E-mailing Saudi Arabia from Afghanistan?

Section 702 changed the FISA process. And that's when, in 2008, Section 702 was added. And let's be straight: After the initial leak and subsequent outrage, the PRISM program began to look a little less intrusive on further review. If you need a layman's analogy to understand the PRISM surveillance system, one of the more apt comparisons would be to the HBO show "The Wire." Just substitute "United States government" for Baltimore police, "Internet data and content" for phone wiretaps, and name the target as "pretty much anyone" instead of drug traffickers. Copying the data as it travels through the fiber-optic cables of the Internet, the NSA routinely analyzes and reviews it. Having just finished copying various classified documents from the NSA Hawaii office, he tells his boss he needs time off for epilepsy treatment; he gives his girlfriend a vague story about having to work out of office for a while. The government, we learned, seems to be using a little bit of legal chicanery to create broad orders (reviewed by a court) that let the NSA request specific, targeted information from companies.

This w᠎as created  by G᠎SA᠎ C onte nt　Gen᠎erator DEMO.

The NSA would go to Microsoft and ask for boatloads of information from its servers, related to foreign targets. Although analysts may be scrutinizing only foreign data, that doesn't mean they're not collecting information about U.S. But in the meantime, it's probably best to assume that if government security analysts want to read your e-mail, listen to your phone calls or check your calendar -- they can. This mirrors domestic law enforcement: Unless there is a warrant issued through probable cause, you can't put a wire up to intercept phone calls or telecommunications. The result was that now the federal intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency still didn't need a warrant but did have to have that FISA secret court review the target and techniques. According to the initial reports, PRISM was a program that allowed the government to directly access servers from some huge players, like Facebook and Google. Wouldn't it follow suit that these companies would have to lie about their involvement to protect a top secret program? Wouldn't the government also lie about the existence of it, or at least fudge some details to make it more appetizing (or legal) to media outlets and the general public? This data w᠎as g enerat᠎ed  wi​th the help  of G᠎SA Con᠎tent  G en​er ator  D​em​oversi᠎on.

What exactly he leaked to the media outlets is not entirely clear, although we know there's at least a PowerPoint presentation of 41 slides. First reports from the Washington Post and other outlets initially claimed that one of the major differences of PRISM was that it allowed the government direct access to company servers. By pretty much every account, government agents are not getting direct access to servers as initially reported. In other words, if the leaked documents were to be believed, the government was basically able to search private company servers for anything it wanted, without having to make individual, targeted requests. And what are they supposedly taking from those servers? They are making it really easy to obtain lots of information without some slow-reading judge reviewing every single request, or an engineer sifting through tons of data to find it. The reality is with such a large search, there's a huge trove of "incidental" data collected.

U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Why, in other words, should we trust the technology conglomerates and the government when presented with some data that says they're lying? U.S. law. At the time, FISA was enacted to ensure the government obtained orders from a secret FISA court before conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists in the United States. United States -- cannot be targeted by the PRISM program. While there's lots of uproar over PRISM, it should be noted that the government has been snatching foreign Internet traffic for years when it enters and leaves the United States. So that's kind of like a accessing a server directly, but only semantically -- it's much different than the government scrolling through our e-mails whenever they want, in real time. This sounds like a job for the Stuff They Don't Want You to Know team! We won't know the answers for a good long while, and it's doubtful any resolution will come in the finale. When there was outcry after the program became public, the Bush administration proposed changes to FISA that were adopted in 2008 through the FISA Amendments Act.

Location:

Share :