It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
With all the new technology we've become addicted to we've made it easy for them to spy. I don't know what they do with all the information or even if they could ever sort though it all. However it is obvious that they keep watch on a great deal of us.

Spy games has also become a for profit industry so what they can't use to incriminate you they can use to sell you something.

The world is a lot smaller and liberty and privacy is becoming more scarce.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:27 PM
reply to post by AntiNWO

You are right, is all about big corrupted private interest, because let face it, all the contracts to this spying going around is in the hands of private companies, working under the government.

Mining data, means the government gets his share of the information they want, the private companies gets the rest.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:30 PM
Regarding Prism Nicholas Carlson on Business Insider said:

"It's really easy to say that when you are reading about the choice between spying and not spying on Twitter or and not actually having to make the choice between allowing the government to stop crazy people from blowing themselves up and murdering innocent people.


This man is either working for the government establishment, or is a useful idiot.

The USA was warned regarding the Boston bomber, but nothing happened. They knew to look out for this guy, and yet not one agency stepped in to stop it.

It appears to me that the purpose is more about spying on law abiding citizens than on terrorists. In fact I think terrorists are allowed, or even encouraged, to spread mayhem so that the general population become more accepting of government interference in their private lives.

When I read 1984 I thought how terrible that world is. Well now I get to live in its pages as I see the world, not just the US, but the whole world, slide into a totalitarian, control hungry regime.

The days of Lords and serfs are not far off.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by Phantom28804

Let be clear it is going to be use as a political tool by the Republicans for next elections but, be reassured that people are not as gullible as they used to be.

We Know who started the spying, who pushed the Antipartiot act and who started the war on American citizens, but we also know that the Democrat President lie about putting a stop to the spying and to make government transparent, so at the end of the day the big question is have we lost our political system to corruption?, yes we have, we not longer can trust in any way form the two elite whores parties in the nation

Our political system and their crocks candidates are a mockery to Americas Democracy, core values and freedoms.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by DanZek

You should have seen Chamblis on TV like a moron talking about how good it was to have the government spying on us and taking our phone numbers, but one thing I notice in his face, the man look like he was panicking and ready to run

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:56 PM
It's really interesting if you read closely into what the "tech giants" responses are to this "scandal." They all share very similar principles and I believe it's important we identify them. It seems as though they all would agree that they don't offer the government any direct or backdoor access to their data. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to all the quotes from each corporations spokesperson, this doesn't mean they still can't (or don't) provide the government with a daily list of all communications. All what they're saying means is that they don't grant them direct access to their servers, something one can only hope to be completely true, as that would be completely illegal and unethical. Lastly, the main point made by almost all of the corporations, is that they all claim to require court orders for access to any of their data. However, we already know that a court order was granted to the government secretly through the federal court system, so this could (quite possibly would) fall into those circumstances. With all of this information in your head let's move onto the quotes themselves;


"We have never heard of PRISM. We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers and any agency requesting customer data must get a court order,"

I believe this quote to be 100% true. By that I mean that it's possible only one person in Google has ever heard the phrase PRISM, although a handful probably know exactly what it means and does. I believe they don't provide the government direct access to their servers, as I said before, this would be highly illegal and unethical. With that being said, it doesn't mean they don't send them information at the end of each day, in alignment with the court order filed based off of terminology in The Patriot Act.


"When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinise any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."

Translated into layman terms: We're not going to deny it, we're just going to reemphasize that we do the most we can to protect your liberties and anything outside of that is simply what's required of us by the governments laws.

Interesting how they don't deny it at all, simply stating that they do what is required of them by the law.


"Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door' for the government to access private user data."

Again, they don't allow the government "backdoor" access to their systems, but they do admit to disclosing user data to the government "in accordance with the law." It's not surprise that they also went on to reassure users that they "review all such requests carefully." although you should understand they don't have very much of a say in the matter.


"We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don't participate in it."

Microsoft was perhaps the most brazen in their response saying "we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers." Of course, what these specific identifiers could be remains undefined and they did start by acknowledging that they "provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis." Once again, we already know about this court order that has allegedly bound these companies to provide the government with such data, but they are all doing a very politically solid job at talking around it.

I saved the best for last of course; simple, short and sweet.


"Yahoo! takes users' privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.

The important word here is direct. They don't provide the government with direct access to their servers, systems or networks, but they could still share almost all of their information with them. Don't worry though because "Yahoo! takes users' privacy very seriously." so they wouldn't do that without a court order right? What's that, they have a court order? Hmm.
edit on 7-6-2013 by rationalignorance because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:58 PM
After reading around, I discovered an article with a reader email from the below link, which suggests to have found the company behind PRSIM, Palantir. It apparently has a product called prism, and it happens to have all of it's documentation out on the internet, along with some code samples here and there.

I believe these companies claim mum because Palantir likely acts as a middleman.

Is this who runs PRISM?

More about Palantir:

Prism Documentation:

Even scarier, here's an article entitled "Palantir officially recognized as aligned with DI2E Framework standards" (DIA) on Palantir's blog:

All this considered, is there any chance someone out there, be it anon or otherwise, could find out more and find a way to choke this behemoth?

edit on 7-6-2013 by joesomebody because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:08 PM
It may be a name collision...

But seeing as they are approved by the DIA, and seeing the docs, I'm not sure it's really for financial analysis as they say.
edit on 7-6-2013 by joesomebody because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:11 PM
This is utterly scandalous, but I don't think people should be surprised that this has been going on.

I predict that this will be quietly forgotten in a few months and it will be back to business as usual.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by Kram09

I am not so sure, too many things are coming together to fruition, is not going to die down, we still have to face the mandate to the unconstitutional health care system at the end of this year, that will collapse this nation, things are not going to get any better and people's sentiments against the government will keep growing.

edit on 7-6-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:21 PM
All the examples are financial mostly, but I still think something weird is going on with this "Palantir" company.

Erm...yeah, financial my rear:

So remember, everyone. Despite the Forbes and Yahoo stories claiming Palantir is just a harmless financial analytic's total crap!
edit on 7-6-2013 by joesomebody because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:56 PM
Something seems off here...

On one of the slides it says "Complet list and details on PRISM webpage. Go PRISMFAA"

Strangely the FAA does have a "PRISM" system, but it is for registering vendors for accounting purposes.

On another page it says the Program only costs "20 Million"???

Not that the NSA wouldn't do this...but this looks real fishy for some reason.

Smell potential hoax...still digging.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:05 PM
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
-J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954, chapter 2

Palantir is a name taken from Lord Of The Rings.

"They are not all accounted for, the lost seeing stones. We do not know who else may be watching." —Gandalf to Saruman, in The Fellowship of the Ring

For other uses of Palantíri see also: Palantír (disambiguation) Palantíri (or singular Palantír) also known as Seeing-stones, the Seven Stones, and the Seven Seeing-stones were spherical stone objects used for the purpose of communication in Middle-earth and beyond.

“Up until a few weeks ago, only "Lord of the Rings" nerds knew what a "palantir" was a seeing stone the company is named after.” News

“Senator Clinton for President in 2008!!!! palantir”
-Schneider: More sobering news - the value gap

“Certainly at that time Sauron should not have been powerful enough to direct what Saruman was seeing with the palantir.”
-The Volokh Conspiracy » Review of the New Star Trek Movie:

“Well, you could resort to the Cliffs Notes: "Aragorn reveals to Legolas and Gimli that he has used the palantir and revealed himself to Sauron, not without good effect.”
-Newsweek: Periscope

“The palantir was all about communication, all about transcending the limitations of human sight and hearing, dissolving distance, dispelling separation.”
-Archive 2006-12-31

-“Is it merely a new language of communication, or is it a palantir, the “seeing stone” in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, opening the portals to the eye of the Dark Lord at the tap of a computer key?”
-Archive 2006-12-31
edit on 7-6-2013 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by DistantThunder
If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

That is as long as you don't dissent. The government has the power to decide what is right and wrong.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:18 PM

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by IAMTAT

I have to agree with the New York Times...The Obama Administration HAS now lost all credibility!

Its sad though... even though hes lost all imaginary credibility he once had, youll still have the diehard worshipers who will never acknowledge that Obama ever did anything wrong, and that you are just either a republican or a racist or both if you think hes not the second coming of Christ.

I'm beginning to think that 'Obama' is secretly a 'Muslim'... don't quote me on it but I was watching this Video earlier on youtube where it stated that 'Obama' would not have won the Presidency for a second term if it weren't for the 'Muslim Brotherhood' in Florida! Something like that, I'm guessing that Florida held the key to his victory.

So, he wouldn't be the second coming of Christ!

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:19 PM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by DistantThunder
If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.

That is as long as you don't dissent. The government has the power to decide what is right and wrong.

Excellent point

More revaltion about the IRS scandal, the decision of a health care procedure for a child made by a government official, and now the open admission that there truly is Big Brother watching and listening-monitoring everymove we make.

It's no longer "1984, here we come". Its now "1984, here we are."

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:23 PM
Can anyone explain why in the WAPO story the blackened an entire line in a section in slide one...while in the Guardian story, the line is only half blackened?


Where in the Guardian article it shows this after the blackened line "PRISM Collection Manager, S35333"

In googling "S35333"

there is a strange post stating "PRISM.Collection.Manager.v.S35333.Incl.SSLKeygen-CORE.rar "

What does that mean? What are we looking at? And why was it removed from the doc.?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:30 PM
In case it hasn't been posted yet..

June 6, 2013

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA

The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.

James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by rationalignorance

All telecommunications go through Menwith Hill. Likely the techs in these corporations know this already, and thus granting them "direct access" would be a moot point except that network admins have to know who is accessing their networks and whether they are unauthorized to do so. If some co called software program outside their private networks is accessing their servers, it has to be done without being detected by the network MIB.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:33 PM
I wanted to point out that I am in no way shape or form giving Obama a pass on this. I know he is just as guilty as the rest. I was just pointing out that this was started by the previous administration and continued and improved upon by the currrent administration. There is no difference between Republican or Democrat. They all have the same agenda. That was the point of the post that I was making actually to show you all how many people voted for this crap. Democrat and Republican alike.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in