> According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.
Could refer to queries on accounts/targets that have already been approved. In that sense, it's not much different from a traditional wiretap...once it's in place, the government investigators want the ability to monitor it continuously...the difference in this context is that this "wiretap" encompasses Internet activity, which may require active querying beyond passive listening.
Could well be. (Though I'd assume that as long as a "virtual wiretap" is in place on an individual the NSA gets a firehose of everything which happens to that user account (or at least everything the FISA order permits) and then just filters out whatever doesn't interest it.) For my part I wouldn't be surprised if "The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises" just turns out to mean "The connection between the on-site server and Fort Meade is protected by SSL" (and probably dedicated fibre). To someone looking at the NSA as the bad wolf here it sounds like an odd thing to emphasise, but from the perspective of an actual NSA agent the security of these off-site servers handling top-secret material (in an environment full of highly-technical leftists and libertarians!) must be an obvious concern. Just for a start, you wouldn't want anyone at Google other than the appointed lawyers taking a look at what you're requesting surveillance on... But that's just a guess of course.
> According to a more precise description contained in a classified NSA inspector general’s report, also obtained by The Post, PRISM allows “collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,” rather than directly to company servers. The companies cannot see the queries that are sent from the NSA to the systems installed on their premises, according to sources familiar with the PRISM process.
Could refer to queries on accounts/targets that have already been approved. In that sense, it's not much different from a traditional wiretap...once it's in place, the government investigators want the ability to monitor it continuously...the difference in this context is that this "wiretap" encompasses Internet activity, which may require active querying beyond passive listening.