Talk:PRISM

PRISM update to article
Good morning Fellow Wikipedians. This is the first time I have ever done this so please bear with me. The Article on PRISM needs reframing if the subject is to be understood and the article to be without bias, roperley informative and objective. In an Irish High Court Judgement on the 18th of June 2014, the Irish Judge (Hogan G) rejected the FISA court as a court of law. (Par 15) His specific rejection of the Court was based on its abnormal structure and its secrecy. The judge did not state the following, which is a matter of settled international law. The laws of one country do not run in another country save with the consent of the second country's legislature. What that means in this case is that FISA has no application outside the territorial United States. The confusion in the article arises from the unstated assumption that US law runs in other countries. Not so, any more than the laws of another country can run in the US. On the 8th April 2014 the UK Interception ommissioner Sir Anthony May QC, in a public report to the Prime Minister and Parliament warned that PRISM type activities in the UK were criminal and also unlawful. Following the findings of fact by the Irish High Court the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union reviewed the Irish High Court findings of fact and made a judgement, which is not subject to appeal, on 6th October 2015. The publicly known point from that judgement is that Safe Harbour, the agreement for the legal transfer of data between the EU and the US was ended. What was not clearly carried in the media commentaries was that the European Court had endorsed, in full, the findings of fact of the Irish High Court. The key finding of that Court was that the US was engaged in "mass and indiscriminate surveillance" using PRISM throughout the EU. In this way PRISM has been legally categorised in all countries other than the US. It is both criminal and unlawful. Orders or judgements of the FISA Court have no application outside the US, and if followed as in the case of PRISM, are criminal and unlawful.

In the article there is a note that the UK GCHQ does not use PRISM. That is because the judgement of Sir Anthony May is a correct statement of UK law, and has been applied by the UK Government to the agency that was using PRISM.

However, the issue of the companies named in the PRISM documents as 'providers' is not moot. If they followed the PRISM orders in the UK they committed civil and criminal offences.

In relation to the material you used from Snowden the status of that has changed. As published by the Guardian and Washington post it is media hearsay. However, all the Snowden material was sworn before the Irish High Court and is now evidence in a court of law.

I would like a response to this and also guidance as to where the bottom of the talk page is, it is not indicated in my version of the talk page.

Kevin Cahill KevinCahill (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 11 th August 2017--KevinCahill (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PRISM (surveillance program). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607090238/http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa to http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authorized-under-section-702-of-fisa
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611065954/http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/871-facts-on-the-collection-of-intelligence-pursuant-to-section-702-of-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act to http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/871-facts-on-the-collection-of-intelligence-pursuant-to-section-702-of-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Snowden a Hero? SnowdenHK 香港聲援斯諾登遊行 Hong Kong Rally to Support Snowden SML.20130615.7D.42298.jpg

Intro paragraph lifted directly from DNI source/statement without any quotations
I thought the whole intro read oddly for Wikipedia (starting off with a "PRISM is NOT ___" as if it's rebutting things, using "The Government" to describe the United States federal government, using "We" to refer to same such gov't.) Looked at the source cited, the DNI press release/statement/what have you, and the intro is literally just the first few bullet points word-for-word, without any quotes. Should probably be rewritten to be a bit more neutral than an official US gov't statement on the program, no? 208.58.216.185 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's obviously not right. I went ahead and edited it back to how it was before. Benjamin (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Serious violations of NPOV by User Factcheck5512
There have been a number of proposed updates by user Factcheck5512 which appear to be violations of [WP:NPOV] and an effort to "explain away" criminal activities committed by the NSA against the United States. Specifically, the latest update which suggests that the crimes were some how lawful, with references of after-the-fact back-filling by the NSA and George W. Bush regime in an effort to make the criminal activities appear to have been lawful at the time. In fact as the Snowden documents indicate (and the text of which the user conveniently deleted) the crimes were crimes when the NSA committed them against the United States.

This appears to me to be an effort by a government agent -- either foreign or domestic -- to alter the history of thee crimes. We may need to get an Admin in here to acquire the user's IP address and see if it can be correlated with a known governmental entity, yet at minimum we may need to get an Admin to evaluate the POV aspects and determine if we have a problem user. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Litigation
For the first lawsuit listed, there is no outcome, nor embedded link to an article about the case itself - only links to the plaintiffs & other parties.

This article clarifies that the ruling was in favor of the plaintiffs May 7, 2015. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/why-todays-landmark-court-victory-against-mass Steve8394 (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Colin M (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

PRISM (surveillance program) → PRISM – The U.S. spy program appears to be the primary topic. |PRISM_model_checker|DEC_PRISM|Apollo_PRISM|Publishing_Requirements_for_Industry_Standard_Metadata|PRISM_(website)|Oregon_Performance_Reporting_Information_System|PRISM_(surveillance_program)|PRISM_(TV_channel) Page views. Wikinav. Schierbecker (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support: I think this tracks with the way we've handled all-caps titles in the past.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per WP:DIFFCAPS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to object, but I think you do actually have a good case here. I'm still reluctant, though. "Prism" is such a broad term, and this article is so narrow.--Srleffler (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The MAVEN vs Maven example shows clearly that we can have separate articles based on title capitalization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DIFFCAPS; readers are unlikely to search for a different prism by entering PRISM. BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cover slide of PRISM.jpg (discussion)
 * PRISM Collection Details.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism - FAA 702 operations.png (discussion)
 * Prism slide 2.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism slide 5.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-blurry-frag-1.png (discussion)
 * Prism-fairview-straight.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-slide-6.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-slide-7.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-slide-8.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-slide-9.jpg (discussion)
 * Prism-upstream-yahoo.png (discussion)
 * Prism-week-in-life-straight.png (discussion)
 * Slides-nsa-prism03a-straight.jpg (discussion)

Confusing Article
In some places, the article says that the government gets sent data for specific accounts, which matches all the released documents. In others, it states Snowden's claim that the government can unilaterally get any content it wishes, which none of the documents support. Can you clean up the page to split what is said about PRISM in the documents from what Snowden and Greenwald have claimed? 2600:1700:3EC0:4358:4CB2:AC0E:9EDD:78F0 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @2600:1700:3EC0:4358:4CB2:AC0E:9EDD:78F0 Additionally, the subtitle of the article, containing the term "mass surveillance," does not match the description of the program in the article. 69.53.240.1 (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"PRISM (surveillance program" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program&redirect=no PRISM (surveillance program] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Map
I know we can't use original research, but I wonder if the map (besides being outdated) is accurate. My curiosity is raised by North and South Korea both being dark green. Kdammers (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)