PRISM started under Bush EXPANDED TO ALL AMERICANS under Obama!!!

[healthmyths]

2007 BUSH BIG BAD BUSH!!!!
September 11: The NSA's PRISM program begins getting data from Microsoft, according to official documents recently published by the Guardian.
August: In a secret decision, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review rules that telecoms must cooperate with federal requests to monitor the international communications of Americans suspected of being terrorists.

December 30, 2012: Obama signs a five-year extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Amendments to provide more oversight of untargetted mass wiretapping are defeated in the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says the surveillance of foreigners' communications in the United States "produced and continues to produce significant information that is vital to defend the nation against international terrorism and other threats."
The Domestic Surveillance Boom, From Bush to Obama | Mother Jones

The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.
NSA PRISM program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others | World news | The Guardian

BIG BIG DISTINCTION!!! NOT ALL AMERICANS REMEMBER Patriot Act requires FISA !

Today under OBAMAEARS/EYES!!
December 30: Obama signs a five-year extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Amendments to provide more oversight of untargetted mass wiretapping are defeated in the Senate. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says the surveillance of foreigners' communications in the United States "produced and continues to produce significant information that is vital to defend the nation against international terrorism and other threats."


Now remember Obama's CAMPAIGN WORDS???
Q: Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional?

A: I reject the view that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points:
The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.
Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional.
The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.
The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007
Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power

 

[waltky]

Granny says dey better not be lookin' thru dat prism when she takin' a shower...

Prism: Just how much do the spooks know?
7 June 2013 > News that the US government's national security agency has been allegedly tapping into the phone records of Verizon customers quickly escalated into reports that it also had backdoor access to the major technology companies, including Apple, Google and Facebook.

The so-called Prism programme tapped into the servers of nine internet firms, according to leaked documents obtained by the Washington Post. The leaked documents, supposedly supplied by a discontented spy, claim that the project gives the NSA access to email, chat logs, any stored data, voice traffic, file transfers and social networking data. While it was primarily aimed at counter-terrorism, the scale of it meant huge swathes of citizen data were also sucked up, according to the Washington Post. The newspaper claimed that the NSA can even conduct live surveillance of someone doing a Google search. The companies were very quick to deny that they offered "direct access" to their servers, leading many commentators to ask whether that actually meant that they offered indirect access or whether the NSA was perhaps filtering traffic independently.

For digital forensics expert Prof Peter Sommer, the seeming clash between what the leaked documents suggest and the denials of the firms indicate the access was limited in scale. "It may be more of a catflap than a backdoor," he said. "The spooks may be allowed to use these firms' servers but only in respect of a named target. Or they may get a court order and the firm will provide them with material on a hard-drive or similar." The idea that the authorities acted independently is unlikely, he thinks. "They can't just put a magic box over the internet wire," he said. "Gmail and Facebook traffic is encrypted to thwart the cyber-crooks and in order to get hold of material they would need the co-operation of the firms." Even if the intelligence service had access to a piece of software that could automatically filter traffic and identify the bad guys, it would throw up hundreds of false positives. "We don't even understand how a domestic terrorist born in this country to a middle-class family becomes a radical. How can we expect a piece of software to know that?" he said.

Traffic cameras

For security expert Prof Alan Woodward, the idea that the authorities can routinely snoop on internet traffic is nothing new. "The security services have a mandate to intercept foreign communications and signals to look for intelligence and analysis about threats to the security of the country. They have been doing it for years." he said. "Lots of internet traffic is routed through Europe and the US so it is not altogether surprising that they are taking the opportunity to look at this traffic."

What is important to note, he said, is that the authorities are interested in communications from foreigners rather than the emails of its own citizens - something backed up by a statement from the US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. "There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect [citizen data] but not wittingly," he said in congressional testimony. General analysis of traffic on the networks is not necessarily a privacy scandal, thinks Prof Woodward. "It is no different from the cameras routinely looking at the traffic road network. If you see a problem, for example an accident, you may want to zoom in but you need to get a court order in order to access the registration of a particular vehicle," he said.

Weaken security