G+_Harry Chaffee Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 In episode 408 Steve gave an extensive and detailed explanation of the PRISM controversy and its roots in recent history. Now, I don't know where he got his information from (he did put a lot of links up for us to look things up ourselves) as he did not attribute any of it to other sources (except for the EFF documents). What struck me while watching it was how I had heard all of this just two days before. As it turns out Rachael Maddow did a whole segment on this very EFF and other documents related to PRISM well before Security Now did. Maddow is a daily show and Steve's is not. The reason I bring this up is because I have been hearing Leo Laporte saying Steve had it first on nearly every other program he has appeared in since the Security Now show. As much as it is true Steve made it abundantly clear what was going on technically first on the TWiT network it is not true he was first to connect this PRISM program to the ATT court case – which is referenced by the EFF and some testimony in the public record. I would be happy if Leo just stopped promoting it as a first and just say Steve was able to clearly explain the tech behind this NSA program. Leo complains occasionally about how journalism is now about being first and not being right. Let's not let TWiT fall into that crevasse and get frozen. In my mind it's better to be right than first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Steve Adams Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Link? (To the work/report/article you mention) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Scott Bonner Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I thought the "first" he attributed to Steve was Steve's theory about the NSA tapping the lines just outside Google, et al. So that they could tell where the data was coming from, but only have to get the go-ahead from indemnified telecom companies. So, not the connection between cases, but the specific tools and locations of the taps. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Joe Schmoe Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I agree with scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_John Clark Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 I too have to agree with Scott. I got curious and dug up some clips of her show. The most relevant video I found had her questioning "how this could be done without the companies' knowledge? How do we know they're not just lying given some of the retroactive immunities they've been given?" That said, the "you heard it hear first" is a flag that's best not waved around too much. Better that they'd say "you heard it here best". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Rob Harrison Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Whether Steve or Rachael got there first or if they perhaps both looked at the evidence and drew the same conclusions, I think it's vital that we spread the word about what's actually happening. The mainstream press are really messing up the message here. There's a huge difference between what the press is touting as 'government access to company servers' and 'government tapping, recording and algorithmically analysing everything we do online'. I don't see much in the American press about the recent revelation that GCHQ in Britain is taking advantage of it's west European location by tapping all Internet data that flows through the UK, storing and sharing the data with the NSA and others, with few or no safeguards. Not only does this confirm the Internet tapping theory in my eyes but proves that data is not being stored or looked after responsively. In fact it's being actively shared and traded with other inelegance superpowers throughout the world. I wouldn't say I’m surprised but seriously considering never using email ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts