MIT Project Reveals What PRISM Knows About You 221
judgecorp writes "MIT's Immersion project sifts your Gmail, and constructs a map of your associations. Without opening a single message, it gives a clear view of who you connect with. It's a glimpse of some of what the NSA PRISM can do. From the article: 'You can assume that if the NSA is looking at your email, the information in Immersion is similar to what they will see. Consider that they probably see all of your email addresses (and not just Gmail) and that the metadata is examined along with the metadata from everyone you’ve corresponded with, and you can see just how much can be inferred from this data alone.'"
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
One has your consent, the other doesn't?
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of them is opt-in. One of them is not.
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the consent of the governed only if they follow the constitution which gives them the power to do what they do.
Since they are wiping their rear ends with the constitution on this matter however, they do not have any consent at all.
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
The simulator helps you understand how your civil liberties are being violated. It helps make vague understandings more concrete.
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consent requires information. If the government does not provide any information what they are doing, there can be no consent. Additionally, any implied consent is bounded by the constitution, and it does not appear that the government of the US has any intent whatsoever to abide by those restrictions.
Far from it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just askin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting points about openness and democratic oversight in government as opposed to the corporate world.
So shouldn't you be up in arms about the lack of both openness and democratic oversight shown in the NSA affair? You can't defend the virtues of one system over another, then turn a blind eye when it reneges on those virtues.
Re:Trust Us. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your solution then is to allow the program to continue and feel safe from it's potential abuse by asking the same people who illegally developed, deployed and are managing it, to follow the rules? Pretty please?
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Misleading title (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that now, thanks to the PRISM leaks, no one believes Google. Not even a little bit.
That is a problem, indeed. It's why Google has filed suit against the DoJ, because Google can't provide the details needed to defend itself.
And yes, they can be legally compelled to lie and if they are so compelled they will be shielded from any consequences of those lies
Cite? As far as I know, the telecoms never lied. They refused to answer, and then eventually admitted to it. I could be wrong, however, since my memories of the details are fuzzy. But a few web searches seem to support my recollections. Yes, they definitely were shielded from any legal consequences.
But even if Google were shielded from legal consequences, Google could not be shielded from the extremely severe and irreparable PR consequences. Google might be able to recover from proof of the allegations by coming clean and promising to do better, but proof that the allegations were true and that Google lied would be disastrous for a company with Google's current business model. Remember that unlike the telecoms which have local monopolies, a national oligopoly and fairly high switching costs, Google's competition is just a click away.
I see three options:
1. Google is telling the truth.
2. Google is lying and is absolutely certain that it can never, ever be proven.
3. Google's executives are idiots.
I know 3 is false, and arguably it would have to be true for Google's execs to believe that their lies could never be proven, per 2. I think they're telling the truth.
(Disclaimer: I should mention that I work for Google. However, if the PRISM allegations were supported, I probably wouldn't be working for Google much longer, and neither would an awful lot of other people, including many who are far more talented and valuable than I am.)
Re:Just askin... (Score:2, Insightful)
The equivalent of saying that there is no such thing as rape as anyone that does not successfully get away has consented.
Re:Just askin... (Score:4, Insightful)
and the people who have been elected into positions to provide that oversight did.
Did they? I'd be interested to hear how you know that, given that the court opinions are secret. Is there actually oversight, or are the information requests simply rubber-stamped? We don't know, and that's the problem.
The funny thing about covert surveillance is that you can get a warrant for it. The process is not secret, and it happens all the time. The warrant is then shown in court along with the acquired evidence. That's completely public knowledge, and it hasn't seemed to "tip off" the criminals any. Do criminals not use cars because of license plate cameras, or not use phones because of wiretapping?
The "revealing its existence will compromise security" argument is so wrongheaded as to be laughable.