Talk:2010s global surveillance disclosures

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

Invitation to help craft a proposal[edit]

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions of political leaders[edit]

I'm not comfortable with the "Reactions of political leaders" section. It feels like editorializing on our part, placing out of context quotes after a barrage of factual disclosures, with the reader inferring obliqueness from the leaders as a result. The quotes date from different times and do not reflect the ongoing narrative structure of the rest of the article. We would be better served by offering a brief summary of their reactions, like the succeeding paragraph. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from an NSA employee[edit]

A user claiming to be from the NSA left the following comments on the feedback page of this article:

It is still not clear why the media choose to disclose specific information. Is the media acting as a filter..essentially censoring what they release? Do the media have everything from Snowden? How do they decide what to report? I am as suspicious of the motives behind a media release as I am of the NSA.

I'm bringing this to attention because such issues are being repeatedly raised on the feedback page by multiple readers, but I cannot find much reliable sources to address them adequately. Perhaps someone may wish to look into it? Doing so would probably help to alleviate the concerns of NSA people stumbling upon these disclosures.

-A1candidate (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editors of the US Guardian, the New York Times, as well as Barton Gellman from the Washington Post - all of whom received a large portion of the Snowden docs - spoke at the Columbia School of Journalism on January 30. You can view the panel discussion here. What I gathered, and can share from memory FWIW, was that all of the editors who received docs agreed with Snowden's demand that nothing released would hurt the US, but that it be solely in the public interest. The Guardian editor went into detail about this process: literally combing though, line by line, any pending report with the sole purpose of determining whether it would do harm, and whether it would benefit the public. Barton Gellman stresses that all of the news organizations have worked directly with government officials with every revelation to help make these determinations. He said as always, when reporting on matters of national interest, government officials are consulted before a story goes to print. He said the Post may not always choose to suppress a story based on the gov't recommendations, but they often do. Do listen to these people in their own words tell the story of this release.
  • Is the media acting as a filter? Yes, absolutely. Snowden is involved with none of this process.
  • Do the media have everything from Snowden? Snowden has nothing, he has given all of his copied documents to the press.
  • How do they decide what to report? This is well-covered in the video. (It's a very interesting story.)
Per Glenn Greenwald
"Snowden "had only sought to alert people that information they thought was private was being exploited by US intelligence agencies...Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States...But that's not his goal".petrarchan47tc 05:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From a review of the Columbia panel:
"Noting varying degrees of government pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, Guardian US editor Janine Gibson and New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson stressed that respecting the right of news organizations to report on sensitive materials was in the government's interest as well, since otherwise the material would simply find its way out in a completely haphazard way without regard for any journalistic responsibility, which was also the outcome Edward Snowden hoped to avoid." petrarchan47tc 21:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The short and sweet answer: whatever makes Anglo intelligence services more unpopular, or could potentially make them more unpopular depending on what the reporter reads into what he's looking at, gets reported. Because this result coincides with the "public interest."--Brian Dell (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it doesn't look like this feedback was from a NSA employee, or even claims to be. It says, "I am as suspicious of the motives behind a media release as I am of the NSA." It came from a shared IP address used by many civilian federal government workers. Jonathunder (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split content: Timeline of global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)[edit]

Hi all, I noticed Timeline of global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) is now a separate article. To prevent parallel content prone to drift and divergence, the content here (Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)#Timeline) should probably be replaced with a succinct summary and redirect. This is an ongoing story and it would be confusing and redundant to have two mostly identical treatments. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations - GCHQ[edit]

From Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept petrarchan47tc 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bild[edit]

I removed some claims based on unnamed sources in the German tabloid Bild. I do not believe that Bild meets WP:RS. The wikipedia article on Bild says: "Bild has been known to use controversial devices like sensational headlines and invented "news" to increase its readership." In addition, Bild has come up on RSN and all three editors who responded to the thread opposed its use. See [1]. GabrielF (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bild. GabrielF (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally agree that we should avoid tabloid sources such as Bild, I think there are circumstances in which doing so is warrated. So far, Bild seems to have a good track record when it comes to reporting on these surveillance disclosures. Its headlines may appear to be sensationalized, but I do not see any attempts to distort or misrepresent the facts. According to Der Spiegel, the German govt. has even confirmed that an exclusive report related to these disclosures by Bild is factually accurate. If I may briefly quote from Der Spiegel: "...a claim made by a mass-circulation newspaper that Germany's army knew about Prism in 2011 is, in fact, true..." -A1candidate (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to return the copy per A1's note. Gandydancer (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, s/he beat me to it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If another source is able to provide independent confirmation, then there isn't an issue. However, I don't believe that we should accept Bild as a reliable source on the basis of one report. The National Enquirer broke the story that John Edwards had an affair. We would never accept a report in the Enquirer cited to unnamed sources on a similar matter.GabrielF (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NSA's surveillance of Merkel's aides has been independently confirmed by Snowden himself. -A1candidate (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Reuters covered it, it's perfectly acceptable to do so here. I've replaced also at Thomas de Maizière, where it is being repeatedly removed. petrarchan47tc 23:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A1candidate - your link does not "independently confirm" the specific claims in the Bild report. Snowden simply raises the likelihood that other government officials were monitored, he does not cite a specific number of people and he does not list any names.
Petrarchan: Reuters repeated the claim from Bild without any independent factchecking. The fact that a reliable source repeated a claim without verifying it does not make the report reliable. GabrielF (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on FRA[edit]

Explain to me how a comment about the FRA being allowed to "wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic" in 2009 -- briefly, I might add, only for 11 months -- "adds much needed context to the text" on an agreement between the FRA and NSA signed in 2004, in a document leaked in December 2013.

When the agreement was signed, the FRA was not allowed to "wiretap all telephone and Internet traffic", and when the document was leaked this was also not allowed. The leak also came well after the debate on change in legislation. So please, how in the world is a change in legislation 2009, lasting for only 11 months, relevant here? --Gavleson (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Have it your way. Keep it there, but I have expanded on the legislative change, providing more context. Gavleson (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law Enforcement Information Exchange[edit]

I am not convinced that the new material on the Law Enforcement Information Exchange is appropriate for this article. Material added here:diff This was not a leak, it looks like all of the information in the article was available on the NCIS's website or on other publicly available websites such as USASpending.gov. It's not clear to me that anything in the cited article is new or is a "disclosure". It's not a secret program if they brief the ACLU in advance.GabrielF (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSA admits it is reading emails, texts & listening to calls[edit]

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Gen. James R. Clapper sent a brief letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in which he admitted that agents of the National Security Agency (NSA) have been reading innocent Americans’ emails and text messages and listening to digital recordings of their telephone conversations that have been stored in NSA computers without warrants obtained pursuant to the Constitution.

ECI was not excluded from Snowden Documents.[edit]

I'd like to take a moment to correct a myth, that Snowden did not get ECI, he did. Contrary to the statements made by the Guardian, and often repeated, the Snowden disclosures do contain several documents that are ECI - Exceptionally controlled information. Exactly how many documents are ECI in the overall cache, I do not know, but at least two have been released.

The first is the floorplan of the EU embassy in New Pork originally published with the Der Spiegel story "Codename 'Apalachee': How America Spies on Europe and the UN" , the map is no longer at Der Spiegel's webpage, but is archived here. The classification string is "TOP SECRET//COMINT-ECI RCT//NOFORN"

The second is a few paragraphs of the STELLARWIND report on pages 32-34. These were classified "TS//SI-ECI//NF".

A third document contains a somewhat cryptic reference to a known ECI compartment under BULLRUN. Page 3 of this document contains the string "TE-VPN PIQ Blade", PIQ is shorthand for PICARESQUE, which is listed in the BULLRUN classification guide. --Paulmd199 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

> >Exclusive: Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSALihaas (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NSA in Philippines[edit]

Australian spies secretly monitor phone calls in the Philippines: Edward Snowden disclosure petrarchan47tc

from List of Frontline (PBS) episodes, add United States of Secrets?[edit]

CAPRI OS[edit]

CAPRI OS and TURTLEPOWER are new revealed codenames covering post-processing (possibly decryption but the slides don't guarantee this) of VPN traffic. Do we need an article per new codename - what's the general position. Obviously this is only just revealed so we are quite early into the information for this stuff.

Relevant links from secondary sources: http://streaming.media.ccc.de/relive/6258/ , http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nsa-documents-attacks-on-vpn-ssl-tls-ssh-tor-a-1010525.html

--Philipwhiuk (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DAPINO GAMMA[edit]

I no longer edit in this article space, but we need a new article on DAPINO GAMMA. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret[edit]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden

This should be included. Ich901 (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’[edit]

and another one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa Ich901 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GCHQ spied on Amnesty International, tribunal tells group in email[edit]

and again another one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/01/gchq-spied-amnesty-international-tribunal-email Ich901 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography[edit]

It would be really nice to have some books pointed at the end of the article, for reading more about the disclosures...--MisterSanderson (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dick pic program" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dick pic program and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 25#Dick pic program until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where to add about a new detail in Snowden's case?[edit]

According to a new book, US asked British spy agency to stop Guardian publishing Snowden revelations https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/31/edward-snowden-nsa-gchq-guardian-book. Where can I add this in the wikipedia article? (Ravi Dwivedi (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Link for British in opening paragraph[edit]

The link for "British" when talking about the Five Eyes member countries, links to the British Empire wikipedia article rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland article. Which would be more relevant given how the paragraph is talking about current (or 2013) member nations of the Five Eyes. Joey474 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 September 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present) → 2010s global surveillance disclosures – I think it is impossible to give this event a specific end date, but I would argue that it has ended. This was primarily about the Snowden document archive and some news organisations have destroyed their archive because enough has been reported. I'd certainly be open for a different title instead of the one I'm proposing, I mainly think "(2013-present)" is bad. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. SilverLocust 💬 22:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections, and rationale for move request seems reasonable. -- dsprc [talk] 23:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010s_global_surveillance_disclosures&oldid=1216895424"