as nothing new simply because someone might use it to attack the President.

If it is something we didn't know before, then it is something we didn't know before, and it doesn't take anything from us to admit it. Additional information is almost always helpful to get a fuller picture of what happened/is happening.

I do agree that it is more than to fair to question the motive and timing of the leak. Keeping in mind that the simple answer could be this is when the information was leaked/received.

[suffragette]

11. Absolutely agree with your point.

And I always admire your consistent and fair approach to issues.

I think back to the librarians and the FBI National Security Letters (NSL).

Knowing that there were letters being sent from the FBI that demanded information was one aspect of the "picture." And, given the secrecy, that could be depicted as specific requests based on evidence of something threatening national security.
Learning that the FBI had sent these letters to libraries (among other organizations) demanding all patrons' records (checkout, internet usage, etc) and including a gag order that barred revealing this was even being done, provided a much fuller picture. And most people here were appalled by this.