PRISM
 

In case you haven't heard...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/invest...7_story_1.html

... the US government is (allegedly) doing massive (allegedly) illegal data mining through some of the biggest internet companies (allegedly) including google, facebook and apple.

Well, when I signed up for Gmail, I just assumed that Uncle Sam would be snooping through the data one way or another, and always treated it accordingly.

It's one of those things I always assumed they were doing, but to see it confirmed is pretty shocking.

Always plan your terror excursions using Cellar private messaging. They haven't asked me for access yet.

I can't say whether the government is doing all that .... but if it is, PRISM has saved all our lives from multiple terrorist attacks. It's the most important anti-terror tool we have, I mean if it exists, it would be the
most important anti-terror tool we have.


And how could something initiated by the Bush administration be bad?

Unless they have another secret program that does.

I plan all my terror activities by snail mail and in person.

They couldn't read the Cellar PMs without me knowing. That's why they should just intercept data at key exchange points. I don't know why they would even have to talk to Yahoo to get information on their servers, when they could just read your Yahoo Mail at the router.

The Washington Post had an exclusive article yesterday (6/6/13)
of a PowerPoint presentation of theNSA's PRISM program... here

There is a related Post article here

I think you can drop the (allegedly).

"Horror at Their Capabilities" Drove Leak of NSA Spying Program

He's going to get the Bradley Manning treatment.

What do Google and Allied Waste have in common ?
We give them our raw materials for free, they claim absolute ownership, sort it, and sell it for profit.

Bloomberg
Christopher Flavelle
Jun 8, 2013

Does Google Have an Ethical Obligation Not to Spy?

Now that national elections are meaningless maybe the right approach is stockholder pressure. At least its a front that can be fought.

It actually seems that PRISM is not illegal and has been approved by pretty much all three branches of government. This data mining is a definitely a true slippery slope and it can be strongly argued to violate the 4th amendment, but this seems to be a bi-partisan move that is well known among all elected officials.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...calls?page=0,0


Note: That article is an obvious defense of PRISM and there will likely be a lot of political spin on this in the next few weeks but I think it is important to try to look at PRISM for what it really is (in a factual sense).

You put your whole fucking life online and are worried about someone finding out what you've been up to? :confused::confused:

The hypothetical example in PH45's link is far too tenuous to carry much weight at all.
It basically tries to argue that the phone companies can not manage the author's imaginary problem,
therefore only the government is capable, and therefore must do it.

"must" ? Why "must" ?

Even the author's final paragraph pre-supposes the "must"
My hypothetical would be to change only the timing in his example.
Instead of urgency, the terrorists use the postal services of each country.
So now, would that justify a government database of the addresses
and return addresses on every piece of mail handled by the post office ?
Who knows, maybe such already exists. :eek:

Although some aspects of physics posits an infinite number of parallel universes,
we don't build our lives around that possibility.
The Boston Marathon bombing shows that a program that has been
in operation for at least 7 years failed to do what it is supposed to do.

Sometimes, absolute safety is not possible for all the possible hypothetical or imaginary situations.

Regarding PRISM's legality, there are many other sources that suggest the same thing. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with it, it does seem to be legal.

Regarding the argument, it hold just as much weight as your argument as well.

This has no perspective because it doesn't state how many attacks have been prevented because of PRISM. If PRISM has only stopped a single, small attack while not preventing the Boston Marathon bombing then I would agree with you. IF PRISM has stopped 1,000 attacks and the Boston Marathon bombing was someone who slipped through the cracks (this will always occur), then I would disagree with you. Reality is likely going to be somewhere in-between.

I can't tell you what privacy means in the electronic age. I do know that I choose to share on the cellar but I don't name a lot of names and am vague when I feel its warranted. My company forces me to use gmail so I keep that account pretty sterile. I don't fazebook but I have an unused lunkedin account with minimal info and few connections... The English version of privacy has government cameras rolling the Merican has private cameras rolling... Corporations spend a lot on collecting data to sell or to sell us stuff. The same data that sells me a subscription to Mother Earth News could put me on a nutter survivalist watch list. If we look at the drug war folks are killed by their government by accident all the time so what would make the WOT any different? I ask because I don't know. The fascination with secrecy displayed by our government is interesting, individuals have no expectation of privacy but the government that serves us has become extremely opaque.

@PH45: Yes, we are in agreement
... my example was intended to be trivial and carries no weight.

The problems are that with secrecy and "not on my watch",
we (the public) will only know what we are told and/or what
is leaked by insiders-with-their-own-motives and whistle blowers.

Yup. In an ideal sense, the issue with security versus privacy is sort of like quantum physics. The public cannot know of the security practices without compromising those security practices. On the other hand, if the public does not know of the security practices, there is no accountability and much risk of these security practices being misused. In my opinion, there is no is no perfect way of dealing with the security versus privacy problem but informed representatives (congress) and occasional whistleblowers may be a decent equilibrium…

I am pretty agnostic on the current practices but I do think this is a true slippery slope. Here is a good perspective on this slippery slope (I’m emphasizing certain parts):
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ernment.2.html

It's a cool report, but I have to admit I'm not impressed with the stringency of this particular criteria. It's the only one that doesn't actually require the company to do anything, and gives them a built-in excuse if they do break it--how many places/situations is this sort of thing prohibited by law? Who knows? It's like, I promise I will totally murder that guy for you, except where prohibited by law.

Americans typically think that of part of their right to privacy is the government not being able to obtain their private communications without justification. That's not the way the government has seen it at least since I qualified as a bona fide US intelligence operative* in military service a quarter century ago. The government makes a distinction between information (raw data) and intelligence (data processed into a useful form). Government does not consider the gathering and accumulation of information to be a violation of the right to privacy because the data accumulation is not yet in the useful form of an intelligence collection that can be used to the detriment of citizens. An intelligence collection without proper authorization has been what constituted violation of privacy rights.

It's the citizens' responsibility to either exchange their private information in a way that can't be accessed by the government; or, via a third party willing render it unsalvageable. It is the government's responsibility to secure its caches of information from misuse. The first level of protection was classifying the information. That way most people wouldn't even know there's something to look for let alone try to exploit. That first level of security is gone.

I don't object to the premise of caching bulk information that can be sifted through later, under a well defined warrant, and processed into intelligence in the pursuit of national security. I don't object to continuing the practice since I know there are remaining levels of security progressively more difficult to breach. I do object to any unauthorized individual deciding for everyone else that subverting a security measure implemented to protect them is what's best for them. The Bradley Manning treatment would be appropriate.

*A condition of which is that federal law restricts my information gathering activities on US citizens for the rest of my life, not just for while I was in federal service.

Being an informed adult a quarter-century ago means that the
"Pentagon Papers" would be well known to you, and since then
you would have recognized the impact the events had on governmental policy.

In my opinion, the publication brought about the end of the war in Viet Nam,
demonstrating that an altruistic insider, such as Daniel Ellesberg,
can make better decisions than those technically assigned to
carry out governmental intentions.

Ellsberg was wrong legally, but it made little difference,
and that's the problem with trying to distinguish differences
between "data gathering" and "intelligence accumulation".

I not sure about you Lamp. You put "data gathering" and "intelligence accumulation" in quotes. I talked about information (raw data) gathering and accumulation, the processing of information into an intelligence collection, and how government views the relation of information gathering to privacy differently from the relation of an intelligence collection to privacy. Where you got "intelligence accumulation" from I don't know.

Think of it this way: A guy regularly "gathers" loose "change" from his pockets and puts it in a jar where it becomes an "accumulation." He does this in anticipation of someday starting a "coin" "collection." Right now, he doesn't know if the "change" will be useful or not. When the time comes, he decides to collect just quarters. He takes only the quarters from the jar and organizes them by date and mintmark into a "coin collection". So far this scenario has been analogous to the difference between an information accumulation and an intelligence collection. The term you put in quotes, "intelligence accumulation", would in this analogy equate to something like an accumulation of coin collections! That's something a coin dealer might have; but, nobody would refer to it as that. They'd just call it inventory and it wouldn't really be a part of the story. I hope this helped.

The contention that "an altruistic insider, such as Daniel Ell[e]sberg, can make better decisions than those technically assigned to carry out governmental intentions" is widely seen as bass ackwards. The career government workers in that field, the ones who stay regardless of which politicians are in power, are generally the good stewards of government. They know that for every altruistic Daniel Ellsberg, there are a thousand subversives, mercenaries, and attention whores who will give up classified information while claiming to be altruistic and collectively do more harm than all the genuine Ellsbergs can ever offset. They don't do what he did because they don't want to be part of making it more acceptable. There are better ways to deal with situations than betraying a trust.

If you had said that an altruistic insider, such as Daniel Ellsberg, can make better decisions than those elected to form governmental intentions ... I would have agreed with you; but, still not with his methods.

In any case, you seem to have created a fusion of two different topics when you said: "Ellsberg was wrong legally, but it made little difference, and that's the problem with trying to distinguish differences between "data gathering" and "intelligence accumulation"." The Ellsberg controversy was over his divulgence of government classified information and the government's classifying of information, not about the government gathering information, processing it into intelligence; or, the relation of these activities to privacy rights.

But how nice you're of the opinion the Pentagon Papers brought about the end of the war in Viet Nam. If we had won the war, that opinion might have been worth something.

TechCrunch: Tech Giants Built Segregated Systems For NSA Instead Of Firehoses To Protect Innocent Users From PRISM

Who's got your back? Google and Facebook

@Sexabon: Such an attempt distinguish between "gathering" and "accumulation"
is akin to something Humpty Dumpty might have said to Alice.
Your lead paragraph essentially uses the words interchangeably
If you wish to duel about dictionary definitions, we can do that... I prefer not.

Your analogy of a "coin collection" is essentially misleading for PRISM,
because each individual coin is not "linked" to any other individual coin.
The properties of any one coin does not lead to the discovery of any other specific coin in the collection.

If we are to carry on a discussion of what we think we know of PRISM,
let us focus on "data" and "intelligence", because I think they come closer to your attempt
to distinguish between the constitutional and unconstitutional activity of our government.

But first my assumption: The government is obtaining raw data from
service providers and storing it in some logical format.
We (you and I) don't yet know if this format is file cabinets of paper,
databases of virtual data, or a Sheldon Cooper who simply remembers everything.

But I strongly doubt it is anything other than a database, and
I also doubt such database is just a non-sequential data dump
of phone numbers, dates and durations.
Instead, I suspect it is more likely to be a relational database,
organized by caller-ID, recipient-ID, which are in turn linked via date/time
with their durations and maybe even other kinds of data.

If my suspicions are correct, this meets your definition of "intelligence",
because it is the processing of raw data into a useful form.
Even if you are squeamish about this level of "processing",
just combining raw data from multiple providers across phone ID's
would constitute your definition of an unconstitutional collection.

And yes, this may be "legal" via the FISA court, but now we are back
to talking about altruistic leaks of classified information and whistle blowers.

I suspect that this is exactly the kind of thing Sen Ron Wyden
was referring to in the YouTube video posted above.
.. not just PRISM, as we are hearing about it now,
but it's correlation with other virtual data of businesses, etc.

NY Times
Ummmm.... lets see now.

That would be 2.5 x 10^21 bytes (letters or characters)
That would be 2,500,000,000,000,000,000,000

Lamp, I can better see where your coming from; but, you still have some gross misconceptions. I never tried to distinguish between "gathering" and "accumulation." I used "gathering" as a verb and "accumulation" as a noun both in regard to information (raw data). The distinction I made, in both actual and analogous form, was between "accumulation" and "collection" as nouns in which accumulation applies to information [loose change] and collection applies to intelligence [coin collection]. I can't break in down much further that; but, I can notice the ease with which you've previously misquoted me and misrepresent what I've said. That's why I don't interact with you much.

Don't worry that "Your analogy of a "coin collection" is essentially misleading for PRISM,". It wasn't leading to PRISM, that's what the plain language was for. It was merely to help explain the relationship between the terms I was using. Not everyone can see that correlation; but, that doesn't mean they're bad people and I won't think any less of you.

Non sequitur here Lamp: "... because each individual coin is not "linked" to any other individual coin. The properties of any one coin does not lead to the discovery of any other specific coin in the collection." I already know what coins are in the "collection." What I don't know specifically is what other coins are among the "accumulation" in the change jar. If my "collection" is arranged in chronological order and I'm missing a date, I go to the "accumulation" in the change jar to look for that date (i.e. not to the other coins in the "collection"). If there's only one - BINGO. If there's more than one, then I have other discriminating criteria with which to choose the best one.

Ref: "let us focus on "data" and "intelligence", because I think they come closer to your attempt to distinguish between the constitutional and unconstitutional activity of our government." How nice of you to regurgitate what I've previously said and present it as your own idea. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. When I visit people in the old folks home they flatter me like that all the time.

"If my suspicions are correct, this meets your definition of "intelligence", because it is the processing of raw data into a useful form. ... Even if you are squeamish about this level of "processing", just combining raw data from multiple providers across phone ID's would constitute your definition of an unconstitutional collection." Nopes, processing for easier access and processing into a useful form for a particular application yield individual results which may converge, diverge, or make no difference. I can take all the change out of my change jar an divide it into multiple change jars separated by denomination; but, I still don't have a coin collection. Apples and oranges.

"And yes, this may be "legal" via the FISA court, but now we are back
to talking about altruistic leaks of classified information and whistle blowers."
But at least now you may have gleaned some insight into why it was deemed legal. Perhaps you could start another thread devoted to whistle blowers. I already know you to be a person for whom the end justifies the means from your positions on other topics right down to your methodology in debate; so, I wouldn't be inclined to join in. Good day.

Too many make conclusions before defining what is actually being collected. We have long known that metadata was being collected. After all, phone companies already have those records. The difference is that NSA can hold those same records BUT not view them without a 'secret' court order.

The problem is that NSA does not need those records. Phone companies have them. Violations of court orders can easily occur when those records are freely available without going to another party. Who is holding the data is the problem.

Meanwhile, we have long suspected that all conversations that go international are also stored. That is properly also legal. But again, the conversations cannot be 'listened to' without a court order.

That's why this has all changed. The laws never considered stored conversation. The public also does not understand the difference between actual data and metadata. Some local gossip reporters clearly have no grasp of that important concept. Creating fears that are unjustified. And lack of any serious call to actually define the problem

Just noticed, the chap who did the leak made sure he was in Hong Kong before decloaking.


Hmmm.

Watching that guy's interview made me cringe a little. And then I read this Slate article which kind of firmed up why:

If the NSA Trusted Edward Snowden With Our Data, Why Should We Trust the NSA?

He believes this has so much seriousness that he is now an enemy of the state, on the lam, hiding out... and giving interviews to major media, where is announces where he is. He's in a country with rule of law and an extradition treaty with the US. Not too bright.

The other curious thing I noticed about PRISM is that it was funded for $20 Million. After a certain amount of zeroes, a number isn't fathomable, but this isn't enough zeroes. The last Powerball winner got many times that in cash. $20M isn't enough to house half a floor in a minor building in DC, and when you overpay them ($200K!! That little fucker!) it doesn't even fill a room. That's six cents for every American, so what are we supposed to be royally freaking out about?

It appears that NSA is obtaining phone records from all ISP's,
but I have not seen anything that says they are also getting data
from the land-line companies, such as Century Link.

Obama says the data they are getting is only the same
information that is on your month billing statement.

I think I know why NSA is not getting data from Century Link...
it's because their monthly statements are completely indecipherable.

What are land-lines? :p:

Every few decades we go through this again. The Eagle and the Snowman. A real story that was even summarized in a movie. And how this nation's previous and most advanced spy hardware was compromised.

Apparently not many people are watching PBS Frontline every week (or was it CBS 60 Minutes?). NSA secret buildings are popping up all over the countryside. These revelations should not be shocking. They only confirm what previous reports have been noting.

Again, they even showed a picture of the building, with floors that the elevator does not stop at, in San Franciso. None of these recent revelations should be that shocking.

Metadata means they get data from circuit switched technology companies. And packet addresses from packet switched technology companies. Not the tones in that circuit switched connection. And not data in those packets.

What changed things? It is now possible to store, search, and retrieve those tones or data bits. The law is playing catchup.

There are questions now being asked over here about the way in which our security agencies have used information gained from America's PRISM programme. There are suggestions that we've been using information on UK nationals.

The government is denying any illegality but refusing to give any detail on the 197 requests for information made through the PRISM prgramme.

Awesome quote from Daily Show last night: 'I think you're misunderstanding the perceived problem here, Mr President. No one is saying that you broke any laws. We're just saying it's a little bit weird that you didn't have to'

Shades of Sexabon...

The Hill
Jonathan Easley
1/11/13

Sen. Wyden presses Clapper for ‘straight answers’ on NSA

Was that testimony given to a closed session of either the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI)? Or was it a public hearing?

I would hope that the NSA wouldn't give out top secret information during public hearings. That would be fairly stupid.

edit: I see that the article explains this. Wyden knew the answer already because he's on the Senate intelligence committee. He just wanted to put Clapper on the record disavowing a program they both knew existed.

I'm no fan of the NSA data collection, but that's a pretty slimy move.

Slimmy ? I don't think so.

This question was being asked publically for the first time
...atfter PRISM had become public knowledge.

Wyden had previously pursued this in closed sessions, (2012)
and was not being given a straight answer by Clapper.
That is one of the reasons Wyden voted against renewing the Patriot Act.

At least that's the way I've understood these events.

All these problems (fears) are directly traceable to what we discussed when the Patriot Act was being enacted and discussed here. Many problems are created by something (if I remember) called article 215. With all the big dic thinking being touted then, well, find the discussion. Honesty and perspective had gone out the door. Then we so gleefully massacred 5000 Americans for no useful purpose in Mission Accomplished.

Never forget the lessons of history. Our younger participant will see it again sometimes after 2040.

And I make 'em look GOOD. :cool:

I just subscribed to PRISM ONLINE for $49.95 and now have access to everyone's metadata for a year. I'm tickled pink 'cause I never metadata I didn't like.

Say again?

Where did you find this PRISM ONLINE for $49.95?

I found fascinating this article about the way Snowden leaked
the information about PRISM to the Guardian and Washington Post:
(I've deliberately left out some of the details in the article.)

NY Times
NOAM COHEN
June 14, 2013

Player in Leaks Case, Out From Behind Camera
<snip>
Last week, Ms. Poitras, 49, emerged as the pivotal connection between the former
government contractor Edward J. Snowden and writers for The Guardian and The Washington Post
who published his leaked documents about government surveillance.
She also got a byline on two of the papers’ resulting articles.
But she has a much longer history as a filmmaker trying to show on screen
how the world has changed since the Sept. 11 attacks.
<snip>
Mr. Snowden first contacted her in January, she said, telling her that he had read
about her regular border scrutiny and saw it as “an indicator that I was a person who was ‘selected,’*”
that is, someone who would be familiar with what it is to be watched by the government.
“He knew it was a subject that would resonate with me.”
(He had also seen a short film about domestic surveillance,
“The Program,” she made for The New York Times.)

Ms. Poitras, who won a MacArthur “genius” grant last year and
was nominated for an Oscar for “My Country,” was already
living and working outside the country.
After six years of being questioned at the border
— “upwards of 40 times, probably more, I lost count” —
and having her laptop seized, her notes copied, she relocated to Europe.

But in addition to her tense relations with her government, there was another,
more practical reason Mr. Snowden connected with her, she said.
Because of her experience reporting on national security matters, Ms. Poitras said,
she had the technical ability to hold an encrypted online conversation
with Mr. Snowden from the start, which he insisted on.

“The number of journalists who know how to use it is very small,” she said.
“You wouldn’t have been able to communicate with Snowden without encryption.”
<snip>

Woz is not feeling the love for post Patriot Act Merica.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...ca/?tag=reddit

Turns out the British are doing the same metadata collection, on all internet traffic that passes through Britain.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/21-7

Disclaimer: I haven't been following this scandal at all.

Can someone give me a quick breakdown on how what they're doing is different from, say, in a crime drama when they tell the suspect, "we checked your phone records, and you called the victim three times in the hour before they died." Is the only difference that they needed a warrant for that information in NYPD Blue, and now they don't?

That is the difference and it is kind of a big deal. The Constitution would never have been ratified without it. The seeds of unrestrained power are throughout the Constitution if we do away with the Bill of Rights the people have no protection from the government.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


A people, entering into society, surrender such a part of their natural rights, as shall be necessary for the existence of that society. They are so precious in themselves, that they would never be parted with, did not the preservation of the remainder require it. They are entrusted in the hands of those, who are very willing to receive them, who are naturally fond of exercising of them, and whose passions are always striving to make a bad use of them.

They are conveyed by a written compact, expressing those which are given up, and the mode in which those reserved shall be secured. - John DeWitt (1787)

Like many things in life, quick answers are simplistic and time-dependent.

1) In the aftermath of 9/11, the Congress passed the "Patri0t Act"
that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by)
Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept
(and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.[1]

This gave the government the legal power to secretly screen communications
between people in other countries and people in the U.S.

2) The government used this power to gather information essentially
without getting a warrant (... as required in Griff's post above)
More recently, the National Security Act has been extended,
with some changes that requires warrants issued via the secret FISA Court.

3) The current PRISM issue has to do with collecting "non-indentified" data,
such as each phone call's caller-ID, recepient-ID, Date, etc.
It also exposes the fact that every call is being collected indiscriminately,
not just those between U.S. and foreign callers.

4) In order to actually use the PRISM data, the government (is supposed to)
gets the FISA Court to issue a secret warrant for the only the particular ID numbers,
which then allows them identify the people's names and to
chase down all sorts of other kinds of information.

--- I think most people (today) understand that the PRISM data is collected "legally".
But that doesn't mean that they think the government "should" be doing so.
.

But even if the warrant process is corrected, they do still have to collect the data on everyone all the time, right? I mean, it wouldn't do any good to say, "We're pretty sure the suspect called the murder victim just before he died, so let's start collecting data on his phone calls now..." They've always collected the same information (Caller ID, location of the phone call, etc.) on every call made from a landline, right?

It changed with digitalization (?) of communications. Old phone tapping required an agent on the line listening as they didn't have an efficient way to collect and store the analog information. Folks who support easy collection of data argue that it became much harder to follow the bad guys when mobile devices came on line. I'd argue just the opposite, they've gone from a small focused surveillance system to an enormous one with much more capacity using the excuse of difficulty to make their work much much easier than it was for the guy tapping in by hand.

Yes, I agree with Griff.

It is surprising to me that the news has not reported definitively
on whether the digital media (Comcast, etc.) and phone companies
(Century Link, ATT, etc.) are actually storing all the emails, text docs, pics, etc.
and how long it would be kept by such (private) companies.

Or, whether it's all being passed on to the feds daily,
and they are keeping it (forever) ... without reading or interpreting the content.
The daily content would be enormous !

I've read that voice and IM messaging are not kept, but emails might be.

Be that as it may, again I think the personal identification and content of emails, etc.
can be collected legally, but cannot be reviewed or interpreted until a FISA warrant has be issued.

I guess I've been assuming that all communications are passing to the Feds in real time. They claim they have the authority to store the data for 5 years.

Ah, this changes my understanding. I thought we were still only talking about phone data. Content of emails and attachments is a whole different ballgame.

Phone calls are digital just like emails. The concept is metadata verses an actual (data) content.

For example, when you file taxes, metadata says you filed forms. Numbers in each row of each form (that is owned by a company that submits your data to the IRS) are actual data.

Protection means Verizon, Qwest, etc cannot submit that data to PRISM without a court order. Currently, long distance transmission lines can be tapped and recorded at any time by PRISM. In theory, they cannot listen or read it without a court order. But nobody (Verizon, Qwest, the court) knows whether that data is being reviewed.

"Trust us" was a concept advocated by Cheney, John Yoo, et al. And remains a defacto standard.

This is the first time I've seen info about the FISA court in a public news source...

Washington Post
Peter Wallsten, Carol D. Leonnig and Alice Crites
6/23/13

For secretive surveillance court, rare scrutiny in wake of NSA leaks

I now understand that I named this thread badly.

PRISM is a program to monitor suspects outside the US.

There is also the NSA's storing and collation of metadata on (presumably) all US citizens. I don't know if this has a catchy name, but it isn't PRISM.

And this Snowden fellow has been very strategic, first in decloaking in China, then flying to Russia (yet not, apparently, crossing the border, apparently in transit). So of two countries in the world that can (and like to) look the US in the eye and say no, Snowden has managed to entangle both - thereby both thwarting the US government's attempts to pursue him, and getting the story to the public attention in those countries. I'm sure the people of China and Russia have seen the story and most assumed their own governments were doing likewise.

Snowden
 

Simon Tisdall has a piece on cnn.com that applies the brakes to the usual sycophant train from that organization. His take is that the world is tired of our shit. I'm tired of our shit so why wouldn't they be?

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/25/op...ion/index.html

Time has a poll out so I'll cherry pick one paragraph.

Fifty-four percent of respondents said the leaker, Edward Snowden, 29, did a “good thing” in releasing information about the government programs, which collect phone, email, and Internet search records in an effort, officials say, to prevent terrorist attacks. Just 30 percent disagreed.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/13...#ixzz2XKO5iLnk

This is totally going to be a movie. The leak, the political fallout, the manhunt. The smart steps taken by Snowden, like the insurance policy of top secret data that he's left with friends to release if something happens to him. The sneaking around from country to country. Or maybe not. Putting journalist phones in the hotel fridge to stop NSA eavesdropping during the meeting.

That's a fun article to read... it get's the juices flowing.

If only Simon would tell us what he really thinks. :rolleyes:

We used to live in Buffalo, NY and listened to the CBC out of Toronto.
It was often eye-opening to hear what the non-US media were saying.