Originally Posted By: garyW
Regarding Prism: Glenn Grenwald got the media to bite on a story that is 6 years old.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/07/aclu-challenges/

The story isn't 6 years old -- proof of the Executive's use of FISA legislation to cast incredibly broad nets across vast swaths of domestic communications is today's news. Back 6 years ago we were assured this would be used only in instances of international communications to catch bad guys talking to bad guys in other countries. Now it seems it's been used as a license to launch giant fishing expeditions domestically and to gather details of all domestic communications over the last few years in to a convenient, easily-searched and -mined database ...

I don't recall all that happening 6 years ago ...


Quote:
That toilet paper might be the Washington Post, now seriously walking back the sensationalist Grenwald claims.

The Washington Post Has Now Hedged Its S...o Their Servers


It seems "direct access" may be in they eye of the beholder -- giving the NSA an API with which they can gather data from your server with their own interface rather than tapping directly into the server itself may or may not not qualify as "direct" is a strict sense, but the result is the same ...

I understand the rationale behind PRISM and that it's legal under current law. The conversation we need to have is wether those legal actions should be kept secret when they threaten the privacy of a huge portion of the population, and wether the fact that we've legalized such behavior is worth whatever "security" we're getting in return ...

Barry actually addressed this yesterday: "You can't have 100% security, and also then have 100% privacy and 0 inconvenience [...] we're gonna have to make some choices as a society" Which sounds great until you realize the hypocrisy of proposing a conversation about making choices while having tried to keep those same choices a secret from everybody ...