If you\u2019re like me, you haven\u2019t quite figured out what to think about the revelation that the National Security Administration has been amassing a huge database of our phone and internet contacts for more than seven years. Of course, it sounds bad. Really bad. Orwell bad. I\u2019m even afraid that I share some concerns with people on the right\u2014and that\u2019s frightening. But before I knee-jerk react and espouse uninformed opinions, I\u2019d like to hear the answers to some big questions about the program known as Prism. So, I was glad to see that one of my favorite news sources\u2014ProPublica\u2014is asking precisely the big\u00a0 questions that need answering<\/a>. Here\u2019s ProPublica\u2019s list, with some of the answers\u2014and further questions\u2014they\u2019ve found so far. Bottom line: We don’t know very much about any of it, and so far, nobody’s talking.<\/p>\n

Has the NSA been collecting <\/strong>all<\/b><\/em> Americans\u2019 phone records, and for how long?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not entirely clear.<\/p>\n

According to The Guardian, there\u2019s a court order directing a Verizon subsidiary to turn over phone \u201cmetadata\u201d for a three-month period. There\u2019s also evidence that the program covers AT&T and Sprint.<\/p>\n

How long has the dragnet has existed? At least seven years, and maybe going back to 2001.<\/p>\n

What surveillance powers does the government believe it has under the Patriot Act?<\/strong><\/p>\n

That\u2019s classified.<\/p>\n

The Verizon court order relies on Section 215 of the Patriot Act<\/a>. That provision<\/a>\u00a0allows the FBI to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a secret order requiring companies, like Verizon, to produce records \u2013 \u201cany tangible things\u201d \u2013 as part of a \u201cforeign intelligence\u201d or terrorism investigation. As with any law, exactly what the wording means is a matter for courts to decide. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court\u2019s interpretation of Section 215 is secret.<\/p>\n

\u2026it appears that the court is allowing a broad interpretation of the Patriot Act. But we still don\u2019t know the specifics.<\/p>\n

Has the NSA\u2019s massive collection of metadata thwarted any terrorist attacks?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It depends which senator you ask. And evidence that would help settle the matter is, yes, classified.<\/p>\n

How much information, and from whom, is the government sweeping up through Prism?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not clear.<\/p>\n

Intelligence director Clapper said in his declassified description<\/a>\u00a0that the government can\u2019t get information using Prism unless there is an \u201cappropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition (such as for the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities, or nuclear proliferation) and the foreign target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

One thing we don\u2019t know is how the government determines who is a \u201cforeign target.\u201d The Washington Post reported<\/a>\u00a0that NSA analysts use \u201csearch terms\u201d to try to achieve \u201c51 percent confidence\u201d in a target\u2019s \u201cforeignness.\u201d How do they do that? Unclear.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve also never seen a court order related to Prism — they are secret — so we don\u2019t know how broad they are. The Post reported<\/a>\u00a0that the court orders can be sweeping, and apply for up to a year. Though Google has maintained<\/a> it has not “received blanket orders of the kind being discussed in the media.”<\/p>\n

So, how does Prism work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In his statement<\/a>\u00a0Saturday, Clapper described Prism as a computer system that allows the government to collect \u201cforeign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n

That much seems clear. But the exact role of the tech companies is still murky.<\/p>\n

Relying on a leaked PowerPoint presentation, the Washington Post originally<\/a>\u00a0described Prism as an FBI and NSA program to tap \u201cdirectly into the central servers\u201d of nine tech companies including Google and Facebook. Some of the companies\u00a0denied<\/a>\u00a0giving the government \u201cdirect access\u201d to their servers. In a later story<\/a>, published Saturday, the newspaper cited unnamed intelligence sources saying that the description from the PowerPoint was technically inaccurate.<\/p>\n

The Post quotes a classified NSA report saying that Prism allows \u201ccollection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,\u201d not the company servers themselves. So what does any of that mean? We don’t know.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you\u2019re like me, you haven\u2019t quite figured out what to think about the revelation that the National Security Administration has been amassing a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":24592,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[255,29,572,128,1489,1940],"tags":[1963,1490,1962,1010],"yoast_head":"\n