Talk:2013 global surveillance disclosures

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introductory section violates NPV standards[edit]

I just made a few grammar edits and added a source for the summary in the introduction, check it out: http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

I'm writing because the first section violates the NPV standard. First, as a technical matter, it is longer than many introductions and writes an entire narrative instead of summarizing.

The narrative in the introduction violates NPV because it pits Snowden and Greenwald against President Obama. It narrates events of one group after the other, as if they were locked in combat.

The NSA programs are bigger than one administration. Since the Patriot Act and before the government has had this power. It is an aggregious violation of NPV to weave this program and the leaks into this biased narrative.

This must be changed. I am writing here as a courtesy, putting faith in the open wikipedia to be consistent. I don't want to have to do it myself, because the whole point of wiki is to discuss...but there are so many trolls on this topic it is UNREAL...trolls stay away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.69.8 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a bit of a combat. Though it's bugger than Greenwald v Obama, it would be more correct to state it as an escalation of the liberty vs security debate. And it's bigger than just the NSA. It is mass surveillance on a global level and scale. Greenwald and Snowden play a role, in bring attention to the forefront on the NSA/GCHQ side of the issue. Snowden's documents thus far mostly from the late Bush administration to the present. It looks perhaps like the story is slanted that way, but it's just a consequence of the documents we have.
9/11 has played a significant role in the US/UK aspect. A whole host of articles in the History section speak to this. But one of the more fundamental driving forces is simple economics. The kind of equipment needed to surveil whole countries has gotten cheaper. The technology has gotten affordable.
I can summarize in one neutral, accurate and rather long sentence. "The 2013 mass surveillance disclosures refer to a series of disclosures, brought to the public attention, by Edward Snowden, and others, that the whole populations of many countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom are surveilled, either by The United States and its allies, by other governments, by their own governments, or by corporations." The sourcing is extremely difficult, however. I would have to cite easily 30-40 articles, each showing a piece of the puzzle. Or quote someone like Julian Assange, or Jacob Appelbaum who are hardly neutral (they happen to be right about this, however). I welcome suggestions on how to say this in a wikipedia-able format, I really am at a loss. --Paulmd199 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of title[edit]

I believe the title should be revised to something more objective than "scandal" which was reflect's an individual's opinion. I'm against the government here personally - but this could be changed to something more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnedfaceless (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest we change it to? -A1candidate (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosures sounds better I think. - == — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnedfaceless (talk • contribs) 19:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question of bias[edit]

As of now the very biased reactions of senior American officials are prominently displayed as "effects." The effects cannot be tabulated factually at this point - passing off the reactions of American officials involved in the scandals as fact seems very problematic. As it exists now I suggest that portions of the reactions to Edward Snowden that were not negative be moved into the "effects" section and the section be renamed "reactions."

Content ejected from Ed Snowden biography[edit]

I'm not sure I understand why it's necessary to have a huge chunk of content identical in most respects to what's in the biography. I copied over originally so that the biography could concentrate on biographical matters. But it seems that the sentiment there is that the person and the event are inextricably linked, and such a split is considered contrived and awkward. It's also likely that the bio will be moved to a namespace denoting "the event", even though there may be many discrete leaks. But there are already articles on each of the major leaks (PRISM, Tempora). I don't believe it's sound to argue that the content will not fork, because it's inevitable that will happen if the content remains. Because of the trend of evolution in what is currently the bio, it's more likely that this article will be deleted if there is the likely appearance of a POV fork. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I generally agree with you that only one page needs to have any specific piece of info - my main qualm is that, while you removed 40,000 bytes from here, you only added around 10,000 in the Ed Snowden page (I've not had time to compare the changes - I don't doubt you edited out some unnecessary stuff, but 75%?)
My other thoughts are that most of the stuff you have removed from this article, like the reactions of various countries to the revelations (Hague, Merkel, Hollande), and so on, are relevant to the revelations themselves and to the debate on spying in general, and not to the person of Edward Snowden. In his article, we should by all means have the whole extradition debate, even the grounding of Evo Morales' plane, but we shouldn't leave this article as empty as you left it.
We can quite easily have two clearly-labelled, even bolded, cross-referenced redirects between the two pages, perhaps even in the leads. After that, I believe Wikipedia editors are clever enough to know which piece of info is more relevant to which of the two articles.
I don't believe it's right to have the entire international firestorm on cyberspying and human rights that is currently going on being entirely on the Ed Snowden page... That would be similar to moving the entire Pentagon Papers article to the Daniel Ellsberg page. BigSteve (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2 points –
1. OhConfucius: OK, I understand the whole forking thing – however, you once again removed 40 KB, including an extra 3 KB added yesterday by A1Candidate. Now, I do trust that you're editing conscienstiously, however you did only add 10 KB to the Snowden page last week, and you did not replace the 3 KB from yesterday. Don't you think that you're cropping the information way too much? BigSteve (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. As per my arguments above, I believe the entire Edward_Snowden#Reactions section should be moved to this article. Though I'm willing to leave this discussion for now, while we're still actively writing the two articles. BigSteve (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insofar as I am aware, A1C's additions yesterday was isolated to the 'Effects' section. I did not touch that in the fork removal. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I just reinstated some stuff, thereby restoring the status quo ante as far as my content ejections are concerned. But as you guys are arguing that the revelations are larger than Snowden, I'd question why the final parts I reinstated are in fact necessary for the story – these are exclusively Snowden/Guardian snippets and are in the biography too. I'm not objecting to this as the chances of forking this are minimal. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex issue. Since the story is still currently developing, I'd say we carry on with the way you have done it - i.e. to keep adding most relevant stuff to the Ed Snowden article, just so that the story remains on one track, and, with hindsight (whenever that may be!), we see what needs to be split where. It still risks a fork, though, for people who do not notice the "Main article" link in the "aftermath" section. BigSteve (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

On another note – this has become such a huge international scandal, I am surprised it does not have its own name yet. The Guardian files it all under The NSA Files, so I believe something short such as 2013 NSA Leaks would be short and clear enough to be universally recognizeable. (It's a blue link because I've currently got it as a redirect to here). BigSteve (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA isn't the only intelligence agency having a major leak. GCHQ seems to be heavily involved too. And recent reports suggest that the French intelligence agency might also have secretly stored vasts amount of data "outside the law, and beyond any proper supervision". Perhaps a better name would be "2013 Intelligence agency leaks"? -A1candidate (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GCHQ have been doing it for years, in close cooperation with the NSA. Friends in Cheltenham have been telling me about a number of Americans working there even 30+ years ago whose jobs you only alluded to with the wink of an eye. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Mass surveillance leaks, or 2013 Mass surveillance disclosures, or 2013 Mass surveillance scandal? BigSteve (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Mass surveillance scandal seems the most appropriate. Circumscribing it to only "an NSA/USA issue" is wrong, since that mass surveillance was is against almost all the citizens (and the firms) around the world (EU in particular) 79.20.37.179 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to 2013 Mass surveillance scandal as suggested above -A1candidate (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find scandal to be Pov. 2013 puclic disclosures of mass surveillance activities would seem more neutral. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original title of the article and I dont mind changing it back if there's clear consensus to do so. -A1candidate (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"2013 mass surveillance disclosures" seems most appropriate to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand title and scope in light of WaPo stories[edit]

There are a couple of major Washington Post stories that need additional coverage somewhere on Wikipedia:

  • Gellman, Barton (June 16, 2013). "U.S. surveillance architecture includes collection of revealing Internet, phone metadata". Washington Post.
  • Timberg, Craig and Nakashima, Ellen (July 10, 2013). "Agreements with private companies protect U.S. access to cables' data for surveillance". Washington Post.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

These greatly expand the scope of what's known about the U.S. federal government's mass surveillance activities, and they're not attributed to leaks by Edward Snowden. In light of this:

  1. I retract my earlier opposition to the existence of this page, which I previously said was completely redundant with Edward Snowden.
  2. More importantly: These programs need their own pages.
  3. These programs, as well as Mail Isolation Control and Tracking, need to be added to this article.
  4. The title of this article should be changed to "2013 mass surveillance disclosures." "Scandal" is a loaded and nebulous term, particularly when it relates to a collection of related activities. This page should serve as a central point for those activities, and comments made about those activities (such as PRISM) belong on those specific pages unless they don't fit neatly into a box like that. "Disclosures" is better than "leaks" because the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program wasn't leaked, it was disclosed by the FBI in a court filing.

I have less time on Wikipedia these days, so I'm sorry I won't be able to contribute much in this effort. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - By making it broader, it includes the whole picture. I support your reasoning. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- I agree that the word "scandal" should be removed as being POV. It is not for Wikipedia to pronounce on whether or not something is scandalous. "Disclosures" is more accurate and more neutral. -- Alarics (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – I want to add some info to the discussion though. Bear in mind that the title was already moved (last week) from 2013 Public disclosures of surveillance and espionage activities – discussion here. I think "scandal" was chosen since the whole issue is a continuation of old disclosures, including sections of Cablegate and the NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07), which had been brushed under the carpet but now have re-gained relevance. Though, again, I am neutral on the matter of a rename. Also note that all of the programs do have their own articles, which are all listed here {{NSA surveillance}} – this template is currently added to most of their own pages, including Mail Isolation Control and Tracking, and appending it is an ongoing process as new stuff is published. I have already spoken to an editor who would prefer to keep most of the new stuff within the Ed Snowden article, whereas I think most of it is more appropriate in the 2013 mass surveillance scandal article (discussion here). So maybe that can be discussed with him as well if he decides to join this discussion himself. (Though that's a secondary issue which can be discussed once the rest of the stuff is sorted.) By all means add the links you mention above if you think they are not covered, though! BigSteve (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article?[edit]

Now, I don't want to make a million articles for topics that overlap too much, hence why I want to discuss this before creating one. But how about making a separate article for NSA mass surveillance programs, which would be different from the 2013 mass surveillance scandal in that it would exclude any Ed Snowden stuff or discussion of the media revelations/government reactions/international fallout, etc.

OR

To simply make a main section to this article named "NSA Spying programs" and discuss the NSA's methods themselves, before going on to the disclosures section.

I suggest this because nowhere is there a discussion of the general way in which the NSA spies with these newly leaked programs, but only on each separate program and on the fallout from the revelations. BigSteve (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestions are good and need to be discussed. There might even be a case for three articles being formed from this one: Mass surveillance, linking out to NSA mass surveillance, linking out to the Snowden scandal? But the article already links out to six other "main articles". So perhaps the risk of overlap is rather high. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US President and State Department remarks[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details from Thomas Andrews Drake[edit]

Who says the Germans don't have a sense of humor? German offers nature walk at NSA base, gets house call from the feds!?

These should be sources for the related articles on PRISM, Fairview, Blarney and Upstream.

  • "BLARNEY is to the international Internet space as PRISM is to the domestic."
  • “Upstream means you get inside the system before it’s in the Internet. In its pure form,”
  • Fairview: “It’s just a name, that at the highest level means to own the Internet.”
  • Fairview involves tapping international fiber-optic cables, to access the data. And that it may involve an agreement with telecom companies such as Global Crossing. (reference the Brazilian spying scandal)

http://www.dailydot.com/news/fairview-prism-blarney-nsa-internet-spying-projects/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the scandal really start in 2013? Or was it much earlier?[edit]

I have spent some time researching this subject, and have come to the view that what we describe here as the "2013 mass surveillance scandal" really began much earlier. Looking at the stories of Thomas Drake, Bill Binney, Russ Tice, Mark Klein, J Kirk Wiebe, and a few other less notables. What we see now is actually a culmination of a series of smaller scandals that preceded it.

Russ Tice describes how the NSA became a party to the wiretapping of lawyers and law-firms, Judges, Admirals, Generals, and senators and their spouses. Also, journalists and news organizations. He gives specific examples of Justice Samuel Alito, General Petraeus and then-senator Barack Obama. Note: The wiki article doesn't mention the names of others, but he did reveal them later, Post-Snowden[1] He asserts firmly that domestic warrantless surveillance extends to the content of calls and emails, and not mere metadata. He also believes, though is not certain that it was done at the bidding of the White House, and in particular the Office of the Vice President.

Drake and Binney along with J Kirk Wiebe, and Diane Roark revealed the existence of Stellar Wind, the Trailblazer Project, and the defunct ThinThread. Their story dates back to 2000 and spans more than a decade.[2] Binney and Drake and Wiebe have retained a lawyer, Jesselyn Radack who frequently is seen in interviews with them, and was a whistleblower in her own right, though the subject was not surveillance. Binney and Drake also assert that content, and not simply metadata is being collected.

Drake, Binney, and Tice, and Wiebe have each given several interviews post-Snowden. [3]

Mark Klein was just a technician at AT&T, he had no security clearance. But he was responsible for the wiring to, but not in, Room 641A.

The question I would like to pose for discussion is this: Should this article be renamed, expanded, merged, or left alone?

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: What I have mentioned above isn't even all of it. I had omitted Pinwale, revealed in 2009 to James Risen, by a still-anonymous source. Risen has just been ordered to testify, or face jail. [4] I have also omitted Mail covers, reported July third.[5]

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates one of the reasons (of several) why the article should be renamed to not include the word "scandal." Scandals last for years, they come and go, and they blur into other scandals. Particularly when, as here, the allegedly scandalous activity continues for years and years. If we were to merge this article in with, say, NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)‎ then we'd have a huge, sprawling morass. I thought the point of this article was to talk about a much more discrete thing, which was the disclosures that have occurred since June 2013 and the associated fallout. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative may be to expand the "See Also" section. Linking to NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)‎, and perhaps a few others. I also like the idea of omitting the word "scandal." Alternate titles, each suggesting a different scope.
  • 2013 Mass Surveillance: This would be a scope beyond NSA, and beyond Snowden. It would pick up the Le Monde story about the Prism of France and NYT story about Mail Covers. But would only focus on the present year, and I feel that the case will not end in January 2014.
  • List of Disclosures by Edward Snowden would be narrower, but not be limited to the present year.
There are considerations for each. Merging to the 2001-07 article would require a lot of forethought and planning to be done right. To present the story in a coherent manner. As it is, it's not as clean as it might be. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk&feature=player_detailpage
  2. ^ http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/surveillance/nsa-whistleblowers-bill-binney-a-j-kirk-wiebe
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNm_CkdDAaE
  4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/19/us-press-publishing-us-constitution-and-civil-liberties
  5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html

Twitter[edit]

It is interesting to note that Twitter is providing its public tweets to the Library of Congress. And announced this in a press release.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/
  2. ^ http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2013/files/twitter_report_2013jan.pdf
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/librarycongress/status/12169442690

More Testimony to come[edit]

Critics of NSA are invited to testify, in an upcoming hearing including Greenwald (via Skype).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/26/nsa-surveillance-critics-testify-congress

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re the speculation tag[edit]

"The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the search or seizure of a person's "papers or effects" without a court-ordered warrant based on probable cause that the person in question is planning or is guilty of an actual crime, and particularly describing what is to be seized. However, the US government has made strenuous efforts to prevent federal courts from ruling on whether the NSA's surveillance efforts comply with the Fourth Amendment.[speculation?]"

I think I can turn up articles outlining the various cases brought against the NSA, etc. The one that springs to mind immediately is Clapper_v._Amnesty_International. I'll get to it after I finish detailing the latest Snowden leak. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are, the EFF has a timeline that describes this issue in a clear and visual manner. One of the things that has stood out to me, in reading it is just how much more information Snowden's leaks have provided to the picture of domestic spying. I think can fix the problematic phraseology and source it. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a neutral source and it doesn't support the "aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge" language. In fact the NSA doesn't "seek to dismiss or challenge" any lawsuit, as these cases are handled by the DOJ. Back to the drawing board... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the "government" or DOJ? Quite honestly, this HAS been the historical stance since 9/11. Every time an attempt is made to challenge in court, the response has been "state secret" or "you can't sue because you can't prove it, nor can you discover the evidence needed to prove it." I can simply pick a neutral source that will say the exact came thing. The EFF timeline, nearest I can tell, is based directly on the documentary evidence. In that vein, Here's one: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/politics/supreme-court-fisa (clapper v amnesty), and it's hardly alone. It's one of those cases of the truth itself being biased. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Jewel, the NSA is a defendant, and as such has been asking for dismissal. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better to just say the federal government, since the DOJ represents the NSA. At the very least you should include a citation for each lawsuit. But I'm concerned about the use of the word "aggressively," which may not be supported by the sources. Every defendant in every lawsuit uses every defense they can think of to seek to have the suit dismissed. There's nothing particularly aggressive about that. Or noteworthy, for that matter. In my view the paragraph should be changed to say something simpler such as, these NSA programs have been the subject of a number of lawsuits, including X, Y, and Z. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit too sleep-deprived at the moment. Will ponder how best to tackle. I really am trying to be neutral. I really do back and read the source documents. In this case, it's not even a matter where it's POSSIBLE to cherry pick, most cases get dismissed at a much lower level, same reasons. The above are very nearly the only ones that have been fought all the way to the supreme court. There's not a body of cases where the gov't doesn't escalate to higher levels when they lose. As happens in other areas. It's one of the reasons I'm choosing the word "aggressively." --71.20.55.6 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't get to it today either.... --07:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.55.6 (talk)

DEA SOD program.[edit]

It seems that this ought to go somewhere, though it's not a Snowden leak.


  • Relies on NSA intercepts and wiretaps, among other sources. Including a database of telephone records
  • Tips from the SOD are then passed to agents.
  • ""Parallel Construction"
    • Subpoena domestic telephone calls
    • Field Interviews/** defendant debriefs
    • Request foreign tolls or subscriber info via the Attache office/MLAT

The above is used to launder the initial source by "legally" recreating what they already had. The true source is then kept OUT of the discovery process and is concealed from the defendant. And even kept from prosecutors whose job is to try the case. Convictions rely on the "guilty" allowing the evidence to be concealed from the defendant. Charges are sometimes dropped in cases where the defendant demands a trial in order to conceal SOD involvement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-nsa-idUSBRE9740AI20130805

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

--71.20.55.6 (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now connects to IRS. "Special Operations Division has the ability to collect, collate, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate information and intelligence derived from worldwide multi-agency sources, including classified projects," the IRS document says. "SOD converts extremely sensitive information into usable leads and tips which are then passed to the field offices for real-time enforcement activity against major international drug trafficking organizations."

The 2005 IRS document focuses on SOD tips that are classified and notes that the Justice Department "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight." While the IRS document says that SOD information may only be used for drug investigations, DEA officials said the SOD role has recently expanded to organized crime and money laundering.

According to the document, IRS agents are directed to use the tips to find new, "independent" evidence: "Usable information regarding these leads must be developed from such independent sources as investigative files, subscriber and toll requests, physical surveillance, wire intercepts, and confidential source information. Information obtained from SOD in response to a search or query request cannot be used directly in any investigation (i.e. cannot be used in affidavits, court proceedings or maintained in investigative files)."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807

--Paulmd199 (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gov't rationale[edit]

I don't see anything on the government's rationale (anti-terrorism) for this spy program. Some historical background would fill out this article. Kortoso (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. My understanding that wholesale domestic surveillance has its roots in the aftermath of 9/11. The desire to prevent another 9/11 has been a persistent meme. --71.20.55.6 (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald Brazilian Senate testimony[edit]

Some Key Notes

  • Greenwald has 15,000-20,000 documents. "very complete and very long"
  • Greenwald tweet: "At a hearing today of the Brazilian Senate on NSA, Senators borrowed Snowden masks from young activists & began wearing them to show support"
  • Not yet fully analyzed
  • Guardian working with organizations in Brazil and around the world to publish more documents.
  • Greenwald believes the main interest in Brazil is commercial and industrial. Energy and oil.
  • Reasserts that the US has the ability to collect the CONTENT of emails and calls in many countries. Not simply metadata.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/snowden-leaked-more-than-15000-secret-us-documents-greenwald-20130807-2re0w.html

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/364847114959863808

http://www12.senado.gov.br/noticias/materias/2013/08/06/greenwald-diz-que-espionagem-da-vantagens-comerciais-e-industriais-aos-estados-unidos

http://www.panoramabrasil.com.br/internacional/ha-mais-documentos-sobre-espionagem-feita-pelos-eua,-diz-greenwald-id112474.html

(Also Puting this message in the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures talk page)

--Paulmd199 (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video of full testimony. In Portuguese (Greenwald is fluent). (uncertain copyright)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phFGnz71nvc

--Paulmd199 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A summary, in English.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/new-us-spying-revelations-coming-from-snowden-leaks-journalist/articleshow/21664152.cms --Paulmd199 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article: N.S.A. Said to Search Content of Messages to and From U.S.[edit]

New Article in NYT

  • Content, not just metadata
  • No voice communications.
    • This would imply internet/email/IRC/and others ARE intercepted, however.
  • Source is identified as "intelligence officials" on one section, and in others a "senior intelligence official" is quoted.
  • Alludes to a "top secret" paragraph in disclosures by the Guardian (there is only one such)
    • In addition, in those cases where NSA seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target, NSA will employ either an Internet Protocol filter to ensure that the person from whom it seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information is located overseas, or it will target Internet leaks that terminate in a foreign country. In either event, NSA will direct surveillance at a party to the communication reasonably believed to be outside the United States. (exhibit A, pg 1, last paragraph) (emphasis mine)
  • Difficult to achieve without collecting everything. (internet communications packets take different paths, on different lines)
  • Non target communications are deleted within seconds.
  • If a person mentions a little known terrorist in an email, especially if it contains that person's email address, it is copied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/us/broader-sifting-of-data-abroad-is-seen-by-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The source is not Snowden.

--Paulmd199 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lavabit[edit]

Lavabit was shut down!--91.10.29.101 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Circle (software)[edit]

Silent Circle was shut down!--91.10.29.101 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silent circle is scaling back. No email. --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and scale of collection.[edit]

Thanks for putting that document in the further reading. Working out the math: 29.22 Terabyets per day is gathered, and about 730 Gigabytes is selected for review. --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Correct to Attribute NSA Status as the Prime Player of these Operations?[edit]

When rewriting the first paragraph, which was lacking in rhetorical power, I attributed the lead player status to the NSA. Was I correct? It seems to me that NSA is running the global operation with the other intelligence services, as well as ramping up domestic spying on US citizens, with the Patriot Act as its charter.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, NSA has been a player, but not the only one. We see them as the main player, because most of the documents have related to them. By virtue of that's what Snowden was able to obtain. It is worth noting that there is a whole alphabet soup of Intelligence agencies in the United States. I hesitate to call them the MAIN player. But for the moment, they are the most noticed. As for the Charter, The Patriot Act is only one piece, the others are the Fisa Amendments act, Protect America act, and Executive Order 12333. I have not had time to study the just released Legal justification for the phone records, but am sure it will mention Smith v Maryland.
I will get to explaining India in a bit. There is a lesser noticed series of events unfolding. One cannot exactly call it a coverup or scandal because the Indian Government has really been quite open about it. The gist is that India is in the process of hiring an Israeli company to build a dragnet domestic spying system of their own. It's not related to Snowden in any way, but Mass Surveillance it definitely is.
I'm still in the process of bulk writing, and need to add a bunch more cites. --Paulmd199 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Splaining why it is possible to track phones with battery removed[edit]

There are two scenarios that enable this to happen, sometimes.

  • Some phones have a second micro battery
  • Some phones have chips that can retain a charge and remain operational for a short time.

I will find additional cites. --Paulmd199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Paulmd199 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of RFID is realy NFC, not a RFID chip, it is the phones radio, no battery no NFC.60.242.97.120 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Court filing[edit]

  • No reasonable expectation of privacy in email.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy-email-lawsuit

  • Article doesn't mention this case: United_States_v._Warshak. Essentially the case held that a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails.

--Paulmd199 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA Map[edit]

this ought to enable me to revise and improve the current list

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/an-educated-guess-about-how-the-nsa-is-structured/278697/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me five bloody minutes to add sourcing![edit]

Before stomping on what i am in process of writing the sources are here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html and here

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/08/an-educated-guess-about-how-the-nsa-is-structured/278697/

thank you for your consideration.

--Paulmd199 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald (and the Guardian) becoming part of the story.[edit]

Mr Miranda, Greenwald's domestic partner detained for 9 hrs at Heathrow. Just a note to watch this side drama and see how it unfolds.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

--Paulmd199 (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation. Guardian editor describes past incident involving threats and destruction of hard drives and a laptop. Details on Guardian logistics w/ regard to Snowden leaks: involve a large number of couriers physically carrying documents back and forth. Including Mr Miranda, whose trip was paid for by the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters

Still watching to see how broadly the story expands before including in main article. --Paulmd199 (talk)

More articles[edit]

Too much for me to digest all at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmd199 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former Salt lake mayor Rocky Anderson calling for prosecution of those involved in bugging the Olympics. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56774366-90/anderson-communications-federal-government.html.csp --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transparancy website[edit]

Transparacy website

Official place for interested persons to see declassified NSA docs. Off to a good start. the 2011 minimization procedures, fisa court cases, etc.

http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/

--Paulmd199 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question of Sourcing of the Independent's Article[edit]

Snowden denies it was him...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base

--Paulmd199 (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent confirms that Snowden personally had nothing to do with the article, but stands by the claim that the Snowden leaks are the provenance of the information. Oliver Wright of the Independent also denies that the government was the source. He did not state how the newspaper, or the newspaper's source accessed the Snowden archive.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/media/2013/08/27/The-Independent-not-duped-into-publishing-story-on-UK-Mid-East-spy-station-.html

--Paulmd199 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian partners with New York Times[edit]

With regards to Snowden leaks. Look for upcoming articles there.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/23/guardian-news-york-times-partnership

--Paulmd199 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disclosures about other countries' surveillance[edit]

I see no mention of the fact that the disclosures also indicate that the NSA discovered the Chinese hacking the UN. I suggest organizing by country in order to create a place for this sort of material to be added.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is there: "Magothy = The EU embassy in Washington, DC. This embassy had its internal videoconferencing, and other areas of the computer network tapped. Both by the US, and by the Chinese. The US effort was conducted by the team working for the BLARNEY program.[68]"
I will consider how do reorganize my list. That kind of thing is a major deal, so it's not a "right this second" kind of thing.--Paulmd199 (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs to be linked from NSA page[edit]

This article is apparently not linked from the National Security Agency page and deserves prominent mention there. Marbux (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Marbux[reply]

Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove, Eclipsing N.S.A.’s[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html

The government pays AT&T to place its employees in drug-fighting units around the country. Those employees sit alongside Drug Enforcement Administration agents and local detectives and supply them with the phone data from as far back as 1987.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/782287/database.pdf Hemisphere Summary

  • The Hemisphere Project is coordinated from the Los Angeles Clearinghouse and is funded by ONDCP and DEA.
  • Hemisphere provides electronic call detail records (CDRs) in response to federal, state, and local administrative/grand jury subpoenas.
  • The Hemisphere database contains CDRs for any telephone carrier that uses an AT&T switch to process a telephone call.

--DrLee (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Lawful Intercept Overview[edit]

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/lawful_intercept/76LIch1.html

Lawful intercept is a process that enables a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) to perform electronic surveillance on an individual (a target) as authorized by a judicial or administrative order. To facilitate the lawful intercept process, certain legislation and regulations require service providers (SPs) and Internet service providers (ISPs) to implement their networks to explicitly support authorized electronic surveillance. The surveillance is performed through the use of wiretaps on traditional telecommunications and Internet services in voice, data, and multiservice networks. The LEA delivers a request for a wiretap to the target's service provider, who is responsible for intercepting data communication to and from the individual. The service provider uses the target's IP address or session to determine which of its edge routers handles the target's traffic (data communication). The service provider then intercepts the target's traffic as it passes through the router, and sends a copy of the intercepted traffic to the LEA without the target's knowledge.

--DrLee (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American or British English?[edit]

I really am not picky about which we use, but the article is a hybrid at the moment. IE: fiber (American) vs fibre (UK). Anyone have a preference? --Paulmd199 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is affecting both UK and USA, there is bound to be a mixture. That on top of the fact that most of the coverage is coming from a UK paper. At this time, I really don't think that it matters. That and being from neither country and having our own English spellings of our own. --2607:F8F0:C10:5017:3C82:4CFD:AAD8:CB81 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TURMOIL is not GCHQ, it is NSA[edit]

TURMOIL was exposed some years ago in the Baltimore Sun by Thomas Andrews Drake.

  • TURMOIL uses hardware acceleration to break encryption. The original slide says this. But an older document, below, alludes to "Stage 1 TURMOIL racks"

It is part of TURBULENCE,

One way to tell: the British slides have a Crown copyright notice. --Paulmd199 (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I was misled by the caption "this network diagram, from a GCHQ pilot program, shows how the agency proposed a system [...]". I've requested deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GCHQ_TURMOIL.svg. —rybec 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No biggie. The Secret codenames are meant to confuse. I've just finished watching the latest Snowden iBomb. Still digesting the info, but the program exposes something like 30-60 slides, much more of the of the presentation containing the SILVERZEPHYR slide (shown for 1-2 frames ea, I captured them anyway), there is a good overview of how everything fits in there. The slides contained in the video show that it's quite a massive operation, bigger than the story implies it is. The Story focuses on Petrobras, but it's really much bigger, once you see the screencaptures. A TON on BLARNEY, FAIRVIEW, OAKSTAR, etc. Overviews of how everything fits. I'll see what I can get uploaded in the next day or so. --Paulmd199 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large official release Sep 10[edit]

Rather too much for me to digest immediately, as I am still having fun with the Fairview documents and other slides that were in the background of the latest Fantiscico report, but making it known to other editors.

A great deal on the phone metadata program. FISC rulings, results of NSA end to end review alluded earlier....

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/927-draft-document

--Paulmd199 (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The EFF has a few more, and also theirs are in color and contain an OCR index.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/09/government-releases-nsa-surveillance-docs-and-previously-secret-fisa-court

There is enough information here to create a new page on the NSA Bulk Phone Metadata program. There are allusions to a bulk email metadata program here (and no, that's not prism, prism is a variety of content from certain ISPS, bulk means really everybody, or nearly). Wyden and Udall have alluded to its existence as well in the most recent statement.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-udall-statement-on-the-declassification-of-fisa-court-opinions-on-bulk-collection-of-phone-data --Paulmd199 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Plays Star Trek/ NSA Sends Letter to Its ‘Extended’ Family to Reassure Them That They Will ‘Weather’ This ‘Storm[edit]

--DrLee (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with this article[edit]

I have the following concerns about this article:

  • This is as much an infodump as it is an article. There's a massive over-reliance on bulleted lists and tables rather than prose. Many of these lists and tables provide no context to the reader. There's a ton of jargon. Take for instance 2013 mass surveillance disclosures#SIGADS, an 8-column table of SIGADS which doesn't even bother to explain what a SIGAD is.
  • There's a massive reliance on primary source documents. The article seems to fall into the trap of reporting on what's in these leaked documents instead summarizing what secondary sources have found to be significant. To take some random examples: "Cyber Hit Counts: no explanation has been provided in the source material." "Source document is low resolution, some sections cannot be reliably deciphered."

I'd like us to get this article right, but that entails writing an actual article, not a compilation of lists of documents, lists of codenames, lists of votes on amendments, etc. GabrielF (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disclosures are far from over, there are some things nobody (outside the NSA) understands, and we can't write about something which nobody understands until more slides are leaked. The article is obviously not perfect, but it is a new article under construction and the media disclosures are still ongoing, so you'll hopefully get a clearer picture once all the slides and documents are released. -A1candidate (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be basing articles on slides. These are primary sources. To quote WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The article needs to be based on what is in reliable secondary sources. GabrielF (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article should be and could be better. I think the general problems are described quite well here:
What would you propose to change/cut out? =Historical context= seems bloated and off-topic? Suggestions? --Atlasowa (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GCHQ Hacked Belgian Telecoms Firm[edit]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/british-spy-agency-gchq-hacked-belgian-telecoms-firm-a-923406.html http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2295895/gchq-hacked-belgian-telco-belgacom

-A1candidate (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana quotes[edit]

I deleted three sections about Diana [1] because there was nothing there to relate two of them (the landmines might be motive for something, but what? It's "WP:original research", or sounds like it. Wouldn't they have spied on her anyway?) and the other about the lawsuit for the NSA files was just an interim report about files already mentioned in another section. In general, this article is much heavier on quotes from the sources than a usual Wikipedia article... definitely this is a way to get it a bit closer to the usual style.

Further work to explain the situation in prose, with the argument being made being sourced, can still be good. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIGADs[edit]

What is the relationship between the SIGADs in the table here and SIGADs in general? Are only a small subset of the SIGADs relevant to the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures? (If so, is that because only a fraction of them have been disclosed, or because most of them are not about mass surveillance?) I'm looking for fundamentals like "why isn't the huge table here in SIGADs instead?" and whether SIGADs should be listed as the "main article" for the section (as I just added now) or whether that's inappropriate. Wnt (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that are here showed up in the background of the Brazilian Fantastico Petrobras video. They were shown only 3-5 frames per slide. The only exception is the entry about PRISM itself. I have no objection to moving them to the main Sigad article if you like, in the spirit of decluttering things. --Paulmd199 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what they mean enough to have an opinion yet. Mostly I want this to be clearer and better organized, however that may be. :) Wnt (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia article. It shouldn't be a repository for primary source documents. If we want to host copies of documents we should do it at WikiSource or, for screengrabs, Wikimedia Commons. If all we know about a topic is that a page containing the name was briefly flashed on screen then it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. GabrielF (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to be WP:BOLD and remove the table. This is primary source reporting that provides no context to the reader. GabrielF (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry to remove something without consensus, instead of letting us expand and organize it in a better way. -A1candidate (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of latency, can we please move this section to the talk page rather than hiding it in an HTML comment while we discuss the issue? At 240,000 bytes this page is already several times larger than the recommended size (see WP:PAGESIZE). There really is no need to add to the reader's load time by making them download 8k of hidden text. GabrielF (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off Mass surveillance in the United States[edit]

A big chunk of this article is introduction from pre 2013, some of which is also covered in Mass surveillance#United States. I've taken the liberty of copying both those sections into Mass surveillance in the United States and stirring vigorously. I think it should be a goal here to very sharply reduce the pre-2013 content not directly related to recent disclosures, per the article title, with all the content being preserved and moved to that new article.

So far I've taken everything up to the "2013 Disclosures" header, and the only thing I pitched out from that was the photo and caption about spying on the G-20 in London by British intelligence, because that's not the U.S. Still, it illustrates that it would be good for this article to set aside a little section to note disclosures about non-U.S. surveillance made in the 2013 batch, of which I'm sure there are a few. Thus, this article's role is not strictly to be a more detailed sub-article of that one, though it certainly it should be to a considerable extent. Wnt (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSA iphone location services.jpg[edit]

I've nominated it for deletion. —rybec 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass surveillance industry[edit]

A large section about the surveillance industry was removed by User:GabrielF, perhaps it may be a better idea to discuss it first -A1candidate (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an error on my part. I am sorry. I meant to remove the pull quote described in the section below. GabrielF (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth is coming" pull quote[edit]

A1Candidate has added a pull-quote to the beginning of the article saying the following: "Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped." This large pull-quote, which breaks the flow of the page, gives the impression that we are making a value judgment about Snowden and his actions. It does not add anything meaningful to the reader's understanding but it does give the appearance that we are advocating a particular viewpoint. The pull quote should be removed. GabrielF (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of civil liberties and international law section[edit]

The section "Violation of civil liberties and international law" is extremely problematic

  • The very title states that these incidents are "violation[s] of civil liberties and international law". Are they, or is it the opinion of the editor that they are?
  • The style of the section - with a bulleted list of bold allegations (e.g. Detention without charge, Destruction of evidence) is inappropriate. The term "destruction of evidence", for instance, has a legal meaning. Does a reliable secondary source actually describe this as destruction of evidence? Neither of the two cited sources use that term.
  • Are all of these things actually violations of civil liberties or international law? I have removed the bullet point on the editing of an interview transcript. Please show me a reliable secondary source that describes this incident as a violation of civil liberties and international law.GabrielF (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It represents the general consensus among almost all respected human rights groups. And its just the tip of the iceberg. -A1candidate (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India among top targets of spying by NSA[edit]

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-among-top-targets-of-spying-by-nsa/article5157526.ece?homepage=true

-A1candidate (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entry to US denied for Ilija Trojanow[edit]

Der Spiegel wrote that Ilija Trojanow, a writer, had his US entry denied for no stated reason after he criticized the NSA. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely on topic[edit]

It is obvious straight from the lead that the article's content does not actually stick to the topic as designated by its name. It often deviates into presentation of the mass surveillance issue in general, highlighting at length prior revelations. There are now 2 separate new articles, Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom and Mass surveillance in the United States, and I think a great deal of this article should go there, unless it is already there, in which case this one ought to be trimmed.Axxxion (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that some of the information, in fact quite a bit, is already in Mass surveillance in the United States. On that article's talk page I've argued that we should consider having the various Mass surveillance articles really focus on mass surveillance or we should rename some of the articles to be simply Surveillance ... rather than Mass surveillance ... No decision has been made. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this article should become part of either the "Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom" or "Mass surveillance in the United States" articles. Mass surveillance, like the Internet, is a global phenomenon. Signals intelligence grew from a focus on "enemy" communications during the two world wars to include much broader surveillance activities. It seems clear that the AUCANZUKUS signatories collectively developed secret mass surveillance systems because of the trans-border nature of intelligence gathering. What Snowden revealed was not something unknown. His significance was that he brought documentary evidence to public light. It wasn't just information about surveillance of U.S. citizens. We know that ECHELON was carrying out most of the same activities, as was PRISM and that these secret programs represented a continuous evolution of mass surveillance globally. So I think that the article should put Snowden into a historical frame. I don't mean to imply that we couldn't tighten it up, though... Sunray (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, my understanding is that "ECHELON" and "PRISM" are code words that were successive names for the collaborative intelligence programs of the "five eyes." Of course, because of the nature of the agreements, the existence of such programs was denied. Nevertheless, the nature of the surveillance increasingly entered the public realm from the 1980s on, culminating in Snowden's revelations. Sunray (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loose section[edit]

Find it hard to understand what a bulky section headlined "International cooperation" is doing in this article. It essentially elaborates on Echelon (mentioned above several times) and contains just a bit of info related to 2013 at the end. Do we need that lengthy list of eavesdropping agencies in there? Axxxion (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it appears quite illogical as it reads: "most of the information sharing has been performed by the so-called "Five Eyes",[69] a term referring to the following English-speaking western democracies and their respective intelligence agencies:" and then follows a list of about a dozen countries including Switzerland!Axxxion (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the section is way to bulky. I also think that listing all the countries that have been under surveillance by the "five eyes" is excessive. However, and interestingly, the so-called five eyes expanded to include several other countries (essentially, most of NATO). I do think that listing the various countries involved is appropriate, though, and the section—with the flags, and all—has a different look and feel than the narrative sections above. This may not be an entirely bad idea. Would it be possible to clean the section up, leaving that more graphic look, but trim it down? Sunray (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background - Echelon and the EU[edit]

I like the editing you have done on this section, Axxxion. It goes a long way towards improving the focus of the article. One thing, though: You removed the paragraph about the EU Committee report on ECHELON. There are three reasons why I think that this would be important to the historical context: First of all it was the first confirmation by a government of the existence of a mass surveillance system. This made deniability on the part of the members much harder. Secondly, it identified the scope of the surveillance. Thirdly, it showed how the system had expanded with the advent of the internet and other technological changes. Here's the section I'm referring to:

By the 1990s the ECHELON system was capable of intercepting satellite transmissions, public switched telephone network (PSTN) communications (including most Internet traffic), and transmissions carried by microwave. A detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in his 1996 book "Secret Power". While the existence of ECHELON was denied by some member governments, a report by a committee of the European Parliament in 2001 confirmed the program's use and warned Europeans about its reach and effects.[1] The European Parliament stated in its report that the term "ECHELON" was used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicated it was a signals intelligence collection system capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally.[2]

Note that this was during the period during which the public had access to some information about the ECHELON system, but governments were still denying its existence. The European Committee report blew the doors off that when it described the scope of the system as being: "capable of intercepting satellite transmissions, public switched telephone network (PSTN) communications (including most Internet traffic), and transmissions carried by microwave." The last sentence puts this in terms that just about anyone can relate to: "... it was a signals intelligence collection system capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally." This is pretty much what Snowden confirmed with documentary evidence—but it was more than ten years before Snowden. I think that is significant. Sure it repeats (and amplifies) what is in the lead, but bear in mind that a well-written lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article. Sunray (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the paragraph, but remain open to discussion if anyone has a concern. Sunray (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objections, but the article is in effect focused on Echelon, while there is a separate article on the subject, let alone multiple articles about mass surveillance irrespective of the 2013 revelations. Does this make sense? Also, when reading the article, it is often difficult to understand if a particular bit is from the 2013 trove, or had it been revealed before, perhaps officially, which is a very different kettle of fish. Thus all these notable persons spied on, I gather this knowledge comes from the officially declassified FBI and CIA docs? Axxxion (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the emphasis on Echelon is undue, when you realize that it is effectively the same system of signals intelligence that Snowden revealed. ECHELON was big news when it was confirmed, over a decade ago (and before 9/11), that these agencies were actually spying on civilians. When ECHELON was discovered, the code name was evidently changed, but it is the same system, in effect evolving in capability. The description of ECHELON seem appropriately relegated to the "Historical background" section. It is also consistent with the requirements of summary style, wherein an article is briefly summarized and a link provided to the main article. Sunray (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada spied on Brazil's Ministry of Energy[edit]

Latest release from Snowden's stash:

-A1candidate (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added material with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's secret briefing on PRISM in March 2013[edit]

"Talking points about what effect PRISM would have on the privacy of Australians was considered too sensitive for public release..."

-A1candidate (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added with this edit. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists: need to re-arrange[edit]

Since the "Reactions" section was moved from Edward Snowden a few days ago, and placed below the many lists, tables and photo galleries existing here, this article is in need of some attention. If information in a list or gallery can be easily textualized, it should be, because this article has become very difficult to navigate and read. Perhaps a good solution for now would be to move all space-consuming lists, etc., underneath the bulk of text, as per guidelines. petrarchan47tc 20:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning some housecleaning and organizing... the article consists of mostly graphs and lists, in addition to being peppered with images of seemingly every person who has commented on the matter. It doesn't seem to make sense that an image of Princess Diana is included in this excessively long article, so I've begun by removing these images related to Five Eyes (I intend to add this information back in text):


Political figures targeted by the Five Eyes
Always support removing any images: meaningful information must be carried by words, not comics. Also, as I already said here, the article makes very hard reading: just impossible to understand what some bits are about. Tried to address this problem by renaming some sections, but it is difficult as the article is so expansive, bulky and occasionally downright incomprehensible. I think, when naming sections, we must bear in mind the name of the article itself, plus the name of a section: if this together makes sense and is topical, then it is OK. Many sections' headlines still do not make sense (e.g. "Mass surveillance industry" -- what is it? It looks like a name of a separate article).Axxxion (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

This is regarding User:Axxxion's removal of the section "Preventive measures", which I do not think is justified. I have nothing against renaming that section or moving it elsewhere, but I dont think we should remove it completely since the entire section is part of the disclosures, after all. -A1candidate (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alcandidate may well have a point about the relevance and validity of the section's content, but then please come up with a name that would make some sense within the context of the article. Not only is the title meaningless, but so is the text within the article's context: it does not explain what those assertions therein have to do with the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures.Axxxion (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Axxxion, the text is as clear as it is. I think its good that you've tidied up the article a bit, but your recent edits are highly questionable and not written in an encyclopedic tone. At this point, I think its better to wait for the opinions of other editors first. -A1candidate (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put the section under "2013 Disclosures by category" as this is probably what it is supposed to be -- not sure though, as the section's as clear as mud. Changed the headline accordingly. If I am wrong, please make clear what you are saying; simply saying "the text is as clear as it is" is not the way to discuss. Nothing is clear in it, nor is it in some of the sources it refers to: the Hindu paper fails to provide proper dating of the bunker revelations (apparently unrelated to Snowden's trove).Axxxion (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some words are also very funnily spelt such as "subseptable". Did not correct it as am not sure that subsection ought to be there at all.Axxxion (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That particular sub-section is indeed unsourced and very poorly written (not by me), so thanks for pointing it out. On the other hand, your changes to the lead introduction are inappropriate for the following reasons:

1) "Stolen" isn't a neutral term, but even if it is, it is a misleading term to use here. You can "steal" a handbag but you cant "steal" an electronic document. Its still there after you make a copy of it.

2) Public statements made by US government officials regarding surveillance issues are repeatedly shown to be false. If you want to quote a government official, at least include his name so that we know who is lying to the public. Having said that, please remember that at least a considerable portion of these surveillance activities are unlawful

3) The 2013 disclosures are closely related to the history of mass surveillance in the United States. I highly recommend you to read that article, but even if you don't, please do not prevent others' from informing themselves.

Snowden's disclosures, of which only a fraction is disclosed so far, is only a fraction of what we do/will know, which in turn, is only a small, minute fraction of the entire truth.

There are much, much more things to come.

-A1candidate (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not care whose statements are false and care even less about "the entire truth" (please read Wikipedia:Verifiability), but NPOV demands that all major views and opinions be presented (also any contributor talking about the necessity to reveal "the entire truth", would strike me as having a problem with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, let alone as being quite childish). That the documents were stolen by Snowden is probably one of the very few indisputable facts in this whole article: and surely we talk of theft of information, not tangible objects. And the lead must explain how these data had got into the public domain. If you can suggest a better term for this sort of theft, please go ahead. Also, see my comments at the bottom of this page.Axxxion (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE "The 2013 disclosures are closely related to the history of mass surveillance in the United States". Absolutely agree, and therefore the article has a link thereto as well as the summary thereof in the "Background" section. But this article's topic is different and it is not a US topic, by the way; the lead must stick to the topic and not deviate into expounding the history laid out in a different article.Axxxion (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, free to choose which statements you want to believe. If you think Snowden is lying, I would be the last to stop you from doing so, but I do recommend that you read Wikipedia's policies carefully before citing them in your arguemnts, because as far as I know, all the content here can be verified thanks to Snowden's published disclosures, among others.

On the other hand, nobody is able to "reveal the entire truth" - that is certainly not something I wish to do - because there is simply way too much top secret information to be ever revealed in a short lifetime. Like I've already said, Snowden's disclosures are just a tiny fraction of the story.

To claim that the documents were "stolen" by Snowden is incorrect, because electronic documents can't be "stolen". They can only be copied. Unless you want to give the reader an impression that the U.S. government has lost access to all NSA documents due to Snowden's "theft", I would advice you not to use such misleading terms here.

I think its fair to say that the documents were leaked, and if you want to add that they were "ilegally leaked", I wont stop you as long as you don't distort the actual turn of events. Otherwise, Snowden simply downloaded documents which he gave to Greenwald and the media, whether legally or not.

This is not a topic limited to the U.S. alone, but the U.S. government certainly plays a key role.

Also, for the sake of neutrality, nobody is stopping you from adding the government's defense of its surveillance activities. But please don't add it right at the beginning of the article. If you must add it to the lead section, my advice would be to add it at the end, rather than the beginning. After all, this article is about Mass surveillance disclosures; we are not writing about the Government's defense of mass surveillance.

-A1candidate (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NSA Hacked Email Account of Mexican President[edit]

"In the case of Mexico, the US is interested primarily in the drug trade (priority level 1) and the country's leadership (level 3). Other areas flagged for surveillance include Mexico's economic stability, military capabilities, human rights and international trade relations (all ranked at level 3), as well as counterespionage (level 4). It's much the same with Brazil -- ascertaining the intentions of that country's leadership ranks among the stated espionage targets. Brazil's nuclear program is high on the list as well..."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-hacked-email-account-of-mexican-president-a-928817.html

-A1candidate (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 21, 2013 - Le Monde[edit]

Fighting 'Big Brother[edit]

"Le Monde has been working with Glenn Greenwald and his team since the month of August."

"Le Monde has formed a team of a dozen journalists who have focused mainly on two areas: the history of the NSA's surveillance programme Prism, recapitulating some of the elements already published in the foreign press working with Mr. Greenwald; and the surveillance of France by American Intelligence Agencies about which little has filtered to date."

(en) Fighting 'Big Brother' - 21.10.2013 - fr:Natalie Nougayrède (Editor-in-Chief) - Le Monde

LectriceDuSoir (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

France in the NSA's crosshair : Phone networks under surveillance[edit]

"This espionage is listed under the programme US-985D. The precise explanation of this acronym has not been provided, to date, by the Snowden documents nor by the former members of the NSA. By way of comparison, the acronyms used by the NSA for the same type of interception targeting Germany are US-987LA and US-987LB. According to some sources, this series of numbers corresponds to the circle referred to by the United States as the 'third party', to which belong France, Germany but also Austria, Poland or again Belgium. 'The second party' concerns the English-speaking countries historically close to Washington: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – this group is known by the name the 'five eyes'. 'The first party' concerns the sixteen American secret services of which today the NSA has become the most important, according to a senior official from the French Intelligence community..."

(en) France in the NSA's crosshair : phone networks under surveillance - 21.10.2013 - fr:Jacques Follorou und Glenn Greenwald - Le Monde

-A1candidate (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

France in the NSA's crosshair : Wanadoo and Alcatel targeted[edit]

"The NSA covers sectors considered to be 'strategic' by the American government in the domains of security, politics and economics...""

"In the course of a list of 35 IP addresses chosen to demonstrate the interest of this wider-ranging quest, we discover that the NSA is interested in almost everything to do with wanadoo.fr and alcatel-lucent.fr.""

(en) France in the NSA's crosshair : Wanadoo and Alcatel targeted - 21.10.2013 - fr:Jacques Follorou und Glenn Greenwald - Le Monde

-A1candidate (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Ambassador to France Summoned Over New Snowden Leaks[edit]

http://world.time.com/2013/10/21/u-s-ambassador-to-france-summoned-over-new-snowden-leaks/

-A1candidate (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New slides for PRISM / Upstream program[edit]

Le Monde disclosed new slides, provided by Glenn Greenwald, coming from the famous "PRISM/US-984XN Overview" - See Page 4, 7 and 8 : Le Monde - Documents

LectriceDuSoir (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slides also available on Cryptome.org :

NSA PRISM - See pages 4,7 and 8.
NSA Boundless Informant
NSA Wanadoo Und Alcatel

LectriceDuSoir (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 22, 2013 - Le Monde[edit]

The NSA wiretapped French diplomats in the US[edit]

"There is a two page memo dated 10 September 2010. It is an internal technical document classified as 'top secret', intended for NSA operators who use the interception tools of the powerful American agency on a daily basis. It enables technicians not to get lost in the maze of codes and acronyms in use in the biggest intelligence agency in the country. But hidden behind the apparently harmless line-up of figures and abbreviations we find the centre of the electronic war."

"We discover here the proof of the existence of the GENIE programme, one of the most topical in the NSA: the remote delivery of spyware "to computers. On American soil, this mode of interception is called US-3136, for targets outside American it is known as US-3137."

"The document specifies the techniques used to spy on the communications of the French diplomats: 'Highlands' for pirating computers using remotely delivered cookies; 'Vagrant' for capturing information from screens; and finally PBX"

"A document dated August 2010, sheds light more specifically on the centres of interest of the United States through this remote espionage. Issued by the Signal Intelligence Directorate (SID), it states that the confidential information thus stolen from foreign chanceries, and in particular from France, played a major role in obtaining the vote, on 9 June 2010, of a resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran for not respecting its obligations concerning its nuclear programme."

A new Top Secret document is disclosed by Le Monde with short descriptions of NSA "Close Access SIGADS" : HIGHLANDS, VIAGRANT, OCEAN, LIFESAVER, BLACKHEART, DEWSWEEPER, RADON, DROPMIRE...

The NSA wiretapped French diplomats in the US - 21.10.2013 - fr:Jacques Follorou - Le Monde

Document also available on Cryptome.org : NSA Close Access SIGADS


October 22, 2013 - Corriere della Sera[edit]

America Snoops on Italian Emails, Text Messages and Conversations[edit]

http://www.corriere.it/13_ottobre_22/america-snoops-on-italian-emails-text-messages-and-conversations-93018016-3b0a-11e3-95f2-9a7a296f615f.shtml

-A1candidate (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of events?[edit]

I think there is a need for a way to get an overview of all the Snowden events in chronological order. I would like to create that. Maybe it could be a seperate article called 'List of news resulting from Snowden leaks' and be formatted as a table. The columns would be something like a date, a very short summary, link to original article at news media, perhaps a direct link to leaked documents/powerpoints. What do you think? --Troels.moller (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an example of what it might look like in my sandbox. Tell me what you think. Troels.moller (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The current list of disclosures at 2013_mass_surveillance_disclosures#Disclosures probably needs to be re-organized. Arranging it in a chronological manner would be a good way to start doing so. -A1candidate (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We could just re-organise that list of disclosures as a sortable wikitable, that way it can both be sorted chronologically as well as by news outlet like it is now, depending on the users needs. -Troels.moller (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

I see the earlier discussion of name above. I was wondering if the word "mass" is suitable, since some of the disclosure concern specific targets, for example the Mexican president, Angela Merkel or other world leaders as we have seen today. These are technically not mass surveillance. -Troels.moller (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the disclosures do reveal mass, indiscriminate collection of data from "millions of Americans". It seems like there's mainly two types of disclosures:
1) Mass, indiscriminate collection of data
2) Specifically targeted operations concerning Very Important Persons
Perhaps a better name would be "2013 espionage and mass surveillance disclosures"?
Or better still - "2013 global surveillance scandal"
-A1candidate (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the name has a problem as "mass surveillance" is not a neutral term: the neutral technical term for this is signals intelligence. Unfortunately, the active contributor hereto, A1candidate, in my opinion, has an odd interpretation of WP:NPOV as seen from his comment above as well as his edits to the lead. "disclosures do reveal mass, indiscriminate collection of data" is a mere interpretation of the content of unconfirmed leaks. Axxxion (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IN fact, even the source provided by A1candidate above, says "suggest" and not "do reveal". The article, the way it is, presents essentially a one-sided interpretation - in breach of NPOV.Axxxion (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Axxxion, the NSA's mass surveillance has already been confirmed by the NSA's Director himself. -A1candidate (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, Axxxion. This is a very emotional subject. I too am here because I think it's a scandal, but we should keep things neutral. How about a simple title like "2013 surveillance disclosures", that title can refer to both Mass surveillance (which I think is a neutral term in itself btw) and Tailored Access Operations. Alternatively, to reflect the nature of the surveillance (ie. internet data colleciton, NOT surveillance cameras etc.) we could call it "2013 signals intelligence disclosures" or something like that. -Troels.moller (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A1candidate, I cannot see in your source any mention of "mass surveillance".Axxxion (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Surveillance is how it's known

Wikipedia seems to go with the term "mass surveillance"; I'm very uncomfortable with the name change here. Perhaps an RfC is on order for more input from the community. Exs: Mass surveillance Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom Mass surveillance in the United States petrarchan47tc 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In media: Japan Times TIME (US) RT (Russia) Yahoo (US) Reuters

It's troubling that not only has this article diverged from using popular lexicon for the topic, but that it still does not have any redirects for the most commonly used terms like "Snowden leaks", which even the US president uses. Today I had to reinsert the term "mass surveillance" to the intro, because it had somehow become "global signals intelligence-gathering activity". According to Wiki guidelines, we need to stick with wording as it's presented in "mass" media. petrarchan47tc 19:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of article[edit]

This article is getting quite large. According to Greenwald we till haven't seen the majority of the Snowden leaks. Should we fork the content in this article into separate articles? As discussed above, I would like to make a better list of the leaks. I am still considering if it would be best to include it in this article (perphaps replacing the media disclosures section) or make a separate article. -Troels.moller (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these leaks continue into 2014 then one possible option would be to create the 2014 mass surveillance disclosures. I think its best to replace the current table before it keeps growing bigger and bigger, IMHO -A1candidate (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of reducing the size of the article has also been suggested at ITN candidates. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC) - in fact as a pre-requisite for ITN coverage on the Front Page of the monitoring of the phone calls of European leaders.[reply]

This article is now the 28th longest on Wikipedia. (see Special:LongPages). The vast majority of the longer articles are lists, not prose. At 328k it is over 3 times the length at which Wikipedia guidelines suggest that a page "almost certainly should be divided". See Wikipedia:Article size. GabrielF (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now number 16. petrarchan47tc 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has any article ever been locked to prevent it getting any longer? We might have quite a hill to climb here.. and we're still only on our gentle Sunday stroll. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now the 21st longest on Wikipedia. Of the top 20 only two are prose. The rest are lists. GabrielF (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe folks think there's a prize at stake. You might suspect there was a "humongous" amount of information that had suddenly come to light! But there's quite a problem when an article is too big to get a mention on the front page? I see above that there have been a few previous suggestions: here, here and here. Maybe this section could be moved off to its own little bonfire? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to rename the article as "2013 global surveillance disclosures". Granted, several sections need to be re-written as prose, but a huge historical event warrants a correspondingly detailed and well-written summary that includes international aspects such as foreign partners aiding the NSA and GCHQ (see below) -A1candidate (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject matter here deserves a very substantial article. But do you think turning tables into prose will make the article smaller? The material in those tables would easily make a normal-sized article in their own right. And we still don't seem to know when "revelations" will come to an end (if ever?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that this is an important event. But this article is 50% longer than our article on World War II. It is longer than our article on the United States! The solution here is to use this article as a summary and to provide the exhaustive detail in more specific subarticles. For instance, the current article provides a lot of detail on the recent declassification of surveillance that occurred decades ago. Most of that is peripheral to public debate on surveillance. It can be summarized briefly here and then moved to its own subarticle. GabrielF (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you GabrielF. That's actually quite a shock - well two shocks actually. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. The article has become a joke and an object lesson to illustrate what can happen if people who have hijacked it continue unhindered to go on in breach of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. An eloquent comment is just above: "a huge historical event warrants a correspondingly detailed and well-written summary" is a utterly hilarious. Absolutely everything that has been revealed this year, in substance, was already published in official reports by special EU investigative committees in 2001 (See ECHELON). So who remebers this now? This is a pure journalistic sensation and nothing else, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Also, a great deal of the article digital space are idiotic, totally irrelevant pics.Axxxion (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps it isn't just "pure journalistic sensation .. no encyclopedic value whatsoever", since as you yourself say "who remembers this now?" The fact that ordinary people, all over the world, now know all about it, and not just those who read investigative reports in 2001, is what makes it more significant. Or else are you telling us that Snowden has told us nothing new at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, what you have said right above in effect boils down to assertion of value of sensations and scandals as they attract mass (shall I say plebs') attention. No denying that, but again the question is what is WP and should WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion be abandoned? Also, no denying that the docs Snowden stole and made public do tell something new but nothing groundbreaking, unless you are Angela Merkel, who had apparently assumed (very naively, if her indignation is to be taken seriously) that the US gov would implicitly trust a person from the Stasi-run GDR, while Stasi's spymasters in Putin's Russia are still very much alive and kicking. I am not here in defence of the US gov: like most people over the world and inside the US, I find it very hard to understand what they are up to, or after. I think they have long stopped understanding it themselves, as the government has become such a monstrous bureaucracy that it is solely busy with finding justification for its own survival and expansion. But also, I believe these trite revelations from Snowden, whipped into scandals, camouflage and distract attention from the real question about governments' ends by focusing attention on the technical means it employs. I could assure you, I know from personal experience that so called security services are engaged in much more horrendous intrusive activity vis-à-vis their own citizens who are not even suspected of anything untoward (and above all, vis-à-vis rank-and-file employees of same services) than mere monitoring and collecting billing records. This is all loads of baloney compared to what is actually taking place.Axxxion (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime in the future, it may make sense to split everything into the following new articles:
1) Historical_background -> Origins of global surveillance
2) Summary of revealed surveillance details -> Global surveillance
3) Timeline_of_disclosures -> Timeline of the global surveillance disclosures (Perhaps one article for 2013 and a separate one for 2014)
4) Fallout and Aftermath -> Impact of the global surveillance disclosures
-A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reasonable plan. But how long can we afford to wait? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another approach might be to focus on what Snowden has leaked, as opposed to the year leaks happened. This article may be too large in scope, as it speaks to surveillance prior to 2013, and although it is focused on Snowden's leaks, the article does not make this clear, but expects this to be surmised (for some reason). On the other hand, one benefit to using the year could be that, because new leakers [along with new (non-Snowden) leaks, presumably] are emerging, the information would fit easily here. petrarchan47tc 00:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems pretty constructive to me. Scanning the comments, they seem to fall into two categories: 1) Changes we can make now and 2) changes to be considered for the future. I thought that the reframing of the title to "2013 Global surveillance disclosures" was useful in reflecting the fact that, although Snowden was an American working for NSA, the disclosures he made were related to a global phenomenon (mass surveilance) that has been growing since World War II. It seems to me that this should become the root article. I would suggest a further name change to "Global surveillance disclosures" (dropping the date). As has been pointed out the disclosures in 2013 were part of a contining pattern of disclosures and there will be more to come in subsequent years. I would suggest that we begin moving towards creating this as a main article on global surveillance disclosures by choosing sections that could become sub articles and writing summaries in this article. A1 has suggested some new articles (that could be sub articles of this one). I think that we should use A1's suggestions to create an outline of the future article and also identify changes we can make immediately to reduce the article's unwieldy size. What do others think?

In the category of changes we can make right now, I see several long sections that could be made into sub pages immediately. For example, "Timeline of disclosures" and "2013 Disclosures by category" could be made into sub pages (potentially reducing the size of the article by about half). Thoughts? If there is no disagreement on this suggestion, I will make the changes right away. Sunray (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but Wiki has yet to address Snowden-specific leaks in any article, and that includes Snowden-specific fallout, which media had termed "The Snowden Effect" (Google it). I have experience working on the "BP oil spill" article, where the most popular terms for the event, when plugged into a search engine, will lead to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The article stuck to the one event, and did not meander to other spills by BP or to other spills in the Gulf of Mexico. This article about mass surveillance however, has not followed a path with which I am familiar. Snowden is almost an afterthought, and no redirects with his name, in fact no redirects whatsoever, lead to this page AFAIK. This is not in keeping with how Wiki is supposed to operate, and most importantly, it is not in keeping with RS. RS has never used the term "global surveillance". Do we have the right here, as Wiki editor nobodies, to make up a new term and introduce it into the lexicon? Have we even established how Snowden leaks fit into this larger issue? Global surveillance may indeed be a brilliant new term and lead to a wonderfully informative new set of articles - but let's not ignore the fact that we still do not have a proper article dealing with Ed Snowden's leaks and the fallout. I would imagine that 2 articles would be needed to sufficiently cover that subject. So it looks like we have a few issues on our hands: how to cover global surveillance; how to cover Snowden's leaks specifically, including details of them as they emerge, and the resulting changes to policy, relationships between nations, etc. ("Snowden effect"). petrarchan47tc 00:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there could be an article dealing specifically with Snowden's disclosures. There is a section of the Edward Snowden article that summarizes the disclosures, (see Edward Snowden#Media disclosures), but perhaps there should also be an article or sub-article. Sunray (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, this article was originally meant to be specific to Snowden's disclosures and fallout, from my understanding. This article has morphed since its inception and we are again in need of a 'Snowden fallout' article. petrarchan47tc 01:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian media[edit]

US spying on our neighbours through embassies[edit]

"The United States is tapping telephones and monitoring communications networks from electronic surveillance facilities in US embassies and consulates across east and south-east Asia, according to information disclosed by intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden..."

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-spying-on-our-neighbours-through-embassies-20131029-2wcvl.html#ixzz2jK5IvN7Y

-A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Australia spies on its neighbours[edit]

"Australia's electronic spy agency is using the nation's embassies to intercept phone calls and internet data in neighbouring countries, according to new information disclosed by intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden and a former Australian intelligence officer..."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/revealed-how-australia-spies-on-its-neighbours-20131030-2whpg.html#ixzz2jK5VFn1x

-A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think these should be added? and if so where? - Reaction, other countries? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They could be added to the section under 2013_mass_surveillance_disclosures#International_cooperation, although it may be wiser for us to wait until all these disclosures are over before adding excessive details to an already bloated article. Then again, by now it should be clear that Snowden's leaks have triggered a significant historical event that justifies a large article, albeit with prose instead of lists.
-A1candidate (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europeans collaborated with the UK on mass surveillance[edit]

Seems like yet another reason to rename the article as "2013 Global surveillance disclosure(s)":

"Edward Snowden papers unmask close technical cooperation and loose alliance between British, German, French, Spanish and Swedish spy agencies..." (As well as the Dutch, Spanish, Italian, and probably every other Western spy agency)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden

-A1candidate (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, except that there is a large amount in the article that has nothing to do with "2013"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That, in a nutshell, could be a good starting point for deciding how to divide this article. We need to clearly delineate the topic of the article to begin with. petrarchan47tc 00:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Germany[edit]

Germany seems to be the hot spot right now for disclosures fallout. From McClatchy today: News report charges U.S. with conducting illegal operations from German soil petrarchan47tc 01:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on the NSA[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thank you. —rybec 18:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography revelations[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference online.wsj.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference EP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "British intelligence 'birdwatchers spied on Nelson Mandela's hideout'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  4. ^ "Nelson Mandela 'was spied on by MI6 birdwatchers'". The Times. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ "NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana". The Washington Post. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ David Hencke and Rob Evans (6 August 1999). "US holds secret files on Diana". The Guardian. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Dafna Linzer. "IAEA Leader's Phone Tapped". The Washington Post. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  8. ^ "UK 'spied on UN's Kofi Annan'". BBC. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  9. ^ PATRICK E. TYLER. "Ex-Minister Says British Spies Bugged Kofi Annan's Office". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference clintonbankimoon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. "Diplomats or Spooks? How US Diplomats Were Told to Spy on UN and Ban Ki-Moon". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 27 August 2013.
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference nytimes.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ a b BRADLEY BROOKS. "Report: NSA spied on leaders of Brazil, Mexico". Associated Press. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  14. ^ "Leaders of Mexico and Brazil Rebuke U.S. for NSA Snooping". TIME. Retrieved 21 September 2013.
  15. ^ Philippe Naughton. "Turkey summons UK charge d'affaires in G20 spying row". The Times. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  16. ^ "G20 surveillance: why was Turkey targeted?". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  17. ^ "GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 September 2013. • Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_global_surveillance_disclosures&oldid=1196650530"