I gave you links, but I will humor you with another:
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
> . . . recently published FISA court order demanding Verizon turn over all customer phone records including who is talking to whom, when and for how long—to the NSA . . .
Oh look! FISA being used to demand all of verizon's phone records! All of them! And what are one of the programs that FISA feeds into? Oh yeah, that's right. PRISM. If you do not consider this to be a dragnet surveillance order, you are just lying to yourself. So there is yet another verifiable source highlighting the scope of PRISM.
here is the relevant court case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/first-unitarian-church-los-angeles...
Do I need to physically take you to Titanpointe to see it for yourself? Here is a link explaining what that is, I already posted it once but clearly you have not been following through and reading these links.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-...
This explicitly isn't PRISM, and this isn't ongoing. Moreover, Snowden's documents showed that this data wasn't used for surveillance. The data was anonymized and a system (not PRISM) was built on top of it that could only perform a limited set of graph queries to find associates of known threats to national security. To deanonymize a node, the government would have to request another court order.
You have once again demonstrated that you don't know what PRISM is, so is it any wonder that I keep calling you out on it?
And a lot of the hooplah about these immoral dragnet tools is not only the fact that they partially target American citizens (after NSA executives said under oath, in very particular terms, that they do not collect files on American citizens) is that it was being accessed by employees without court orders.
Pre 9/11, maybe you could have made a case about this "anonymization" being legitimate. There were certainly programs in the work that attempted to incorporate homomorphic encryption into their design. But these have been gutted and reformed into what we have today.
You have to wonder, what are these tools being used for? They certainly haven't been publicly attributed to stopping any terrorist activities. If you don't think these systems, put in place by spy agencies with the legal ability to lie about their internal operations, are being used to spy on their targets (which is the general public) then what the hell do you think they are for?
It doesn't. That's my point. How many more times are you going to show that you don't know what PRISM is while claiming that you do?
Also, surveillance is, by definition, close observation. Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance any more than having access to Google Maps satellite imagery without any other data sources to join to. More specifically, it isn't mass wiretapping, which as you recall was your original claim that you have yet to substantiate, instead pointing to this metadata program that I had earlier used to show you that no evidence exists for mass wiretapping of Americans.
> It doesn't.
> Merely having anonymized phone metadata is not surveillance
OK. Not only are you inconsistent but your arguments are based around ill-defined terminology. Goodbye now.
You are difficult to argue with because you continue to either misinterpret or warp my words. Goodbye now.
It appears that you finally agree both that PRISM isn't mass wiretapping and that AT&T and Verizon aren't being mass wiretapped. Good. You appear to have learned something even if you now claim to have known all along.
Stop fucking putting words in my mouth.
You've just got to get your last word in to frame the conversation in a way that doesn't give you cognitive dissonance, don't you? OK. Go ahead and have it. Claim I am saying whatever you want me to say.
This argument has been wholly destructive and not the least bit constructive, because you constantly derail it at every turn and put me in a position of defending the same thing over and over instead of covering new ground. This is a common tactic used by authoritarian and conservative types across the world and I don't have time to play ball.
Have fun, kid.
I gave you a link to a slide diagramming PRISM and a link to the document describing the email envelope program that had shut down.
> I did not say PRISM was mass wiretapping but it is indeed part of the surveillance suite of NSA programs.
I understand you now concede that PRISM isn't the nefarious new-datacenter-requiring mass data collection you originally claimed it was, that the actual surveillance itself is carried out by the FBI, and that PRISM just enables the NSA to search the FBI's data collected on specific foreigners with a court order.
> I also don't understand why you think that the NSA was not mass wiretapping both of those telco's major junctions. It's a known thing.
If it's a "known thing," where is the evidence? None of your links claim that the NSA is mass wiretapping the telcos' major junctions. Mass wiretapping Americans would violate the Fourth Amendment (the ACLU successfully sued over phone metadata collection, and collecting voice content would be a much bigger issue), so if you have any evidence at all, present it or be prepared to be labeled a conspiracy theorist.