TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

On PRISM, partisanship and propaganda

63 点作者 eightyone将近 12 年前

5 条评论

joe_the_user将近 12 年前
Take note, I believe Greenwald deals with the primary objections that have been raised here.<p>This is just one of his strong arguments: <i>&quot;The New York Times reports today that Yahoo went to court in order to vehemently resist the NSA&#x27;s directive that they join the PRISM program, and joined only when the court compelled it to do so. The company specifically &quot;argued that the order violated its users&#x27; Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.&quot;<p>If, as NSA (and Silicon Valley) defenders claim, PRISM is nothing more than a harmless little drop-box mechanism for delivering to the government what these companies were already providing, why would Yahoo possibly be in court so vigorously resisting it and arguing that it violates their users&#x27; Fourth Amendment rights? Similarly, how could it possibly be said - as US government officials have - that PRISM has been instrumental in stopping terrorist plots if it did not enhance the NSA&#x27;s collection capabilities?&quot;</i>
评论 #5884619 未加载
D9u将近 12 年前
As the old adage goes, &quot;It&#x27;s not fascism when we do it.&quot;<p>I see far too many people who believe that Democrats can do no evil and that Republicans are evil incarnate, when the reality is that it took both parties, working together for decades, to arrive at the current juncture.
评论 #5883860 未加载
Yaa101将近 12 年前
One of the implications of PRISM is this:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;translate.google.com&#x2F;translate?sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;js=n&amp;prev=_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrc.nl%2Fjoris%2F2013%2F06%2F13%2Fhandel-met-voorkennis%2F" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;translate.google.com&#x2F;translate?sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;js=n&amp;prev=...</a>
评论 #5883862 未加载
cpleppert将近 12 年前
&gt;&gt;I know that many Democrats want to cling to the belief that, in Perlstein&#x27;s words, &quot;the powers that be will find it very easy to seize on this one error to discredit [my] NSA revelation, even the ones he nailed dead to rights&quot;. Perlstein cleverly writes that &quot;such distraction campaigns are how power does its dirtiest work&quot; as he promotes exactly that campaign.<p>How in the world could he make this mistake? Are the five slides the only ones he has out of the 40,000 documents that refer to PRISM? Why hasn&#x27;t Snowden directly commented on this issue, or even better; why didn&#x27;t Greenwald contact him when this issue came up?<p>I do think he jumped to conclusions based ont the slide; but the truth is, it isn&#x27;t a closed issue. Intelligence sources and company executives sources continue to give somewhat differing answers about exactly what PRISM is or does. Some suggest that Greenwald got it about right the first time and it really is capable of pulling data on demand from company servers. Simply saying that PRISM is just a GUI interface doesn&#x27;t rule out the possibility that such an &#x27;active&#x27; data source is closely associated with the program.
评论 #5884355 未加载
rikacomet将近 12 年前
Isn&#x27;t the problem about this PRISM and other similar schemes, due to economic reasons? I mean, hey! These companies have to have, a registered office in some country, if its a big country, you get direct political pressure, and if not, the small country is given a small compensation (big one for it) to get the things moving.<p>Now this pressure is somehow made possible thanks to the profit motive of these companies, because they have on the line tax structures, say facebook has Ireland (?), so the U.S govt may have used the option available to any govt in this case:<p>Declare it abuse of law<p>or<p>Declare it a clever strategy, they can&#x27;t do anything about.<p>So a few heads are cleared, some resignations are made, few whistle-blowers emerge, and you have the perfect recipe of social outrage.