PRISM update
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/of...
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013306160046
And from the second article (an op-ed by a Congressman):
>Neither program allows the NSA to read e-mails or listen to phone calls of American citizens.
This is blatantly false, and the Government has said as much. The entire article is a mixture of falsehood and slick (read: dishonest) reasoning.
The first link is more unsubstantiated than the submitted link.
And the third link is a tweet about what a Congressman said.
The only one that has any helpful information is the Washington Post article and it's just a statement offered without evidence.
In case you didn't know, primary sources would be things like internal memos, pictures, videos, etc that are related to programs like Prism. E.g., the evidence offered by Edward Snowden and not in any of the links you posted.
So if we're going to be standing on some sort of epistemological high ground, let's make sure it's not quicksand beneath our feet.
The government probably isn't the best source when making a decision as to what you think the program allows.
A CA certificate would allow them to forge a website certificate (and pull off the MITM), but the website owner would still notice - they would see that the hash number of the certificate they installed doesn't match the one the browser is looking at.
Most website owners would not notice, it's true. But some would.
Slurping nicely formatted data from known sources gives them nicely formatted data that they can then cross-reference and use to help data-mine the raw data.
yes, I know it's ironic that I'm posting this on a u.s. site.
ECHELON report from EU parliament showed that 5 countries (UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were part of ECHELON and gave lists to each other as a way to avoid laws about spying on their own citizens.
That EU parliament report is very old now (pre 9/11) and there are a bunch of more recent laws that probably exempt GCHQ and others from these laws. But I could be wrong; I haven't kept up; and I welcome corrections. I have no idea what parts of RIPA (regulation of investigatory powers act, UK law) are enacted or not, and what exemptions it has for GCHQ.
> According to the directive, member states will have to store citizens' telecommunications data for six to 24 months stipulating a maximum time period. Under the directive the police and security agencies will be able to request access to details such as IP address and time of use of every email, phone call and text message sent or received. A permission to access the information will be granted only by a court.