Skip to main content


Topic: PRISM (Read 3005 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I may just dump Google+ for Twitter. I kind of use Google+ like Twitter anyway.

I don't really know what to think about the whole thing. I guess I've always operated under the assumption that anything I put online might as well be public knowledge.

But I like that someone said no. It makes the whole 'Lets use Linux and stick it to the man!' and 'Indie games so that big corporations don't get our money!' part of me just overjoyed.

Reply #1
You do know Twitter is monitored too, right?

The library of congress or something (can't think off the top of my head) publishes/collects all tweets,
and I'm pretty sure Prism includes tweet in their data-mining.



Practically all big businesses (internet-wise) have compromised servers.
That's the point of Prism, to data-mine without discrimination or without warrants.
Any social media site that grabs enough attention for law enforcement to use is being mined by Prism and stored in locked FBI server rooms for storage.
For me, someone who's been invested and politically active in this stuff for years, I don't understand the outrage now.
The outrage should've been going on years ago.

It's only because Glenn Greenwald decided to jump in and pump the media's attention after he had the fame to back him.
Which is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but just wish people were paying attention more instead of writing off people as "conspiracy nuts."
Basically the Guardian in the UK broke a confirmed story that the NSA and thus by extension the U.S. government,
has direct access to user data from major internet corporations.


When questioned about this the government, ascertained that they are only collecting data on foreign nationals which basically pissed off the planet,
and only U.S. citizens that have a foreign link (so if you have a friend who is a non-US-citizen, into the database you go).
The Washington Post, learning that the Guardian was breaking the story, concurrently also broke the story.
The WP shares the Guardians reporter in the byline. Its as real as it gets, according to their secured internal NSA training slides.

Foreign governments presently are in uproar. The European Union in particular has rules about data protections for civilians and privacy rights,
which this appears to entirely disregard despite these companies operating in their territories, on the basis that anyone that is non-American is a suspect and can be datamined.
Germany has called for the establishment of an EU-centric tech industry and the boycott of American services.
The UK government is cross-examining GCHQ involvement as it appear the UK also received some intel from PRISM.



The companies involved flatly deny all knowledges at the executive level, however the nature of FISA orders is that no person may
disclose or allow another person to disclose knowledge of the orders, so they may just be following orders.
Facebook and Google official statements are disturbingly similar.

Business week also has a nice summary / comparison if you want an alternative source.


The Washington Post began expanding and hedging its article expecting a legal/governmental shitstorm,
while the Guardian (being out of US oversight) has stuck to its guns.


Here is a Raw Story breakdown of world reaction.


Twitter appears to be the only major social media to not be a part of the program, and its employees reacted with shock - and as one can expect,
Twitter users themselves were incredibly vocally opposed to PRISM. However, I've read multiple articles elsewhere about Twitter being monitored
by other government security programs. Also, the way Prism operates is through intrusion, not cooperation, although some companies are given the heads up
(as stated before, some deny involvement though for business reputation purposes).
So Twitter could either be denying involvement and actually cooperating, or actually having no idea and still be targeted anyways.


. . .

Linux is worse I would think if you're not a technical expert in security, because you're operating on an open-source OS
which can be easily compromised by anyone whose expertly familiar with the distro your using. Not to mention,
most security problems come from lack of encryption or doing what you can to protect yourself.
  • Last Edit: July 06, 2013, 10:27:53 pm by Vakinox

Reply #2

Linux is worse if you're not a technical expert in security, because you're operating on an open source system which can easily be compromised by anyone whose familiar with the distro your using.

Not really true. The alternative is security through obfuscation. A truly secure system is secure by design, not because no one knows the design. There's a reason that the DOD uses SELinux as a hardened OS. Linux is considered more secure because people who know what they are looking at can look at the source of most components, and see that they are secure by design.

My home folder is encrypted. My root account has limited network access. I use encrypted connections for everything possible. But at the same time, I figure that anything that is transmitted from my machines over any network that isn't limited to LAN cables and switches I can see with my own eyes is already compromised. I operate under the assumption that everything on my machine has been compromised to the point of anyone and everyone having a normal user account.

Why? I don't know. Partially just because it makes me happy to do things that way. But also because to a certain extent, it sets my mind at ease.

I for one do use DuckDuckGo. It seems much...cleaner than Google, and almost as effective.
  • Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 07:50:33 pm by Flying Jester