Talk:OAKSTAR

FAA702 presumption
This article says, "SIGADs not otherwise designated are presumed to operate under the legal authority of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)." I personally would not presume that, given the possibility of secret legal interpretations or executive orders which have not been made public, so I added the [by whom] weasel-word tag to "presumed." Personally I would like to see this sentence dropped, and the blank fields in the table filled with the word unknown. --Stybn (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is quite a body of evidence surrounding that statement. What it comes from is the authorities of the parent programs. The Corporate Portfolio slide allows the sigads to be correctly associated with their parents. Additional slides in particular you want to see:


 * There is another document, that I haven't cited yet, It's an 85 page fisa court order on upstream collection that goes into rather painful detail about how it's done, and the techno-legalese associated. And how it went awry. Section 702 is all over the place in that one.
 * http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/22/us/22nsa-opinion-document.html?_r=0
 * There ought to be a few news articles about this, but they tend to be unreliable in one aspect or another.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 2013-09-13T20:50:02‎
 * Thanks for the detailed reply. So rather than saying "presumed to operate under the legal authority of Section 702" can we say "would seem to operate…because…"? Please be sure to sign your future comments on Talk pages. --Stybn (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Real Identity is Qwest
The real identity of OAKSTAR is Qwest. It is too easy to figure out which is why some journalists did not use this name in their articles.

In Latin:

OAK = Quercus STAR = Stella

Que St Quest Qwest

Now to work on STORMBREW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.73.102 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)