Talk:PRISM

Comments

It's revealed, revealed!!!! What is this, the gutter press or Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Denials are pouring in. http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/google-facebook-apple-deny-participation-in-nsa-prism-program/

I think the companies are most likely lying, but to be NPOV it should be noted.

Denials are fine. If you read the article on Room 641A it is referred to in AT&T internal documents as a "Study Group Secure Room." I'm fairly certain that no company is going to come out and blatantly say that they are working on intercepting communications with the NSA. That might be bad for business and consumer trust. We should note which companies have denied working with the NSA and possibly incorporate some of the graphics that have been distributed with articles showing when those companies signed on with the NSA. Aneah|talk _to ^me 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but frankly Wikipedia isn't about what you think or what you're fairly certain about. The facts are, there is evidence of phone data collection by the NSA that phone companies have not denied. This most recent revelation, however, has been denied by every company accused, including Dropbox, which was said to not even be in the program yet. This article takes far too much for granted, namely the Washington Post piece. It needs to be cleaned up (heavy use of "allegedly", etc) to fairly and accurately explain this developing situation.brendan (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since PRISM is a code name, companies could have court orders to 'share' and not know this code name. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That is very likely. When you are under court order, and you are a business, your options are COMPLY or RISK the business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to discover the words in the acronym [probably not Priority Regional Internet Searchable Metadata] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Stellar Wind?

This Prism project seems very much related to the NSA's "Stellar Wind" project. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stellar Wind ~= TSP~= PRISM ~= NextGenSurveillance?

The most logical answer is : the NSA renames the program every time it loses authority. As a machine learning engineer, I never throw away models that work well. If you have hundreds of engineers, the time to redevelop a BIG DATA codebase from scratch would be years even with the best people. We are talking BIG DATA: everyone else is mini-data by comparison.

They have stock models just like car dealers have spare parts. Lots of them. They have models that select models. Just because the NSA lost authority doesn't mean they through away a LSA/VSM/SVM trained on 500M+ twitter feeds of angry teens.

It also seems to incorporate elements very similar to the FBI's old Carnivore/DCS 1000 project, although I had always assumed that the NSA had their own version of it. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

There's something very fishy about this whole PRISM business. We've got the corporate denials, and the incredibly bad PowerPoint formatting, and the bizarre uncharacteristic department seal.

Given these inconsistencies, I don't think it's reasonable for the Wikipedia article to speak so authoritatively to the existence of this program. At the very least, we should wait until some more details come out, or until the Director of National Intelligence officially comments on this program (as opposed to the Verizon court order). Until then, I believe that it should be described as an alleged program, or something to that effect. SashaMarievskaya (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. It would take about ten minutes to forge a PowerPoint like that. I'm not saying the program isn't real, but there's just not any reliable proof that it is real. Talmage (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

the quality of the PPT is exactly waht make it look authentic ... and of course - any PPT can be forged in minutes (even a good one) - anyway thanks for creating the page. I think even if it turns out to be a fake it might be interesting to cover the topic in WP IMHO. --christophe (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so um, I thought April was the 4th month of the year? So where is the 4 in that date? --RAN1 (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The first slide is dated "April 2013". That's where the April comes from. SashaMarievskaya (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree - I've just woken up and heard the BBC reporting the news very cautiously with lots of "claimed" and "reported" in reference to the story. WP should be as careful I think. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it does look fake

This Washington Post article shows a presentation of the Prism system that mentions at one point, "Complete list and details on PRISM web page: Go PRISMFAA" And indeed there is an FAA Prism page, but look at how Prism is described on it. I don't know.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Govt agencies don't communicate to find out if they are using the same acronyms. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

FAA in the Washington Post refers to the FISA Amendments Act. Presumably, that's the FAA referred to in the slides. --RAN1 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good call -- I found an EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) page that uses "FAA" for "FISA Amendments Act." And this EFF description of it does gel a lot more with how Prism is suppose to operate. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "PRISMFAA" might be referring to an Intranet page, not one normally publicly accessible on the Internet. Such pages don't need TLDs like .com --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Other relevant articles

Because PRISM as the name for a surveillance system sounded so familiar from a few years back, did an news.google.archive search and found a few things of interest:

• 2008 use: "With the Wedgetail, Echidna, Prism and the ALR-2002 Electronic Warfare programs all approaching service, BAE Systems is now preparing the support environment which will sustain them. "
• 2006 use - Xray system sees through walls]
• 2006 use about Congress grilling NSA on surveillance in similar way, but prism just adjective in text. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is also this copy of a Washington Post article, from May 14th, 2006, that has a deja vu feeling to it.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And there's this 2006 USA Today article as well. It seems everything old is new again.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Name

The name PRISM seems to come from the fact that this is a signal splitter that makes a copy of the signals at the main trunks of phone and cable companies. There is a report of a guy from the Huffington Post that explains this. It is believe there is a well replicated internet in the NSA servers. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 04:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I seem to agree—it could possibly not be an acronym. I've found nothing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you imagine PRogram of Internet Surveillance and Monitoring ? --Bautsch (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Play with this: פריזמה

bull/will fry fruit time

reading back

Zep Wazir ~> zip/spy & rule. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have (twice) removed the following content

The denials by the participating companies are not surprising and may, in fact, be a requirement under the National Security Letters, which the NSA and FBI use to give quasi-legal cover to their signals collection. Google issued a similar denial when the Terrorist Surveillance Program was made public.

as it is sourced to a CNET article from 2008 and so obviously not directly linked to the PRISM story - the link is being made by the WP editor. Of course, the point may be true and sensible, but we need a reliable source making it before it can be included here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not WP:OR, but you could claim it is WP:SYNThesisi. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Whistleblowers

I have added info from 3 well known NSA whistleblowers :

In an interview on ABC News in January 2006 NSA Whistleblower Russ Tice has stated "...the number of Americans subject to eavesdropping by the NSA could be in the millions if the full range of secret NSA programs is used. That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum,"[12] http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1491889

In an interview on RT in December 2012 NSA Whistleblower William Binney had stated "...the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least."[13]http://rt.com/usa/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/ On June 6, 2013 he estimated that the NSA also collects records on 3 billion calls per day[14] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/nsa-whistleblowers-say-agency-casts-wide-net-verizon-order-is-part-of-routine/2013/06/06/6bc26bf2-cee3-11e2-8573-3baeea6a2647_story.html

In an interview to Democracy Now! on June 6, 2013, NSA Whitleblower Thomas Drake has stated "...This is routine. These are routine orders. This is nothing new. What’s new is we’re actually seeing an actual order. And people are somehow surprised by it. The fact remains that this program has been in place for quite some time. It was actually started shortly after 9/11. The PATRIOT Act was the enabling mechanism that allowed the United States government in secret to acquire subscriber records of—from any company that exists in the United States."[15] http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/6/nsa_whistleblowers_all_us_citizens_targeted

My addition was reverted by Alexbrn I was asked to find a source that linked the 3 whistleblowers to the PRISM subject

Therefore I added -

"Former employees of the National Security Agency have added further information[11]:" http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/210480671.html

The article in the Startribune published June 6, 2013 does the required Synthesis. it interviews all the 3 whistleblowers that talk about the same stuff, just less elaborately then the other sources that interviewed them individually109.64.191.12 (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the Star Tribune links these statements to the Verizon data story, and makes no mention of PRISM -- that "aha!" deduction is original work. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I added these 2 references linking them directly to PRISM story :

Russ Tice http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/obama-administration-nsa-verizon-records William Binney and Thomas Drake http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/former_employees_reports_suggest_VAXjsXaFNVYGqOvmExDS2H?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20National79.179.176.30 (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Those additions still do not fix the problem. The Democracy Now interview was about the Verizon phone records logs surveillance, not about the internet data surveillance. The interviews from ABC News with Russ Tice and RT with William Binney long predated the June 2013 revelation about the internet data surveillance program. The Drake quote from the NY Post article is about the Verizon phone records logs court order, not about PRSIM. All of this material should come out of the article until RS clearly make the direct tie between past assertions concerning internet data surveillance and what has now been revealed about the PRSIM program. Same with the quotations currently in the article from various lawmakers. Their comments were made in the hours prior to the PRISM program leaks being reported, so they were about the Verizon court order, not PRISM. This info went into the WP article too soon. There'll be plenty of directly relevant quotes from the senators soon enough. Dezastru (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for DYK

I nominated this article to be featured in Wikipedia's "Did you Know?" project. See the nomination here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems illogical that a current event of international importance would be considered for trivia. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No back doors

Everyone is losing their minds over this thing, but as far as I can tell, data is only provided with a "legally binding order or subpoena". This isn't the NSA reading through every inbox in the world. Or am I wrong? --IP98 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be right, and the "system" may turn out to be "we send emails to get stuff". However, the Guardian - as is its recent wont - amped this up a lot. Time will tell. For now, it would be best if Wikipedia's guidelines/policies were attended to carefully, in particular so that opinion is not relayed here appearing to be fact ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(add) A response from Google's Larry Page - which seems very precise on this point. In the UK the journalist that covered this story for the Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, is an opinionated/controversial figure - I worry his opinion has turned into Wiki-fact. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

IP98 - You are technically correct, but practically wrong. However, it is trivial for the agency to ask for a "legally binding order or subpoena" that covers all communications or users. For example, the Verizon order covered all customers. The FISC has a horrible record of challenging the need of the NSA/FBI on necessity. So for practical purposes, the statute allows collection of any and everything the agencies want.Jsheehy 16:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn - Just because some folks dislike Glenn Greenwald, does not mean his journalism or facts are opinion. Clearly the editorial staff at the Guardian carefully fact check and vetted Greenwald's article prior to publishing.Jsheehy 16:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So maybe referring to GG's "opinion" wasn't quite the right turn of phrase; perhaps "agenda-driven speculation" would've been better. For a sensational story like this, WP's policy on verifiability needs to be very carefully attended to. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Classification

The slide deck is marked "TOP SECRET//SI//ORCON//NOFORN". I believe this translates to Top Secret with Originator Controlled and No Foreign Citizens, but it is not clear to me what SI means? Signals Intelligence, perhaps? If there are sources discussing the classification codes, it might be nice to add that. Dragons flight (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

SI stands for "Special Intelligence", which basically stands for communications intercepts. Page 58 of this manual contains the information you're looking for. Capscap (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

still secret?

• 1. 'former' not good I agree, but perhaps 'formerly top secret' will be beater wording. US President commented about it to public, what by all means mean secret no longer is secret. For me is an antisemantism to call secret a context all world talk about. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It says "formally" not "formerly" (in case that's what you meant) Capscap (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

When in the United States Air Force Security Service in 1957, I had to attend a briefing where we were presented a New York Times front page stamped TOP SECRET top and bottom. We all then had to sign acknowledgements that the information in the page was still TOP SECRET. —Pawyilee (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

top secret screw logos

re:[2]

• 2. What it supposed to 'mean logo need context'? Logo mostly the dark-blue shadow of hexagonal screw/bolt was next to the sentence. Stil is there only sentence is out. Do you mean what is the symbolic context of screw with hexagonal head there ? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) If all agree(nobody object) i put "The program logo is hexagonal head screw shadow".

joined?

"date of joining PRISM in parentheses" "the date at which they joined PRISM." This verbiage is not supported by the slides. "became part of" or "involvement in" might be better verbiage, as the companies have pretty much issued blanket denials of knowledge, so while the NSA may have included data from them, stating that the companies "joined" indicates active intent. Ronabop (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What about 'listed' or 'listed (date)' or 'first listed in leak'? Only true is that they are listed there in leak. To say microsoft 'first involvement' in searching your hard disk is not there, even if 'become part of' just before 11. Whoever send update/patch is root - control your computer as they wish but WRSN reliblue sources convey reader, login protect editors IP, Tor is closed. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

when wikipedia joned server in UE ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 14:05 UTC, 8 June 2013‎

Microsoft does not own the world of computing through the Internet. I'm also unsure if the above quote is still available in parentheses in the Article. Tor should be banned. The companies (Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, also others) have not indicated any court orders through active NSA/CIA articles (essentially the same origination) and doing so is an an obscure way of claiming intent to endanger the privacy of others. Fatum81 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia put server mirrors on LeaseWeb. Laseweb put servers in Manassas on the border of Quantico [3][4]. Basically this wiki secret is who/when access particular pages and what is ip of niked editors. On the ip layer the ip is of course plain to capture (and'legal') by above server arrangement; also quite easy to see in e.g. Wireshark. (imo) October 2008 mark process derivative inflection.(but may be implemented in another way much earlier on spire 98 akamai) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo controversy

The section "Yahoo controversy needs" to be written by someone who understands English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.216.86 (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been removed for now because it was original research. Capscap (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yottabyte

"A yottabyte is so big as to be nearly unimaginable by casual computer users: It’s enough information to fill 200 trillion DVDs." . . .

"The companies participating in PRISM produce enormous amounts of data every day, so storing it would require computing power the likes of which the public has never seen. People who study technology and security believe that’s why the NSA [built] a million-square-foot data center near Salt Lake City."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/07/11-questions-you-probably-have-about-u-s-domestic-spying-answered/
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a large Google Inc. server building, nobody is there from the NSA.Fatum81 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Is PRISM an acronym?

Why is it all caps? Some other reason? It should be noted in the article somewhere... Hires an editor (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks better in CAPS from the CIA standpoint of head-administration such as Petraeus, and no other reason should it now be considered an acronym.Fatum81 (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

New declassified info to be added

There's a new unclassified fact sheet from the DNI available here. Some secondary coverage here. I need to run somewhere, so perhaps someone can try to integrate this? Capscap (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Known Counter Measures deleted !

Two users are deleting a paragraph regarding counter measures to the NSA spying. See these changes: [5] and [6]. One of these users, Capscap, claims that naming counter measures is "original research" which is not true since the measures -- such as GNU Privacy Guard or open source alternatives to Skype such as Jitsi -- are all well known. Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)\

Please see WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTADVOCATE Capscap (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Both rules are not applicable in this case of just naming very shortly counter measures. Its not a manual on how to setup GnuPG for example and it is also not "propaganda" to point out that there are possible counter meassures. Its just what a encyclopedia is for: Naming the relevant information in one article. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of the countermeasures in this article and the assertions about their effectiveness is original research. You even acknowledge that is advocacy in your first message here: "Its just important to name these counter measures in the PRISM article to increase awareness in the general public." You are using the section to provide a manual on alleged methods to avoid the NSA surveillance. Perhaps the "See also" section could have a link to Category:Cryptographic software. Capscap (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. Until there's evidence to the contrary about what you're posting, what you're posting is pretty much advertisement. --RAN1 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Now this article is also part of that Jitsi-Ekiga-spam-campaign. Previous targets include the Skype and Google+ Hangouts articles. --pcworld (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No, its just neither original reasearch nor spam: Its just about completeness and Neutral point of view. Even regular news article stress possible counter meassures such as PGP - see here and here (its german though but just search for "pgp"), and this one is technical from "pc world" - @pc-world ... what a coincidence ... - so why wouldn't a encyclopedia article name counter measures when the press is naming them? Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just link to WP:NOT. Please read that in its entirety (including the section on how Wikipedia is not a news service) before coming back here to reply. --RAN1 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you read what I have written: Why wouldn't a encyclopedia article name counter measures when the press is naming them? Kulturdenkmal (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the press. It is not a news organization of any sort. It's a neutral encyclopedia that, in this case/article, is documenting information about the PRISM program and its scope. It's not meant to go outside that scope or to take a biased point of view by promoting either side, the companies who were named as partners to the PRISM program or companies/organizations that were not named. Promotion is especially the issue here since those news articles are promoting, but we can't. In short, as much as it would be convenient to post alternatives here, for the sake of neutrality we should not post those here. It's better left off to news sources and advice columns to provide that kind of information to readers. --RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the press - of course. But when the press names counter measures in the context of their reports covering PRISM than the scope of the PRISM program expands and includes the counter meassures as well! Therefore, not naming counter measures--even though it is part of the scope of PRISM media coverage--is just not neutral. To cover the phenomenon in its complexity you need to name counter meassures to be in compliance with WP:Neutral point of view. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(←) NPOV doesn't stand for news' point of view, and just because a news service publishes it does not make it neutral. --RAN1 (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To be quite frankly: Yes it does stand for news' point of view. I quote the first sentence of the NPOV rule: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources", see: WP:Neutral point of view. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The distinction is we have all of the other policies, including no promotion. --RAN1 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I highlight the relevant part of the NPOV rule again: " (...) all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - so do you consider all of the sources I have linked to above as not reliable ? It is not a "promotion" when adressing possible counter measures is part of the media coverage! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's neither significant nor a view Capscap (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not getting the point of this policy. The point is to be unbiased, yet the promotion is biased. Furthermore, it doesn't fall under the scope of PRISM, it falls under the scope of reactions to PRISM. If you want to describe how other news articles began reporting alternatives to the companies named in response to the revealing of the program, that should be ok, barring a direct description of those alternatives so as not to fall outside the scope of the article. Perhaps maybe a See Also link for Internet privacy might be appropriate, but an entire section devoted to alternatives gives undue weight to a topic outside this article's scope. --RAN1 (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Capscap - dont know what you mean.
@RAN1 - Ok, so I will add a paragraph that "describe[s] how other news articles began reporting alternatives to the companies named in response to the revealing of the program". Kulturdenkmal (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain how using hard disk encryption and using Firefox or Opera is supposed to be a "counter measure"? --pcworld (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Google's Chrome browser for example sends information regarding your activity to the Google servers = NSA. So by using an open source browser your activity log is not send to the NSA... if you use TrueCrypt for cloud services such as Dropbox they can not look into your files etc. ... Kulturdenkmal (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This behavior is optional, and Chromium is the almost identical open source version of Chrome. Also, Opera is proprietary software and not open source. --pcworld (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding VPNs: "to encrypt the users internet traffic" – this isn't really true as long as the VPNs are US-based, and even anonymization might not be given if US companies have to cooperate with the US government. --pcworld (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, than just edit the paragraph and improve the information instead of complaining here. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "complaining", I'm providing ideas for discussion on how this section could be improved. --pcworld (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Foreign nationals

The reality of treating foreign nationals as terrorist targets by PRISM allows the NSA to forcible confine individuals for internal affairs and this allegedly could be broadened to include US citizens.

References

Washington Post softens its original news article

A couple of news organizations reporting that The Washington post has revised its original news article revealing the PRISM program, softening some of its original claims:

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhall/2013/06/07/washington-post-updates-hedges-on-initial-prism-report/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-updates-spying-story-2013-6

Applegamer (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to imply that they are retracting their original claims. There's a new WaPo article that again says that the companies knowingly participated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story_1.html Capscap (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was there reluctance to add 'Utah Data Center' to 'See also' ?

The Utah Data Center is back on our 'See also' list, not by me. When I first put it there it was removed as not having reference.

Here is a reference: "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Out on Verizon, PRISM, and the Utah Data Center" [7] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

And the "Libertas Institute" is a reliable source? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

NSA data centers

Can anyone here tell me where the Wikipedia articles are for the NSA center in San Antonio, Texas and North Yorkshire, England? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)