棱镜项目 / PRISM – （全文）中英文词条融合

中文词条原文链接（无法从中国内地访问）：点击这里访问。
英文词条原文链接（无法从中国内地访问）：点击这里访问。

本文基于英文词条的线索，并补充部分来自中文词条的内容。辽观搬运时进行了必要的合规化处理，以使其能够在中国内地上传。

维基百科（Wikipedia）是美国维基媒体基金会的互联网百科项目（点击这里了解更多），其内容可能受到立场、信息来源等因素影响，请客观看待。正文内容不代表译者观点。

辽观提供的翻译仅供参考。文中可能包含无法从中国内地访问的链接。

辽观所搬运的词条与原维基百科词条同样遵循CC-BY-SA 4.0协议，在符合协议要求的情况下您可以免费使用其内容（包括商用）。

封面图片：PRISM计划的标志。图片来源：NSA, US government; prism photograph:Adam Hart-Davis

在其他平台发布的部分

第一部分：发布于今日头条

第二部分：发布于今日头条

第三部分：发布于百度百家号

0. 概述

辽观注：此标题是我们搬运、整合过程中添加的。

棱镜计划（英语：PRISM）是一项由美国国家安全局自2007年开始实施的绝密级网络监控监听计划。[1][2]该计划的正式名称为“US-984XN”。[3][4]

根据报导，泄露的文件中描述PRISM计划能够对即时通信和既存资料进行深度的监听。[5]许可的监听对象包括任何在美国以外地区使用参与计划公司服务的客户，或是任何与国外人士通信的美国公民。[5]国家安全局在PRISM计划中可以获得电子邮件、视频和语音交谈、影片、照片、VoIP交谈内容、文件传输、登录通知的数据，以及社交网络细节，并透过各种联网设备，如智能手机、电子式手表等各式联网设备对特定目标进行攻击。[5]综合情报文件《总统每日简报》中在2012年中的1,477个计划里使用了来自棱镜计划的资料。[6]

关于PRISM的报道，是在美国政府持续秘密要求威讯向国家安全局提供所有客户每日电话记录的消息曝光后不久出现的。[7][2]泄露这些绝密文件的是国家安全局合约外包商员工爱德华·斯诺登，于2013年6月6日在英国《卫报》和美国《华盛顿邮报》公开。[8]

图片题注：Recreation of boundless information global heat map of data collection from its snapshot from 2007 data. The color scheme ranges from green (least subjected to surveillance by the NSA) through yellow and orange to red (most surveillance by the NSA).
参考译文：无边界信息全球热点图数据采集的重现，以2007年的数据快照为基础。颜色从绿色（受到NSA监视最少）到黄色和橙色再到红色（受到NSA监视最多）。
图片来源：Rezonansowy-自己的作品 本文件衍生自：Boundless Informant data collection – DNI.jpg

PRISM is a code name for a program under which the United States National Security Agency(NSA) collects internet communications from various U.S. internet companies.[1][2][3] The program is also known by the SIGAD US-984XN.[4][5] PRISM collects stored internet communications based on demands made to internet companies such as Google LLC and Apple under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to turn over any data that match court-approved search terms.[6]Among other things, the NSA can use these PRISM requests to target communications that were encrypted when they traveled across the internet backbone, to focus on stored data that telecommunication filtering systems discarded earlier,[7][8] and to get data that is easier to handle.[9]
参考译文：PRISM是美国国家安全局（NSA）开展的一个项目代号，该项目通过向美国各大互联网公司收集互联网通信数据[1][2][3]。该项目还以SIGAD US-984XN的代号为人所知[4][5]。PRISM根据对互联网公司（如Google LLC和Apple）提出的要求，收集存储的互联网通信数据，以便提供与经法院批准的搜索词匹配的数据，这是根据2008年《外国情报监视法修正案》第702条的规定进行的[6]。除其他用途外，NSA可以利用这些PRISM请求来针对互联网骨干传输时已加密的通信进行监控，关注之前电信过滤系统丢弃的存储数据[7][8]，并获取更易处理的数据[9]。

PRISM began in 2007 in the wake of the passage of the Protect America Act under the Bush Administration.[10][11] The program is operated under the supervision of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court, or FISC) pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).[12] Its existence was leaked six years later by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, who warned that the extent of mass data collection was far greater than the public knew and included what he characterized as “dangerous” and “criminal” activities.[13] The disclosures were published by The Guardian and The Washington Post on June 6, 2013. Subsequent documents have demonstrated a financial arrangement between the NSA’s Special Source Operations (SSO) division and PRISM partners in the millions of dollars.[14]
参考译文：PRISM项目始于2007年，在布什政府颁布《保护美国法案》之后展开[10][11]。该项目在美国外国情报监视法庭（FISA法院，或FISC）的监督下运行，依据外国情报监视法（FISA）[12]。该项目的存在在六年后被NSA承包商爱德华·斯诺登泄露出来，他警告称大规模数据收集的程度远超公众所知，并包含他所称的”危险”和”犯罪”活动[13]。这些披露由《卫报》和《华盛顿邮报》于2013年6月6日发布。随后的文件显示，NSA的特殊来源行动（SSO）部门与PRISM合作伙伴之间存在着数以百万美元计的财务安排[14]

Documents indicate that PRISM is “the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports”, and it accounts for 91% of the NSA’s internet traffic acquired under FISA section 702 authority.”[15][16] The leaked information came after the revelation that the FISA Court had been ordering a subsidiary of telecommunications company Verizon Communications to turn over logs tracking all of its customers’ telephone calls to the NSA.[17][18]
参考译文：文件表明，PRISM是”NSA分析报告中用于原始情报的主要来源”，并且它占据了根据FISA第702条授权获取的NSA互联网流量的91%”[15][16]。此次泄露的信息是在曝光FISA法院曾命令电信公司Verizon Communications的子公司提交跟踪所有客户电话记录给NSA之后发生的[17][18]。

U.S. government officials have disputed criticisms of PRISM in the Guardian and Washington Post articles and have defended the program, asserting that it cannot be used on domestic targets without a warrant. Additionally claiming the program has helped to prevent acts of terrorism, and that it receives independent oversight from the federal government’s executive, judicial and legislative branches.[19][20] On June 19, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama, during a visit to Germany, stated that the NSA’s data gathering practices constitute “a circumscribed, narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people.”[21]
参考译文：美国政府官员对《卫报》和《华盛顿邮报》的文章中对PRISM的批评提出了异议，并为该项目进行了辩护，声称在没有授权令的情况下不能用于国内目标。此外，他们还声称该项目有助于阻止恐怖主义行为，并接受联邦政府的行政、司法和立法部门的独立监督[19][20]。2013年6月19日，美国总统巴拉克·奥巴马在访问德国期间表示，NSA的数据收集做法构成了”一个有限制、狭窄的系统，旨在保护我们的人民”[21]。

1. 棱镜项目的媒体曝光 ｜ Media disclosure of PRISM

Further information: Global surveillance disclosure
更多信息：全球监控的曝光

Edward Snowden publicly revealed the existence of PRISM through a series of classified documents leaked to journalists of The Washington Post and The Guardian while Snowden, who was an NSA contractor at the time, was visiting Hong Kong.[1][2] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.[1][2]

参考译文：爱德华·斯诺登曾是美国国家安全局的一名承包商，他在访问香港期间通过一系列泄露给《华盛顿邮报》和《卫报》记者的机密文件公开揭示了PRISM的存在[1][2]。这些泄露的文件中包括41张幻灯片，其中有四张在新闻文章中发表[1][2]。

The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker’s notes in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that “98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft”.[1]
参考译文：这些文件确定了几家科技公司作为PRISM计划的参与者，包括微软在2007年、雅虎在2008年、谷歌在2009年、Facebook在2009年、Paltalk在2009年、YouTube在2010年、AOL在2011年、Skype在2011年和苹果在2012年[22]。《华盛顿邮报》审查的简报文件中演讲者的备注显示，“98%的PRISM产出基于雅虎、谷歌和微软”[1]。

The slide presentation stated that much of the world’s electronic communications pass through the U.S., because electronic communications data tend to follow the least expensive route rather than the most physically direct route, and the bulk of the world’s internet infrastructure is based in the United States.[15] The presentation noted that these facts provide United States intelligence analysts with opportunities for intercepting the communications of foreign targets as their electronic data pass into or through the United States.[2][15]
参考译文：幻灯片演示指出，世界上大部分的电子通信经过美国，这是因为电子通信数据往往遵循最经济的路线而不是最直接的物理路线，而且世界上大部分的互联网基础设施都位于美国[15]。演示指出，这些事实为美国情报分析师提供了拦截外国目标通信的机会，因为它们的电子数据在进入或经过美国时会被拦截[2][15]。

Snowden’s subsequent disclosures included statements that government agencies such as the United Kingdom‘s GCHQ also undertook mass interception and tracking of internet and communications data[23] – described by Germany as “nightmarish” if true[24] – allegations that the NSA engaged in “dangerous” and “criminal” activity by “hacking” civilian infrastructure networks in other countries such as “universities, hospitals, and private businesses”,[13] and alleged that compliance offered only very limited restrictive effect on mass data collection practices (including of Americans) since restrictions “are policy-based, not technically based, and can change at any time”, adding that “Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications”,[13] with numerous self-granted exceptions, and that NSA policies encourage staff to assume the benefit of the doubt in cases of uncertainty.[25][26][27]
参考译文：斯诺登随后的披露包括政府机构如英国的GCHQ也进行大规模拦截和追踪互联网和通信数据[23]，德国将此描述为“如若真实，真是噩梦般的”[24]。他还声称美国国家安全局进行了“危险”和“犯罪”的活动，通过“黑客攻击”其他国家的民用基础设施网络，如“大学、医院和私营企业”[13]。他还声称合规性对大规模数据收集实践（包括美国人）的限制作用非常有限，因为限制“是基于政策而不是技术，并且可以随时改变”，并补充说“此外，审核是粗略、不完整的，很容易被虚假的辩解所欺骗”[13]，并存在很多自我授权的例外情况，NSA的政策鼓励员工在不确定情况下假定怀好意[25][26][27]。

1.1 幻灯片 | The slides

Below are a number of slides released by Edward Snowden showing the operation and processes behind the PRISM program. The “FAA” referred to is Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (“FAA”), and not the Federal Aviation Administration, which is more widely known by the same FAA initialism.
参考译文：以下是爱德华·斯诺登发布的一些幻灯片，展示了PRISM计划的操作和流程。这里提到的“FAA”是《外国情报监视法修正案法案》（FISA修正法案）第702节，而不是更为广为人知的联邦航空管理局（Federal Aviation Administration），它们都使用了相同的FAA首字母缩写。

图片题注：Cover slide of the US Federal Government’s data collection program PRISM.
参考译文：美国联邦政府数据收集计划PRISM的封面幻灯片。

图片题注：PRISM: Introduction
参考译文：PRISM项目介绍

图片题注：Slide showing companies participating in the PRISM program and the types of data they provide.
参考译文：幻灯片展示参与PRISM项目的公司以及它们提供的数据类型。

图片题注：PRISM: Dates When PRISM Collection Began For Each Provider
参考译文：PRISM：每个服务提供商开始PRISM数据收集的日期

图片题注：Slide illustrating PRISM’s tasking process
参考译文：幻灯片展示PRISM的任务分配过程。

图片题注：Slide illustrating PRISM collection dataflow
参考译文：幻灯片展示PRISM数据收集的流程。

图片题注：A slide illustrating how PRISM cases are named.
参考译文：幻灯片展示PRISM案件的命名方式。

图片题注：Slide illustrating how to search PRISM’s counterterrorism database
参考译文：幻灯片展示如何搜索PRISM的反恐数据库。

图片题注：A week in the life of Prism. Published first in O Globo, Since rebroadcast on Brazilian TV
参考译文：《Prism一周生活》。首次发表在《O Globo》，后在巴西电视台重播。

图片题注：Slide fragment mentioning “upstream collection”, FAA702, EO 12333, and references http://yahoo.com explicitly in the text
参考译文：幻灯片片段，提到“上游收集”、FAA702、EO 12333，并在文本中明确提到http://yahoo.com。

图片题注：FAA 702 authority；Collection only possible under FAA 702 Authority；FAA702 Operations, and map
参考译文：FAA702授权；只有在FAA702授权下才可能进行收集；FAA702操作和地图。

图片题注：FAA702 Operations, and map. The subheader reads “Collection only possible under FAA702 Authority”. FAIRVIEW is in the center box.
参考译文：FAA702操作和地图。副标题写着“只有在FAA702授权下才可能进行收集”。FAIRVIEW位于中心方框中。

图片题注：PRISM Slide. Collection only possible under FAA702 Authority STORMBREW (probably)
参考译文：PRISM幻灯片。只有在FAA702的授权下，才可能进行收集，可能是使用STORMBREW（可能）。

图片题注：Tasking, Points to Remember. Transcript of body: “Whenever your targets meet FAA criteria, you should consider asking to FAA. Emergency tasking processes exist for [imminent /immediate ] threat to life situations and targets can be placed on [illegible] within hours (surveillance and stored comms). Get to know your Product line FAA adjudicators and FAA leads.”
参考译文：任务分配，要记住的要点。正文的文字记录：“每当您的目标符合FAA的标准时，您应该考虑要求FAA。紧急任务分配过程适用于威胁到生命的情况，目标可以在几小时内（监视和存储通信）被放置在[无法辨认]中。要了解您的产品线FAA裁决者和FAA负责人。”

The French newspaper Le Monde disclosed new PRISM slides (see pages 4, 7 and 8) coming from the “PRISM/US-984XN Overview” presentation on October 21, 2013.[28] The British newspaper The Guardian disclosed new PRISM slides (see pages 3 and 6) in November 2013 which on the one hand compares PRISM with the Upstream program, and on the other hand deals with collaboration between the NSA’s Threat Operations Center and the FBI.[29]
参考译文：法国报纸《世界报》披露了来自2013年10月21日的“PRISM/US-984XN概述”演示文稿的新幻灯片（请参阅第4页、第7页和第8页）。英国报纸《卫报》于2013年11月披露了新的PRISM幻灯片（请参阅第3页和第6页），其中一方面比较了PRISM和上游计划，另一方面涉及了美国国家安全局威胁行动中心与联邦调查局之间的合作关系。

2. 项目本身 | the Program

PRISM的前身是小布什任内在九一一事件后的恐怖分子监听计划（Terrorist Surveillance Program）。在当时这个计划曾遭到广泛批评，且其合法性因未经过外国情报监控法庭（Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court）批准而受到质疑，[9][10][11][12]但之后的PRISM则得到了该法庭的授权令。[13]在奥巴马任内，国家安全局持续运作PRISM。[5]

PRISM计划在2013年6月3日首次被《华盛顿邮报》和《卫报》对外揭露；[14][5]两家媒体获取了与PRISM有关的秘密文档。这些文档指出，数家科技公司参与了PRISM计划，包括（按加入项目的时间）微软（2007年）、雅虎（2008年）、Google（2009年）、Facebook（2009年）、Paltalk（2009年）、YouTube（2010年）、Skype（2011年）、美国在线（2011年）以及苹果公司（2012年）。[15]此外，Dropbox也被指控“即将加入”这项计划。[14]

在泄露的秘密文档内的一页幻灯片中，显示了两种数据来源：Upstream（另一个监听项目的代号）和PRISM。“Upstream”项目在承载互联网骨干通信内容的光缆上安装分光镜，复制其通信内容；PRISM则是从上述美国服务提供商的服务器直接进行收集。[16]

PRISM让情报机构能对实时通信和存储在服务器上的信息进行深入监视。[5]任何使用上述服务商的美国境外客户及与国外人士通信的美国公民都是该计划允许的监听对象。[5]国家安全局经由PRISM获得的数据包括电子邮件、视讯和语音交谈、视讯、照片、VoIP通话、文件传输、和社交网络上的详细信息[5]。其中98%的PRISM结果是基于来自雅虎、Google和微软提供的数据。[14]2012年间的《总统每日简报》内共引用了1,477项来自PRISM的数据。[6]

PRISM的年度花费约为2000万美元。[13]

PRISM is a program from the Special Source Operations (SSO) division of the NSA, which in the tradition of NSA’s intelligence alliances, cooperates with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s.[1] A prior program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program,[30][31] was implemented in the wake of the September 11 attacks under the George W. Bush Administration but was widely criticized and challenged as illegal, because it did not include warrants obtained from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[31][32][33][34][35] PRISM was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[15]
参考译文：棱镜计划是美国国家安全局（NSA）特殊源运营（SSO）部门的一个项目，在NSA的情报联盟传统下，自上世纪70年代以来与多达100家受信任的美国公司合作。之前的一个项目，恐怖分子监视计划，在九一一袭击事件后由乔治·W·布什政府实施，但因为没有从外国情报监视法庭获得授权而受到广泛批评和质疑。而棱镜计划是经过外国情报监视法庭授权的。

PRISM was enabled under President Bush by the Protect America Act of 2007 and by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which immunizes private companies from legal action when they cooperate with U.S. government agencies in intelligence collection. In 2012 the act was renewed by Congress under President Obama for an additional five years, through December 2017.[2][36][37] According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 “specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant” when one of the parties is outside the U.S.[36]
参考译文：棱镜计划是在2007年的《保护美国法案》和2008年的《外国情报监视法修正案》的支持下由布什总统启动的。该法案使得私营公司在与美国政府机构合作进行情报收集时免受法律诉讼的约束。2012年，奥巴马总统下，国会将该法案延长了五年，直到2017年12月。据《注册》报道，2008年的《外国情报监视法修正案》“明确授权情报机构在没有获得授权的情况下，在一方位于美国之外的情况下，监视美国公民的电话、电子邮件和其他通信长达一周”。

The most detailed description of the PRISM program can be found in a report about NSA’s collection efforts under Section 702 FAA, that was released by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) on July 2, 2014.[38]
参考译文：有关棱镜计划的最详细描述可以在隐私与公民自由监督委员会（PCLOB）于2014年7月2日发布的一份关于国家安全局根据702法案收集情报的报告中找到。

According to this report, PRISM is only used to collect internet communications, not telephone conversations. These internet communications are not collected in bulk, but in a targeted way: only communications that are to or from specific selectors, like e-mail addresses, can be gathered. Under PRISM, there’s no collection based on keywords or names.[38]
参考译文：根据这份报告，棱镜计划仅用于收集互联网通信，而不是电话对话。这些互联网通信并非大规模收集，而是有针对性地进行：只有与特定选择器（如电子邮件地址）有关的通信才能被收集。在棱镜计划下，没有基于关键词或姓名的收集。

The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government.[38] DITU then sends these communications to NSA, where they are stored in various databases, depending on their type.
参考译文：实际的收集过程由联邦调查局（FBI）的数据拦截技术部门（DITU）完成，该部门代表国家安全局向美国互联网服务提供商发送选择器（selectors），这些选择器在之前已经收到702法案指令。根据该指令，互联网服务提供商有法律义务将与政府提供的选择器相关的所有通信交给DITU。然后，DITU将这些通信发送给国家安全局，在那里根据类型存储在各种数据库中。

Data, both content and metadata, that already have been collected under the PRISM program, may be searched for both US and non-US person identifiers. These kinds of queries became known as “back-door searches” and are conducted by NSA, FBI and CIA.[39] Each of these agencies has slightly different protocols and safeguards to protect searches with a US person identifier.[38]
参考译文：在棱镜计划下已经收集的数据，包括内容和元数据，可以根据美国和非美国人的身份信息进行搜索。这种查询被称为“后门搜索”，由国家安全局、联邦调查局和中央情报局进行。每个机构都有稍有不同的协议和保障措施，以保护使用美国人身份信息进行的搜索。

2.1 计划的广度 | Extent of the program

Internal NSA presentation slides included in the various media disclosures show that the NSA could unilaterally access data and perform “extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information” with examples including email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP chats (such as Skype), file transfers, and social networking details.[2] Snowden summarized that “in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence] databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want.”[13]
参考译文：各种媒体披露的内部国家安全局（NSA）的演示文稿显示，NSA可以单方面访问数据并对实时通信和存储信息进行“广泛而深入的监视”，例如电子邮件、视频和语音聊天、视频、照片、语音IP聊天（如Skype）、文件传输和社交网络详细信息。斯诺登总结道：“总体而言，事实是这样的：如果NSA、FBI、CIA、DIA等分析师可以访问原始SIGINT（信号情报）数据库并进行查询，他们可以输入任何想要的内容并获得结果。”

According to The Washington Post, the intelligence analysts search PRISM data using terms intended to identify suspicious communications of targets whom the analysts suspect with at least 51 percent confidence to not be U.S. citizens, but in the process, communication data of some U.S. citizens are also collected unintentionally.[1] Training materials for analysts tell them that while they should periodically report such accidental collection of non-foreign U.S. data, “it’s nothing to worry about.”[1][40]
参考译文：根据《华盛顿邮报》的报道，情报分析师使用旨在识别可疑通信的术语来搜索棱镜数据，他们对被怀疑不是美国公民的目标持有至少51%的确信度，但在此过程中，一些美国公民的通信数据也会被无意中收集。分析师的培训材料告诉他们，尽管他们应该定期报告意外收集到的非外国人的美国数据，但“这并无需担心”。

According to The Guardian, NSA had access to chats and emails on http://Hotmail.com and Skype because Microsoft had “developed a surveillance capability to deal” with the interception of chats, and “for Prism collection against Microsoft email services will be unaffected because Prism collects this data prior to encryption.”[41][42]
参考译文：根据《卫报》的报道，NSA可以访问http://Hotmail.com和Skype上的聊天和电子邮件，因为微软已经“开发了一个监视能力来处理”对聊天的拦截，并且“对于Prism收集微软电子邮件服务的数据不会受到影响，因为Prism在加密之前收集这些数据。”

Also according to The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald even low-level NSA analysts are allowed to search and listen to the communications of Americans and other people without court approval and supervision. Greenwald said low level Analysts can, via systems like PRISM, “listen to whatever emails they want, whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, Microsoft Word documents.[30] And it’s all done with no need to go to a court, with no need to even get supervisor approval on the part of the analyst.”[43]
参考译文：根据《卫报》的格伦·格林沃尔德（Glenn Greenwald）的报道，即使是低级别的NSA分析师也可以在没有法庭批准和监督的情况下搜索和监听美国人和其他人的通信。格林沃尔德表示，通过像PRISM这样的系统，低级别的分析师可以“听取他们想要的任何电子邮件，任何电话通话，浏览历史记录，微软Word文档。所有这些都可以在不需要去法庭，甚至不需要分析师的主管批准的情况下完成。”

He added that the NSA databank, with its years of collected communications, allows analysts to search that database and listen “to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you’ve entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future.”[43] Greenwald was referring in the context of the foregoing quotes to the NSA program XKeyscore.[44]
参考译文：他补充说，NSA的数据库拥有多年的通信记录，使分析师能够搜索该数据库并监听“NSA所存储的一切通话或阅读的电子邮件，或查看您输入的浏览历史记录或谷歌搜索词，它还会警示他们未来与该电子邮件地址或IP地址相关的任何进一步活动。”格林沃尔德在上述引述中提到的NSA计划是XKeyscore。

2.2 概览棱镜计划 | PRISM overview

Designation 项目	Legal Authority See Note 法律权限注释	Key Targets 关键目标	Type of Information collected 收集的信息类型	Associated Databases 相关数据库	Associated Software 相关软件
US-984XN	Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) FISA 修正案 (FAA) 第 702 条	Known Targets include[45]已知目标包括： （详见表注1）	The exact type of data varies by provider:数据的确切类型因提供商而异： （详见表注2）	Known: 已知的有： （详见表注3）	Known: Unified Targeting Tool 已知： 统一定位工具

表注1：

• Venezuela 委内瑞拉
• Military procurement 军事采购
• Oil 油
• Mexico 墨西哥
• Narcotics 毒品
• Energy 能源
• Internal Security 内部安全
• Political Affairs 政治事务
• Colombia 哥伦比亚
• Trafficking 人口贩卖
• FARC 哥伦比亚革命武装力量

表注2：

• Email 电子邮件
• Chat – video, voice 聊天 – 视频、语音
• Videos 视频
• Stored data 存储数据
• VoIP 网络电话
• File transfers 文件传输
• Video Conferencing 视频会议
• Notifications of target activity, logins, etc. 目标活动、登录等的通知
• Online Social Networking details 在线社交网络详细信息
• Special Requests 特别要求

表注3：

• TRAFFICTHIEF “交通窃贼”
• MARINA “码头”
• MAINWAY “主路”
• FALLOUT “掉出来”
• PINWALE “独针”
• CONVEYANCE “输送”
• NUCLEON “核子”

3. 对（棱镜）曝光的反应 | Responses to disclosures

3.1 美国政府 | United States government

3.1.1 行政部门生活 | Executive branch life

Shortly after publication of the reports by The Guardian and The Washington Post, the United States Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, on June 7, 2013, released a statement confirming that for nearly six years the government of the United States had been using large internet services companies such as Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the United States as a defense against national security threats.[17] The statement read in part, “The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They contain numerous inaccuracies.”[46] He went on to say, “Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States. It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.”[46] Clapper concluded his statement by stating, “The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”[46] On March 12, 2013, Clapper had told the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the NSA does “not wittingly” collect any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.[47] Clapper later admitted the statement he made on March 12, 2013, was a lie,[48] or in his words “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no.”[49]
参考译文：在《卫报》和《华盛顿邮报》的报道发布后不久，美国国家情报总监詹姆斯·克拉珀于2013年6月7日发表声明，确认美国政府在近六年来一直在利用Facebook等大型互联网服务公司收集针对美国以外外国人的信息，以应对国家安全威胁。声明部分内容如下：“《卫报》和《华盛顿邮报》的文章提到了根据《外国情报监视法》第702条款收集通信的情况。它们包含了许多不准确的信息。”他继续表示：“第702条款是《外国情报监视法》的一项规定，旨在促进对位于美国以外的非美国人的外国情报信息的获取。它不能被用于有意针对任何美国公民、其他美国人或位于美国境内的人。”克拉珀在声明中总结说：“对这一重要且完全合法的计划的未经授权的信息泄露是可耻的，并危及对美国安全的重要保护措施。”在2013年3月12日，克拉珀曾告诉美国参议院情报委员会，NSA“并没有”有意收集数百万或数亿美国人的任何类型数据。克拉珀后来承认，他在2013年3月12日发表的声明是一个谎言，或用他的话说：“我在我认为最真实、或最不失实的方式上回答说没有。”

On June 7, 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama, referring to the PRISM program[50] and the NSA’s telephone calls logging program, said, “What you’ve got is two programs that were originally authorized by Congress, have been repeatedly authorized by Congress. Bipartisan majorities have approved them. Congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted. There are a whole range of safeguards involved. And federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout.”[51] He also said, “You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”[51] In separate statements, senior Obama administration officials (not mentioned by name in source) said that Congress had been briefed 13 times on the programs since 2009.[52]
参考译文：在2013年6月7日，美国总统巴拉克·奥巴马提到PRISM计划和NSA的电话记录计划时表示：“你所拥有的是两个最初由国会授权，已经多次获得国会授权的计划。两党多数派已经批准了它们。国会不断接受这些计划的简报。这其中涉及了一系列的保障措施。联邦法官一直在监督整个计划。”他还说：“你不能百分之百地拥有安全，同时也百分之百地拥有隐私和零不便。你知道的，作为一个社会，我们必须做出一些选择。”在另外的声明中，奥巴马政府高级官员（未在消息来源中提及姓名）表示，自2009年以来，国会已经13次接受了这些计划的简报。

On June 8, 2013, Director of National Intelligence Clapper made an additional public statement about PRISM and released a fact sheet providing further information about the program, which he described as “an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a).”[53][54] The fact sheet stated that “the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and the Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress.”[53] The fact sheet also stated that “the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based on a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.” It said that the attorney general provides FISA Court rulings and semi-annual reports about PRISM activities to Congress, “provid[ing] an unprecedented degree of accountability and transparency.”[53] Democratic senators Udall and Wyden, who serve on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, subsequently criticized the fact sheet as being inaccurate.[clarification needed] NSA Director General Keith Alexander acknowledged the errors, stating that the fact sheet “could have more precisely described” the requirements governing the collection of e-mail and other internet content from US companies. The fact sheet was withdrawn from the NSA’s website around June 26.[55]
参考译文：在2013年6月8日，国家情报总监克拉珀发表了一份关于PRISM的额外公开声明，并发布了一份事实说明书，提供了有关该计划的进一步信息。他将其描述为“一种内部政府计算机系统，用于在法庭监督下促进政府根据《外国情报监视法》702条款（50 U.S.C. § 1881a）的授权，从电子通信服务提供商获取外国情报信息。”事实说明书指出，“《卫报》和《华盛顿邮报》发布的监视活动是合法的，是根据广为人知、广为讨论和经过国会充分辩论和授权的权威进行的。”该事实说明书还指出，“美国政府不会单方面从美国电子通信服务提供商的服务器获取信息。所有这些信息都是在FISA法庭批准和提供商知情的情况下获得的，基于司法部长和国家情报总监的书面指令。”它还指出，司法部长向国会提供有关PRISM活动的FISA法庭裁决和半年报告，“提供了前所未有的问责和透明度。”随后，参议院情报委员会的民主党参议员乌德尔和怀登批评该事实说明书不准确。NSA局长基思·亚历山大承认了这些错误，表示事实说明书“本可以更准确地描述”对美国公司的电子邮件和其他互联网内容的收集要求。该事实说明书在6月26日左右从NSA的网站上撤下。

In a closed-doors Senate hearing around June 11, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that Snowden’s leaks had caused “significant harm to our nation and to our safety.”[56] In the same Senate hearing, NSA Director Alexander defended the program.[further explanation needed] Alexander’s defense was immediately criticized by Senators Udall and Wyden, who said they saw no evidence that the NSA programs had produced “uniquely valuable intelligence.” In a joint statement, they wrote, “Gen Alexander’s testimony yesterday suggested that the NSA’s bulk phone records collection program helped thwart ‘dozens’ of terrorist attacks, but all of the plots that he mentioned appear to have been identified using other collection methods.”[56][57]
参考译文：在6月11日左右的一次闭门参议院听证会上，联邦调查局局长罗伯特·穆勒表示，斯诺登的泄露给我们国家和安全造成了“重大损害”。在同一次参议院听证会上，NSA局长亚历山大为该计划进行了辩护。乌德尔和怀登参议员立即批评了亚历山大的辩护，他们表示他们没有看到NSA计划产生了“独特有价值的情报”的证据。他们在一份联合声明中写道：“亚历山大将军昨天的证词表明，NSA的大规模电话记录收集计划帮助挫败了‘数十起’恐怖袭击，但他提到的所有阴谋似乎都是通过其他收集方法确定的。”

On June 18, NSA Director Alexander said in an open hearing before the House Intelligence Committee of Congress that communications surveillance had helped prevent more than 50 potential terrorist attacks worldwide (at least 10 of them involving terrorism suspects or targets in the United States) between 2001 and 2013, and that the PRISM web traffic surveillance program contributed in over 90 percent of those cases.[58][59][60] According to court records, one example Alexander gave regarding a thwarted attack by al Qaeda on the New York Stock Exchange was not in fact foiled by surveillance.[61] Several senators wrote Director of National Intelligence Clapper asking him to provide other examples.[62]
参考译文：在6月18日，NSA局长亚历山大在国会的众议院情报委员会的公开听证会上表示，通信监视帮助阻止了2001年至2013年间全球超过50起潜在的恐怖袭击（其中至少有10起涉及美国的恐怖嫌疑人或目标），而PRISM网络流量监视计划在这些案件中贡献超过90％。根据法庭记录，亚历山大提到的一起关于基地组织在纽约证券交易所的袭击未被监视阻止。几位参议员致函国家情报总监克拉珀，要求他提供其他例子。

U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told various news outlets that by June 24 they were already seeing what they said was evidence that suspected terrorists had begun changing their communication practices in order to evade detection by the surveillance tools disclosed by Snowden.[63][64]
参考译文：美国情报官员在匿名条件下告诉各个新闻媒体，到了6月24日，他们已经看到据称是证据表明，嫌疑恐怖分子已经开始改变他们的通信方式，以逃避斯诺登披露的监视工具的侦测。

3.1.2 立法部门 | Legislative branch

In contrast to their swift and forceful reactions the previous day to allegations that the government had been conducting surveillance of United States citizens’ telephone records, Congressional leaders initially had little to say about the PRISM program the day after leaked information about the program was published. Several lawmakers declined to discuss PRISM, citing its top-secret classification,[65] and others said that they had not been aware of the program.[66] After statements had been released by the president and the Director of National Intelligence, some lawmakers began to comment:
参考译文：与前一天对政府涉嫌监视美国公民电话记录的指控作出的迅速和有力回应形成鲜明对比的是，国会领导人在泄露的有关PRISM计划的信息发表后的第二天几乎没有发表评论。一些议员拒绝讨论PRISM，称其为最高机密，而其他一些议员则表示他们并不知情。在总统和国家情报总监发表声明后，一些议员开始发表评论：

Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
参考译文：参议员约翰·麦凯恩 (R-AZ)

June 9, 2013, “We passed the Patriot Act. We passed specific provisions of the act that allowed for this program to take place, to be enacted in operation.”[67]

参考译文：2013年6月9日，”我们通过了《爱国者法案》。我们通过了允许该计划实施的法案中的具体条款。”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
参考译文：参议员黛安·范斯坦 (D-CA)，参议院情报委员会主席

June 9 “These programs are within the law,” “part of our obligation is keeping Americans safe,” “Human intelligence isn’t going to do it.”[68]

参考译文：6 月 9 日“这些计划是在法律范围内的”，“我们的部分义务是保证美国人的安全”，“人类智力无法做到这一点。”[68]

June 11 “It went fine. … We asked him (Keith Alexander) to declassify things because it would be helpful (for people and lawmakers to better understand the intelligence programs). … I’ve just got to see if the information gets declassified. I’m sure people will find it very interesting.”[70]

参考译文：6月11日，”情况还不错…我们要求他（Keith Alexander）解密一些东西，因为这对人们和立法者更好地了解情报计划会有帮助…我只是要看这些信息是否被解密。我相信人们会觉得它非常有趣。”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)
参考译文：参议员兰德·保罗 (R-KY)

June 9 “I’m going to be seeing if I can challenge this at the Supreme Court level. I’m going to be asking the internet providers and all of the phone companies: ask your customers to join me in a class-action lawsuit.”[67]

参考译文：6月9日，”我将尝试在最高法院层面上对此提出质疑。我将要求互联网服务提供商和所有电话公司：让你们的客户加入我提起的集体诉讼。”

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), member of Senate Intelligence Committee and past member of Homeland Security Committee
参考译文：参议员苏珊·柯林斯（R-ME），参议院情报委员会成员和国土安全委员会前成员

June 11 “I had, along with Joe Lieberman, a monthly threat briefing, but I did not have access to this highly compartmentalized information” and “How can you ask when you don’t know the program exists?”[71]

参考译文：6月11日，”我和乔·利伯曼一起进行了每月的威胁简报，但我没有获得这些高度分隔的信息”和”当你不知道这个计划存在时，你怎么能提出问题呢？”

Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), principal sponsor of the Patriot Act
参考译文：众议员吉姆·森森布伦纳 (R-WI)，《爱国者法案》的主要发起人

June 9, “This is well beyond what the Patriot Act allows.”[72] “President Obama’s claim that ‘this is the most transparent administration in history’ has once again proven false. In fact, it appears that no administration has ever peered more closely or intimately into the lives of innocent Americans.”[72]

参考译文：6 月 9 日，“这远远超出了《爱国者法案》所允许的范围。”[72]“奥巴马总统关于‘这是历史上最透明的政府’的说法再次被证明是错误的。事实上，似乎没有哪届政府曾与之匹敌过。 更密切地融入无辜美国人的生活。”[72]

Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), a chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
参考译文：Mike Rogers议员（密歇根州共和党人）是情报永久选择委员会的主席。

June 9 “One of the things that we’re charged with is keeping America safe and keeping our civil liberties and privacy intact. I think we have done both in this particular case.”[68]

参考译文：6月9日，”我们所负责的其中一项任务是确保美国的安全，同时保护我们的公民自由和隐私。我认为在这个特定案例中，我们两者兼顾得很好。”

June 9 “Within the last few years this program was used to stop a program, excuse me, to stop a terrorist attack in the United States, we know that. It’s, it’s, it’s important, it fills in a little seam that we have and it’s used to make sure that there is not an international nexus to any terrorism event that they may believe is ongoing in the United States. So in that regard it is a very valuable thing.”[73]

参考译文：6月9日，”在过去几年中，这个计划被用于阻止一起在美国发生的恐怖袭击，我们知道这一点。它填补了我们的一个小缺口，用于确保任何可能正在美国发生的恐怖主义事件与国际恐怖主义有关。因此，在这方面，它是非常有价值的。”

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO)
参考译文：参议员马克·尤德尔 (D-CO)

June 9 “I don’t think the American public knows the extent or knew the extent to which they were being surveilled and their data was being collected. … I think we ought to reopen the Patriot Act and put some limits on the amount of data that the National Security (Agency) is collecting. … It ought to remain sacred, and there’s got to be a balance here. That is what I’m aiming for. Let’s have the debate, let’s be transparent, let’s open this up.”[68]

参考译文：6月9日，”我不认为美国公众知道他们被监视和他们的数据被收集的程度。…我认为我们应该重新审视《爱国者法案》，限制国家安全局收集的数据量。…它应该保持神圣，而且需要在这方面取得平衡。这就是我的目标。让我们进行辩论，让我们透明，让我们开放这个问题。”

Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN)
参考译文：众议员托德·罗基塔 (R-IN)

June 10 “We have no idea when they [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] meet, we have no idea what their judgments are.”[74]

参考译文：6月10日“我们不知道他们[外国情报监视法庭]什么时候开会，我们不知道他们的判决是什么。”[74]

Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
参考译文：众议员路易斯·古铁雷斯 (D-IL)

June 9 “We will be receiving secret briefings and we will be asking, I know I’m going to be asking to get more information. I want to make sure that what they’re doing is harvesting information that is necessary to keep us safe and not simply going into everybody’s private telephone conversations and Facebook and communications. I mean one of the, you know, the terrorists win when you debilitate freedom of expression and privacy.”[73]

参考译文：6月9日，”我们将接受秘密简报，并且我知道我将要求获取更多信息。我要确保他们所做的是收集必要的信息来确保我们的安全，而不仅仅是进入每个人的电话、Facebook和通讯。我的意思是，当你削弱言论自由和隐私权时，恐怖分子就获胜了。”

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
参考译文：参议员罗恩·怀登 (D-OR)

July 11 “I have a feeling that the administration is getting concerned about the bulk phone records collection, and that they are thinking about whether to move administratively to stop it. I think we are making a comeback”.[75]

参考译文：7月11日，”我有一种感觉，政府正在对大规模电话记录收集表示担忧，并且他们正在考虑是否在行政上停止这一做法。我认为我们正在东山再起。”

Following these statements some lawmakers from both parties warned national security officials during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee that they must change their use of sweeping National Security Agency surveillance programs or face losing the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that have allowed for the agency’s mass collection of telephone metadata.[76] “Section 215 expires at the end of 2015, and unless you realize you’ve got a problem, that is not going to be renewed,” Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., author of the USA Patriot Act, threatened during the hearing.[76] “It’s got to be changed, and you’ve got to change how you operate section 215. Otherwise, in two and a half years, you’re not going to have it anymore.”[76]
参考译文：在众议院司法委员会听证会上，来自两党的一些立法者警告国家安全官员，他们必须改变对全面国家安全局监控计划的使用，否则将失去《外国情报监视法》的规定，这些规定允许该机构进行大规模的电话元数据收集。”第215条款将于2015年底到期，除非你们意识到问题并加以解决，否则它将不会再续签。”美国国会议员吉姆·森森布伦纳（Jim Sensenbrenner）在听证会上威胁道。“它必须改变，你们必须改变对第215条的操作方式。否则，两年半后，你们将不再拥有它。”

3.1.3 司法部门 | Judicial branch

Leaks of classified documents pointed to the role of a special court in enabling the government’s secret surveillance programs, but members of the court maintained they were not collaborating with the executive branch.[77] The New York Times, however, reported in July 2013 that in “more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks.”[78] After Members of the U.S. Congress pressed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to release declassified versions of its secret ruling, the court dismissed those requests arguing that the decisions can’t be declassified because they contain classified information.[79] Reggie Walton, the current FISA presiding judge, said in a statement: “The perception that the court is a rubber stamp is absolutely false. There is a rigorous review process of applications submitted by the executive branch, spearheaded initially by five judicial branch lawyers who are national security experts, and then by the judges, to ensure that the court’s authorizations comport with what the applicable statutes authorize.”[80] The accusation of being a “rubber stamp” was further rejected by Walton who wrote in a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy: “The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General …—frequently cited to in press reports as a suggestion that the Court’s approval rate of application is over 99%—reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court. These statistics do not reflect the fact that many applications are altered to prior or final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them.”[81]
参考译文：泄密的机密文件揭示了一个特别法院在使政府的秘密监视计划成为可能方面的角色，但法院成员坚称他们并未与行政机构合作。然而，纽约时报在2013年7月报道称，在”十几个机密裁决中，国家监视法院制定了一套秘密法律，赋予国家安全局集中大量美国人数据的权力，不仅追踪恐怖主义嫌疑人，还包括可能与核扩散、间谍活动和网络攻击有关的人。”在美国国会议员敦促外国情报监视法庭发布解密版本的秘密裁决后，法庭驳回了这些请求，理由是这些决定不能解密，因为它们包含机密信息。目前的FISA首席法官雷吉·沃尔顿在一份声明中表示：”法院只是一个橡皮图章的观点是绝对错误的。行政机构提交的申请经过了一个严格的审查过程，最初由五位司法部律师领导，他们是国家安全专家，然后由法官们，以确保法庭的授权符合适用法规的规定。”对于”橡皮图章”的指责，沃尔顿在写给参议员帕特里克·J·莱希的信中进一步予以否认：”司法部长提供给国会的年度统计数据…经常在新闻报道中被引用，暗示法庭的批准率超过99%。然而，这些统计数据仅反映了提交给法庭并经法庭处理的最终申请的数量。这些统计数据并未反映许多申请在最终提交之前或之后进行修改，甚至完全被保留，往往是在法官表明不会批准它们之后。”

3.1.4 美军 | The U.S. military

The U.S. military has acknowledged blocking access to parts of The Guardian website for thousands of defense personnel across the country,[82] and blocking the entire Guardian website for personnel stationed throughout Afghanistan, the Middle East, and South Asia.[83] A spokesman said the military was filtering out reports and content relating to government surveillance programs to preserve “network hygiene” and prevent any classified material from appearing on unclassified parts of its computer systems.[82] Access to the Washington Post, which also published information on classified NSA surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden, had not been blocked at the time the blocking of access to The Guardian was reported.[83]
参考译文：美国军方承认封锁了《卫报》网站的部分内容，影响了全国数千名国防人员的访问[82]，并封锁了《卫报》网站的整个内容，影响了驻阿富汗、中东和南亚地区的军事人员[83]。一位发言人表示，军方正在过滤与政府监视计划相关的报道和内容，以保护网络安全，并防止机密材料出现在非机密部分的计算机系统上[82]。据报道，在封锁《卫报》访问之时，《华盛顿邮报》发布的有关爱德华·斯诺登透露的NSA监视计划的机密信息尚未被封锁[83]。

3.2 其他国家的回应和参与 | Responses and involvement of other countries

3.2.1 奥地利 | Austria

The former head of the Austrian Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism, Gert-René Polli, stated he knew the PRISM program under a different name and stated that surveillance activities had occurred in Austria as well. Polli had publicly stated in 2009 that he had received requests from US intelligence agencies to do things that would be in violation of Austrian law, which Polli refused to allow.[84][85]
参考译文：奥地利联邦宪法和反恐保护局的前负责人格特-雷内·波利表示，他知道PRISM计划的另一个名称，并表示奥地利也发生了监控活动。波利曾公开表示，2009年他曾收到美国情报机构的请求，要求他做违反奥地利法律的事情，但波利拒绝了这些请求。[84][85]

3.2.2 澳大利亚 | Australia

The Australian government has said it will investigate the impact of the PRISM program and the use of the Pine Gap surveillance facility on the privacy of Australian citizens.[86] Australia’s former foreign minister Bob Carr said that Australians should not be concerned about PRISM but that cybersecurity is high on the government’s list of concerns.[87] The Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stated that the acts of Edward Snowden were treachery and offered a staunch defence of her nation’s intelligence co-operation with the United States.[88]
参考译文：澳大利亚政府表示将调查PRISM计划和Pine Gap监视设施对澳大利亚公民隐私的影响[86]。澳大利亚前外交部长鲍勃·卡尔表示，澳大利亚人不应该对PRISM感到担忧，但网络安全是政府关注的重点问题[87]。澳大利亚外交部长朱莉·毕晓普表示，爱德华·斯诺登的行为是背叛，并坚决捍卫她的国家与美国的情报合作[88]。

3.2.3 巴西 | Brazil

Brazil‘s president at the time, Dilma Rousseff, responded to Snowden’s reports that the NSA spied on her phone calls and emails by cancelling a planned October 2013 state visit to the United States, demanding an official apology, which by October 20, 2013, hadn’t come.[89] Also, Rousseff classified the spying as unacceptable between more harsh words in a speech before the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2013.[90] As a result, Boeing lost out on a US$4.5 billion contract for fighter jets to Sweden’s Saab Group.[91]
参考译文：巴西当时的总统迪尔玛·罗塞夫回应斯诺登的报道称，美国国家安全局监视了她的电话和电子邮件，取消了原定于2013年10月的对美国的国事访问，并要求美国正式道歉，但到2013年10月20日，仍未收到道歉[89]。此外，罗塞夫在2013年9月24日联合国大会上的讲话中，将此次监视行为定性为不可接受的，并使用更加严厉的措辞表达了不满[90]。由于此事，波音公司失去了一份价值45亿美元的战斗机合同，该合同被交给了瑞典的萨博集团[91]。

3.2.3 加拿大 | Canada

Canada‘s national cryptologic agency, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), said that commenting on PRISM “would undermine CSE’s ability to carry out its mandate.” Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart lamented Canada’s standards when it comes to protecting personal online privacy stating “We have fallen too far behind” in her report. “While other nations’ data protection authorities have the legal power to make binding orders, levy hefty fines and take meaningful action in the event of serious data breaches, we are restricted to a ‘soft’ approach: persuasion, encouragement and, at the most, the potential to publish the names of transgressors in the public interest.” And, “when push comes to shove,” Stoddart wrote, “short of a costly and time-consuming court battle, we have no power to enforce our recommendations.”[92][93]
参考译文：加拿大的国家密码机构——通信安全局（CSE）表示，对于PRISM计划的评论“将削弱CSE履行其职责的能力”。加拿大隐私专员詹妮弗·斯托达特对于加拿大在保护个人在线隐私方面的标准表示遗憾，并在她的报告中称“我们已经落后太多了”。她写道：“虽然其他国家的数据保护机构在严重数据泄露事件发生时具有法律权力作出约束性命令、处以巨额罚款并采取有意义的行动，但我们被限制在‘软性’方法上：劝说、鼓励，最多可能会为了公共利益公开违规者的姓名。”并且，“当形势紧迫时”，斯托达特写道，“除了昂贵且耗时的法庭战斗之外，我们没有权力执行我们的建议。”[92][93]

3.2.4 欧盟 | European Union

On 20 October 2013 a committee at the European Parliament backed a measure that, if it is enacted, would require American companies to seek clearance from European officials before complying with United States warrants seeking private data. The legislation has been under consideration for two years. The vote is part of efforts in Europe to shield citizens from online surveillance in the wake of revelations about a far-reaching spying program by the U.S. National Security Agency.[94] Germany and France have also had ongoing mutual talks about how they can keep European email traffic from going across American servers.[95]
参考译文：2013年10月20日，欧洲议会的一个委员会支持一项措施，如果实施，将要求美国公司在遵循美国的搜查令获取私人数据之前，需征得欧洲官员的批准。这项立法已经考虑了两年。这次投票是欧洲为了在美国国家安全局广泛监视计划曝光后保护公民免受在线监视的努力的一部分[94]。德国和法国也一直在就如何防止欧洲的电子邮件流量通过美国的服务器进行互相讨论[95]。

3.2.5 法国 | France

On October 21, 2013, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, summoned the U.S. Ambassador, Charles Rivkin, to the Quai d’Orsay in Paris to protest large-scale spying on French citizens by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Paris prosecutors had opened preliminary inquiries into the NSA program in July, but Fabius said, “… obviously we need to go further” and “we must quickly assure that these practices aren’t repeated.”[96]
参考译文：2013年10月21日，法国外交部长劳伦·法比尤斯召见了美国大使查尔斯·里夫金前往巴黎的法国外交部，抗议美国国家安全局对法国公民进行大规模监视的行为。巴黎检察官在7月份已经对NSA的监视计划展开了初步调查，但法比尤斯表示，“显然我们需要继续深入调查”，“我们必须迅速确保这些做法不会再次发生。”[96]

3.2.6 德国 | Germany

Germany did not receive any raw PRISM data, according to a Reuters report.[97] German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that “the internet is new to all of us” to explain the nature of the program; Matthew Schofield of McClatchy Washington Bureau said, “She was roundly mocked for that statement.”[98] Gert-René Polli, a former Austrian counter-terrorism official, said in 2013 that it is “absurd and unnatural” for the German authorities to pretend not to have known anything.[84][85] The German Army was using PRISM to support its operations in Afghanistan as early as 2011.[99]
参考译文：根据路透社的报道，德国没有收到任何原始的PRISM数据。德国总理安格拉·默克尔表示，“互联网对我们所有人来说都是新的”，以解释该计划的性质；麦克拉奇华盛顿分局的马修·斯科菲尔德表示，“她的这番话受到了广泛嘲笑。”[97][98] 前奥地利反恐官员格特-雷内·波利在2013年表示，德国当局假装对此一无所知是“荒谬和不自然的”[84][85]。自2011年以来，德国军队一直在使用PRISM来支持其在阿富汗的行动。[99]

In October 2013, it was reported that the NSA monitored Merkel’s cell phone.[100] The United States denied the report, but following the allegations, Merkel called President Obama and told him that spying on friends was “never acceptable, no matter in what situation.”[101]
参考译文：2013年10月，美国国家安全局监视了默克尔的手机。美国否认了这一报道，但在这些指控之后，默克尔致电奥巴马总统，并告诉他，对朋友进行监视“永远是不可接受的，无论在什么情况下。”[100][101]

3.2.7 以色列 | Israel

Israeli newspaper Calcalist discussed[102] the Business Insider article[103] about the possible involvement of technologies from two secretive Israeli companies in the PRISM program—Verint Systems and Narus.
参考译文：以色列报纸Calcalist讨论了Business Insider关于两家秘密以色列公司Verint Systems和Narus可能参与PRISM计划的技术的文章。[102][103]

3.2.8 墨西哥 | Mexico

After finding out about the PRISM program, the Mexican Government has started constructing its own spying program to spy on its own citizens. According to Jenaro Villamil, a writer from Proceso, CISEN, Mexico’s intelligence agency has started to work with IBM and Hewlett Packard to develop its own data gathering software. “Facebook, Twitter, Emails and other social network sites are going to be priority.”[104]
参考译文：在得知PRISM计划后，墨西哥政府已开始构建自己的间谍计划，以监视本国公民。据Proceso的作家Jenaro Villamil称，墨西哥的情报机构CISEN已开始与IBM和惠普合作开发自己的数据收集软件。“Facebook、Twitter、电子邮件和其他社交网络网站将成为优先考虑的对象。”[104]

3.2.9 新西兰 | New Zealand

In New Zealand, University of Otago information science Associate Professor Hank Wolfe said that “under what was unofficially known as the Five Eyes Alliance, New Zealand and other governments, including the United States, Australia, Canada, and Britain, dealt with internal spying by saying they didn’t do it. But they have all the partners doing it for them and then they share all the information.”[105]
参考译文：在新西兰，奥塔哥大学信息科学副教授汉克·沃尔夫表示，“根据非正式称之为‘五眼联盟’的协议，新西兰和其他国家，包括美国、澳大利亚、加拿大和英国，通过声称自己不从事内部监视来处理这个问题。但实际上他们是让合作伙伴代为执行监视，并共享所有的信息。”[105]

Edward Snowden, in a live streamed Google Hangout to Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange, alleged that he had received intelligence from New Zealand, and the NSA has listening posts in New Zealand.[106]
参考译文：爱德华·斯诺登通过Google Hangout与金·多特康姆和朱利安·阿桑奇进行了直播连线，声称他曾从新西兰获得情报，并且美国国家安全局在新西兰设有监听站。[106]

3.2.10 西班牙 | Spain

At a meeting of European Union leaders held the week of 21 October 2013, Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s prime minister, said that “spying activities aren’t proper among partner countries and allies”. On 28 October 2013 the Spanish government summoned the American ambassador, James Costos, to address allegations that the U.S. had collected data on 60 million telephone calls in Spain. Separately, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, a Spanish secretary of state, referred to the need to maintain “a necessary balance” between security and privacy concerns, but said that the recent allegations of spying, “if proven to be true, are improper and unacceptable between partners and friendly countries”.[107]
参考译文：在2013年10月21日的欧盟领导人会议上，西班牙总理马里亚诺·拉霍伊表示：“间谍活动在合作伙伴和盟友之间是不适当的。”2013年10月28日，西班牙政府召见美国大使詹姆斯·科斯托斯，就美国在西班牙收集了6000万通电话的数据一事提出质询。与此同时，西班牙国务秘书伊尼戈·门德斯·德维戈谈到了在安全和隐私关切之间保持“必要平衡”的需求，但他表示最近的间谍指控“如果被证明是真实的，将是在合作伙伴和友好国家之间不适当和不可接受的。”[107]

3.2.11 英国 | United Kingdom

Further information: Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom
更多信息：英国的大规模监视

In the United Kingdom, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which also has its own surveillance program, Tempora, had access to the PRISM program on or before June 2010 and wrote 197 reports with it in 2012 alone. The Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament reviewed the reports GCHQ produced on the basis of intelligence sought from the US. They found in each case a warrant for interception was in place in accordance with the legal safeguards contained in UK law.[108]
参考译文：在英国，政府通信总部（GCHQ）也有自己的监视计划“Tempora”，在2010年6月之前就能够访问PRISM计划，并且仅在2012年就以此编写了197份报告。英国议会的情报与安全委员会审查了GCHQ根据从美国获取的情报所产生的报告。他们发现每个案例中都有根据英国法律中的法律保障措施进行拦截授权。[108]

In August 2013, The Guardian newspaper’s offices were visited by technicians from GCHQ, who ordered and supervised the destruction of the hard drives containing information acquired from Snowden.[109]
参考译文： 在2013年8月，政府通信总部（GCHQ）的技术人员曾访问《卫报》的办公室，他们下令并监督销毁了包含爱德华·斯诺登所提供信息的硬盘驱动器。[109]

3.3 公司 | Companies

The original Washington Post and Guardian articles reporting on PRISM noted that one of the leaked briefing documents said PRISM involves collection of data “directly from the servers” of several major internet services providers.[1][2]
参考译文：最初的《华盛顿邮报》和《卫报》报道PRISM计划时指出，泄露的一份简报文件称PRISM计划涉及从几家主要互联网服务提供商的服务器上“直接收集数据”。[1][2]

3.3.1 最初的公开声明 | Initial public statements

Corporate executives of several companies identified in the leaked documents told The Guardian that they had no knowledge of the PRISM program in particular and also denied making information available to the government on the scale alleged by news reports.[2][110] Statements of several of the companies named in the leaked documents were reported by TechCrunch and The Washington Post as follows:[111][112]
参考译文：在泄露文件中被提及的多家公司的企业高管告诉《卫报》记者，他们对PRISM计划并不了解，也否认按照新闻报道所称的那样向政府提供大量信息。TechCrunch和《华盛顿邮报》对几家被提及的公司的声明进行了报道，内容如下：[111][112]

Microsoft: “We provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data, we don’t participate in it.”[111][113]

参考译文：微软：我们只在收到法律约束的命令或传票时提供客户数据，并且绝不会自愿提供。此外，我们只会按照特定账户或标识符的请求执行命令。如果政府有一个更广泛的自愿性国家安全计划来收集客户数据，我们不参与其中。[111][113]

Yahoo!: “Yahoo! takes users’ privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.”[111] “Of the hundreds of millions of users we serve, an infinitesimal percentage will ever be the subject of a government data collection directive.”[112]

参考译文：雅虎：雅虎非常重视用户的隐私。我们不会直接向政府提供服务器、系统或网络的访问权限。在我们服务的数亿用户中，只有极少数会成为政府数据收集指令的对象。[111][112]

Facebook: “We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law.”[111]

参考译文：Facebook：我们不会向任何政府机构提供对Facebook服务器的直接访问权限。当政府要求获取特定个人的数据或信息时，我们会仔细审查任何此类请求，确保其符合所有适用法律，并且只提供法律要求的信息。[111]

Google: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door‘ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access private user data.”[111] “[A]ny suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ internet activity on such a scale is completely false.”[112]

参考译文：谷歌：谷歌非常重视用户数据的安全。我们遵守法律向政府披露用户数据，并且我们会仔细审查所有这类请求。有时，有人声称我们在系统中创建了一个政府的“后门”，但谷歌没有为政府提供访问私人用户数据的后门。[111]“任何暗示谷歌在如此大规模上披露用户的互联网活动信息的说法都是完全错误的。”[112]

Apple: “We have never heard of PRISM”[114] “We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer data must get a court order.”[114]

参考译文：苹果：“我们从未听说过 PRISM”[114]“我们不向任何政府机构提供直接访问我们服务器的权限，任何要求客户数据的政府机构都必须获得法院命令。”[114]

Dropbox: “We’ve seen reports that Dropbox might be asked to participate in a government program called PRISM. We are not part of any such program and remain committed to protecting our users’ privacy.”[111]

参考译文：Dropbox：我们注意到有报道称Dropbox可能会被要求参与名为PRISM的政府计划。我们并不参与任何这样的计划，并将继续致力于保护用户的隐私。[111]

In response to the technology companies’ confirmation of the NSA being able to directly access the companies’ servers, The New York Times reported that sources had stated the NSA was gathering the surveillance data from the companies using other technical means in response to court orders for specific sets of data.[17] The Washington Post suggested, “It is possible that the conflict between the PRISM slides and the company spokesmen is the result of imprecision on the part of the NSA author. In another classified report obtained by The Post, the arrangement is described as allowing ‘collection managers [to send] content tasking instructions directly to equipment installed at company-controlled locations,’ rather than directly to company servers.”[1] “[I]n context, ‘direct’ is more likely to mean that the NSA is receiving data sent to them deliberately by the tech companies, as opposed to intercepting communications as they’re transmitted to some other destination.[112]
参考译文：针对科技公司确认国家安全局能够直接访问其服务器的回应，据《纽约时报》报道，消息人士称，国家安全局是通过其他技术手段收集这些公司的监视数据，以应对特定数据集的法庭命令。《华盛顿邮报》则暗示：“PRISM幻灯片和公司发言人之间的冲突可能是NSA作者表述不准确的结果。《邮报》获得的另一份机密报告中，安排被描述为允许‘收集管理人员直接向安装在公司控制地点的设备发送内容的任务指令’，而不是直接发送到公司服务器。”“在这种背景下，‘直接’更可能意味着NSA正在有意地接收科技公司发送给他们的数据，而不是拦截传输到其他目的地的通信。”[17][1][112]

“If these companies received an order under the FISA amendments act, they are forbidden by law from disclosing having received the order and disclosing any information about the order at all,” Mark Rumold, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told ABC News.[115]
参考译文：“如果这些公司根据《外国情报监视法修正案》收到了一项命令，根据法律规定，它们被禁止透露接收到该命令的事实，并透露任何与该命令有关的信息。”电子前沿基金会的职员律师马克·鲁莫尔德在接受ABC新闻采访时表示。[115]

On May 28, 2013, Google was ordered by United States District Court Judge Susan Illston to comply with a National Security Letter issued by the FBI to provide user data without a warrant.[116] Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with VentureBeat said, “I certainly appreciate that Google put out a transparency report, but it appears that the transparency didn’t include this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were subject to a gag order.”[117]
参考译文：2013 年 5 月 28 日，美国地方法院法官苏珊·伊尔斯顿 (Susan Illston) 命令 Google 遵守 FBI 发出的国家安全信函，在没有搜查令的情况下提供用户数据。 [116] 电子前沿基金会高级专职律师库尔特·奥普萨尔 (Kurt Opsahl) 在接受 VentureBeat 采访时表示：“我当然感谢谷歌发布透明度报告，但似乎透明度报告中不包括这一点。如果他们受到禁言令的话我不会感到惊讶。”[117]

The New York Times reported on June 7, 2013, that “Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations.”[118] The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make data available more efficiently and securely.[118] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.[118] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel.[118] These details on the discussions provide insight into the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program including a training slide which states, “Collection directly from the servers”[119] and the companies’ denials.[118]
参考译文：据《纽约时报》于2013年6月7日报道：“Twitter拒绝为政府提供方便。但是根据知情人士的介绍，其他公司更为合作。”这些公司与国家安全人员就如何更高效、更安全地提供数据进行了讨论。在某些情况下，这些公司对其系统进行了修改，以支持情报收集工作。这些对话在最近几个月中继续进行，美国联合参谋长联席会议主席马丁·登普西将军与Facebook、微软、谷歌和英特尔等公司的高管进行了会晤。这些对话的细节揭示了最初对政府计划的描述，包括一张培训幻灯片中明确提到的“直接从服务器收集”以及公司的否认之间的差异。

While providing data in response to a legitimate FISA request approved by the FISA Court is a legal requirement, modifying systems to make it easier for the government to collect the data is not. This is why Twitter could legally decline to provide an enhanced mechanism for data transmission.[118] Other than Twitter, the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.[118] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.[118] Google does not provide a lockbox system, but instead transmits required data by hand delivery or ssh.[120]
参考译文：根据《外国情报监视法法院》批准的合法FISA请求，提供数据是法律要求，而修改系统以方便政府收集数据则不是法律要求。这就是为什么Twitter可以合法地拒绝提供增强的数据传输机制。除了Twitter之外，据知情人士介绍，其他公司被要求构建一个加密邮箱，并向政府提供解锁密钥。例如，Facebook就为请求和共享信息而构建了这样的系统。谷歌并未提供加密邮箱系统，而是通过手工递送或ssh传输所需数据。

3.3.2 棱镜后的透明度报告 | Post-PRISM transparency reports

In response to the publicity surrounding media reports of data-sharing, several companies requested permission to reveal more public information about the nature and scope of information provided in response to National Security requests.
参考译文：针对媒体报道的数据共享问题，一些公司请求获得许可，以公开更多关于回应国家安全请求提供的信息性质和范围的公共信息。

On June 14, 2013, Facebook reported that the U.S. government had authorized the communication of “about these numbers in aggregate, and as a range.” In a press release posted to its web site, the company reported, “For the six months ending December 31, 2012, the total number of user-data requests Facebook received from any and all government entities in the U.S. (including local, state, and federal, and including criminal and national security-related requests) – was between 9,000 and 10,000.” The company further reported that the requests impacted “between 18,000 and 19,000” user accounts, a “tiny fraction of one percent” of more than 1.1 billion active user accounts.[121]
参考译文：2013年6月14日，Facebook报告称美国政府已经授权“按总体和范围”通信相关数据。在发布在其网站上的新闻稿中，该公司报道称：“截至2012年12月31日的六个月内，Facebook从包括地方、州和联邦政府在内的任何和所有政府机构（包括刑事和国家安全相关请求）收到的用户数据请求总数在9,000至10,000之间。” 该公司进一步报告称，这些请求影响了“18,000至19,000”个用户账户，仅占超过11亿活跃用户账户的“极小部分”。

That same day, Microsoft reported that for the same period, it received “between 6,000 and 7,000 criminal and national security warrants, subpoenas and orders affecting between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts from U.S. governmental entities (including local, state and federal)” which impacted “a tiny fraction of Microsoft’s global customer base.”[122]
参考译文：同一天，微软也报告称，在同一时期内，它收到了来自美国政府机构（包括地方、州和联邦）的“6,000至7,000份刑事和国家安全令状、传票和命令，涉及31,000至32,000个消费者账户”，这对“微软全球客户群体的极小部分”产生了影响。

Google issued a statement criticizing the requirement that data be reported in aggregated form, stating that lumping national security requests with criminal request data would be “a step backwards” from its previous, more detailed practices on its website’s transparency report. The company said that it would continue to seek government permission to publish the number and extent of FISA requests.[123]
参考译文：谷歌发表了一份声明，批评了要求以聚合形式报告数据的要求，并表示将国家安全请求与刑事请求数据合并将是“倒退”，相对于其网站透明度报告中更详细的做法。该公司表示将继续寻求政府许可，以公开发布FISA请求的数量和范围。

Cisco Systems saw a huge drop in export sales because of fears that the National Security Agency could be using backdoors in its products.[124]
参考译文：由于担心美国国家安全局可能在其产品中使用后门，思科系统的出口销售出现了大幅下降。

On September 12, 2014, Yahoo! reported the U.S. Government threatened the imposition of $250,000 in fines per day if Yahoo didn’t hand over user data as part of the NSA’s PRISM program.[125] It is not known if other companies were threatened or fined for not providing data in response to a legitimate FISA requests.
参考译文：2014年9月12日，雅虎公司报告称，美国政府威胁要每天对雅虎公司处以25万美元的罚款，如果雅虎不按照美国国家安全局的PRISM计划要求提供用户数据。目前尚不清楚是否有其他公司因未能按合法FISA请求提供数据而受到威胁或罚款。

3.4 公众和媒体反应 | Public and media response

3.4.1 美国国内 | Domestic

图片题注：An elaborate graffiti in Columbus, Ohio, United States, satirizing comprehensive surveillance of telecommunications

参考译文：美国俄亥俄州哥伦布市精美涂鸦，讽刺电信全面监控

图片来源：Jeff Schuler – https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeffschuler/2585181312/in/set-72157604249628154

The New York Times editorial board charged that the Obama administration “has now lost all credibility on this issue,”[126] and lamented that “for years, members of Congress ignored evidence that domestic intelligence-gathering had grown beyond their control, and, even now, few seem disturbed to learn that every detail about the public’s calling and texting habits now reside in a N.S.A. database.”[127] It wrote with respect to the FISA-Court in context of PRISM that it is “a perversion of the American justice system” when “judicial secrecy is coupled with a one-sided presentation of the issues.”[128] According to the New York Times, “the result is a court whose reach is expanding far beyond its original mandate and without any substantive check.”[128]
参考译文：《纽约时报》社论板指责奥巴马政府“在这个问题上已经失去了所有的信誉”，并悲叹“多年来，国会议员忽视了国内情报收集已经超出他们控制范围的证据，甚至现在，很少有人对得知公众通话和短信习惯的每一个细节都存储在N.S.A.数据库中感到不安。”社论指出，就PRISM计划而言，FISA法庭是“美国司法系统的一种变态”，因为“司法保密与单方面陈述的问题相结合。”《纽约时报》还指出，“结果是一个法院的权力超出了最初的授权范围，并且没有任何实质性的限制。”

James Robertson, a former federal district judge based in Washington who served on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for three years between 2002 and 2005 and who ruled against the Bush administration in the landmark Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, said FISA court is independent but flawed because only the government’s side is represented effectively in its deliberations. “Anyone who has been a judge will tell you a judge needs to hear both sides of a case,” said James Robertson.[129] Without this judges do not benefit from adversarial debate. He suggested creating an advocate with security clearance who would argue against government filings.[130] Robertson questioned whether the secret FISA court should provide overall legal approval for the surveillance programs, saying the court “has turned into something like an administrative agency.” Under the changes brought by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, which expanded the US government’s authority by forcing the court to approve entire surveillance systems and not just surveillance warrants as it previously handled, “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance. I don’t think that is a judicial function.”[129] Robertson also said he was “frankly stunned” by the New York Times report[78] that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.[129]
参考译文：詹姆斯·罗伯逊（James Robertson）是一位前联邦地区法官，曾在2002年至2005年期间担任秘密的外国情报监视法庭成员，他在具有里程碑意义的汉姆丹诉拉姆斯菲尔德案中反对了布什政府的观点。他表示，FISA法庭是独立的，但存在缺陷，因为它的讨论只有政府一方有效地表达了观点。罗伯逊说：“任何一个担任过法官的人都会告诉你，法官需要听取案件的双方观点。”没有这一点，法官无法受益于对立的辩论。他建议设立一个拥有安全许可的辩护律师，负责反驳政府的文件。罗伯逊对于秘密的FISA法庭是否应该对监视计划提供整体的法律批准表示质疑，他称法庭“已经变成了类似行政机构的东西”。根据2008年《外国情报监视法修正法案》，扩大了美国政府的权力，要求法院批准整个监视系统，而不仅仅是之前处理的监视令，“法庭现在正在批准计划性的监视。我认为这不是一个司法职能。”罗伯逊还表示，他对《纽约时报》的报导感到“非常震惊”，该报报道称FISA法庭的裁决创立了一批新的法律，从而扩大了NSA利用其监视计划不仅针对恐怖分子，还包括间谍活动、网络攻击和大规模杀伤性武器疑犯的能力。

Former CIA analyst Valerie Plame Wilson and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, writing in an op-ed article published in The Guardian, said that “Prism and other NSA data-mining programs might indeed be very effective in hunting and capturing actual terrorists, but we don’t have enough information as a society to make that decision.”[131]
参考译文：前中情局分析员瓦莱丽·普莱姆·威尔逊（Valerie Plame Wilson）和前美国外交官约瑟夫·威尔逊（Joseph Wilson）在《卫报》上发表的一篇评论文章中写道：“Prism和其他NSA的数据挖掘计划可能确实在追捕和捕获真正的恐怖分子方面非常有效，但作为一个社会，我们没有足够的信息来做出这个决定。”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an international non-profit digital-rights group based in the U.S., is hosting a tool, by which an American resident can write to their government representatives regarding their opposition to mass spying.[132]
参考译文：电子前沿基金会（Electronic Frontier Foundation，EFF）是一个总部位于美国的国际非营利数字权利组织，他们提供了一种工具，让美国居民可以致信他们的政府代表，表达他们反对大规模监视的立场。

The Obama administration’s argument that NSA surveillance programs such as PRISM and Boundless Informant had been necessary to prevent acts of terrorism was challenged by several parties. Ed Pilkington and Nicholas Watt of The Guardian said of the case of Najibullah Zazi, who had planned to bomb the New York City Subway, that interviews with involved parties and U.S. and British court documents indicated that the investigation into the case had actually been initiated in response to “conventional” surveillance methods such as “old-fashioned tip-offs” of the British intelligence services, rather than to leads produced by NSA surveillance.[133] Michael Daly of The Daily Beast stated that even though Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing with his brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had visited the Al Qaeda-affiliated Inspire magazine website, and even though Russian intelligence officials had raised concerns with U.S. intelligence officials about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, PRISM did not prevent him from carrying out the Boston attacks. Daly observed that, “The problem is not just what the National Security Agency is gathering at the risk of our privacy but what it is apparently unable to monitor at the risk of our safety.”[134]
参考译文：奥巴马政府声称，PRISM和Boundless Informant等NSA监视计划是为了预防恐怖主义行为而必要的，但这一观点受到多方质疑。《卫报》的埃德·皮尔金顿（Ed Pilkington）和尼古拉斯·瓦特（Nicholas Watt）在对纳吉布拉·扎兹（Najullah Zazi）一案进行的采访以及美国和英国法庭文件中指出，调查此案实际上是由于英国情报机构的传统监视方法，如“老式线报”，而不是NSA监视产生的线索，这一点对奥巴马政府的观点提出了质疑。《每日野兽》的迈克尔·戴利（Michael Daly）指出，尽管执行波士顿马拉松爆炸案的塔玛兰·扎尔纳耶夫（Tamerlan Tsarnaev）曾访问过与基地组织有关系的《鼓舞》杂志的网站，而且俄罗斯情报官员曾向美国情报官员提出对塔玛兰·扎尔纳耶夫的担忧，但PRISM并没有阻止他实施波士顿袭击。戴利观察到：“问题不仅仅是国家安全局在侵犯我们的隐私的同时收集了哪些信息，而且是他们显然无法监测到可能危及我们安全的信息。”

Ron Paul, a former Republican member of Congress and prominent libertarian, thanked Snowden and Greenwald and denounced the mass surveillance as unhelpful and damaging, urging instead more transparency in U.S. government actions.[135] He called Congress “derelict in giving that much power to the government,” and said that had he been elected president, he would have ordered searches only when there was probable cause of a crime having been committed, which he said was not how the PRISM program was being operated.[136]
参考译文：前共和党国会议员、著名自由主义者罗恩·保罗（Ron Paul）感谢斯诺登和格林沃尔德（Greenwald），谴责大规模监视的无益和有害，并敦促美国政府更加透明地行事。他称国会“对政府赋予了如此大的权力是失职的”，并表示如果他当选总统，他只会在有犯罪可能的情况下才下令搜查，而这并不是PRISM计划的运作方式。

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman defended limited government surveillance programs intended to protect the American people from terrorist acts:
参考译文：《纽约时报》专栏作家托马斯·L·弗里德曼 (Thomas L. Friedman) 为旨在保护美国人民免受恐怖主义行为侵害的有限政府监控计划进行了辩护：

Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11—abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. … If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most. That is why I’ll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses—and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress—to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime.[137]

参考译文：是的，我担心一个旨在防止另一次9/11的计划可能会被政府滥用隐私权，但迄今为止，似乎并没有发生滥用的情况。但我更担心的是另一次9/11的发生。……如果再次发生9/11，我担心99%的美国人会告诉他们的国会议员：“不管你们需要做什么，隐私权都可以不顾，只要确保这种情况不再发生。”这是我最担心的。这就是为什么我不情愿、非常不情愿地会交换政府使用数据挖掘来寻找电话号码和电子邮件地址中的可疑模式，并且必须根据国会制定的指导方针向法官申请许可才能查看内容，以防止一天，出于恐惧，我们给予政府查看任何人、任何电子邮件、任何电话的许可权，无论何时何地。

Political commentator David Brooks similarly cautioned that government data surveillance programs are a necessary evil: “if you don’t have mass data sweeps, well, then these agencies are going to want to go back to the old-fashioned eavesdropping, which is a lot more intrusive.”[138]
参考译文：政治评论家大卫·布鲁克斯（David Brooks）同样警告称，政府的数据监视计划是一种必要的恶：“如果没有大规模的数据扫描，那么这些机构将会希望回到传统的窃听方式，这种方式更加侵入性。”

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer worried less about the legality of PRISM and other NSA surveillance tools than about the potential for their abuse without more stringent oversight. “The problem here is not constitutionality. … We need a toughening of both congressional oversight and judicial review, perhaps even some independent outside scrutiny. Plus periodic legislative revision—say, reauthorization every couple of years—in light of the efficacy of the safeguards and the nature of the external threat. The object is not to abolish these vital programs. It’s to fix them.”[139]
参考译文：保守派评论家查尔斯·克劳塞默（Charles Krauthammer）更担心PRISM和其他NSA监视工具的滥用可能性，而不是其合法性问题。他说：“问题不在于合宪性……我们需要加强国会监督和司法审查，甚至可能需要一些独立的外部审查。此外，还需要定期的立法修订，比如每隔几年重新授权，以适应保障措施的有效性和外部威胁的性质。目标不是废除这些重要的计划，而是修复它们。”

In a blog post, David Simon, the creator of The Wire, compared the NSA’s programs, including PRISM, to a 1980s effort by the City of Baltimore to add dialed number recorders to all pay phones to know which individuals were being called by the callers;[140] the city believed that drug traffickers were using pay phones and pagers, and a municipal judge allowed the city to place the recorders. The placement of the dialers formed the basis of the show’s first season. Simon argued that the media attention regarding the NSA programs is a “faux scandal.”[140][141] Simon had stated that many classes of people in American society had already faced constant government surveillance.
参考译文：在一篇博客文章中，《火线》的创作者大卫·西蒙（David Simon）将NSA的计划，包括PRISM计划，与20世纪80年代巴尔的摩市政府的努力进行了对比，当时他们在所有公用电话上添加了拨号记录器，以了解被呼叫者的身份；城市认为毒贩在使用公用电话和寻呼机，一位市政法官允许城市安装记录器。设置这些拨号器成为该剧第一季的基础。西蒙认为，媒体对NSA计划的关注是一个“假的丑闻”。西蒙曾表示，许多美国社会的阶层已经面临着持续的政府监视。

Political activist, and frequent critic of U.S. government policies, Noam Chomsky argued, “Governments should not have this capacity. But governments will use whatever technology is available to them to combat their primary enemy – which is their own population.”[142]
参考译文：政治活动家、经常批评美国政府政策的诺姆·乔姆斯基认为，“政府不应该拥有这种能力。但政府将使用他们可以利用的任何技术来打击他们的主要敌人——也就是他们自己的人民。”[142]

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted June 11 through 13 and released in 2013 found that 66% of Americans generally supported the program.[143][144]^[1] However, a Quinnipiac University poll conducted June 28 through July 8 and released in 2013 found that 45% of registered voters think the surveillance programs have gone too far, with 40% saying they do not go far enough, compared to 25% saying they had gone too far and 63% saying not far enough in 2010.[145] Other polls have shown similar shifts in public opinion as revelations about the programs were leaked.[146][147]
参考译文：2013年6月11日至13日进行的CNN/意见研究公司民意调查发现，66%的美国人总体上支持该计划。然而，2013年6月28日至7月8日期间进行的昆尼皮亚克大学民意调查发现，45%的注册选民认为监视计划已经过分，40%的人表示这还不够，而在2010年，25%的人认为已经过分，63%的人认为还不够。其他民意调查也显示，随着有关这些计划的泄露，公众舆论出现了类似的转变。

In terms of economic impact, a study released in August by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation[148] found that the disclosure of PRISM could cost the U.S. economy between $21.5 and $35 billion in lost cloud computing business over three years.[149][150][151][152]
参考译文：就经济影响而言，信息技术与创新基金会[148] 8 月份发布的一项研究发现，PRISM 的披露可能会使美国经济在三年内因云计算业务损失而损失 21.5 至 350 亿美元。[149][ 150][151][152]

3.4.2 国际 | International

Sentiment around the world was that of general displeasure upon learning the extent of world communication data mining. Some national leaders spoke against the NSA and some spoke against their own national surveillance. One national minister had scathing comments on the National Security Agency’s data-mining program, citing Benjamin Franklin: “The more a society monitors, controls, and observes its citizens, the less free it is.”[153] Some question if the costs of hunting terrorists now overshadows the loss of citizen privacy.[154][155]
参考译文：一旦了解到全球通信数据挖掘的程度，世界各地的情绪普遍是不满的。一些国家领导人对NSA表示不满，一些则对本国的监视活动表示反对。一位国家部长对国家安全局的数据挖掘计划发表了尖锐的批评，引用了本杰明·富兰克林的话：“一个社会对其公民进行监控、控制和观察的程度越高，它的自由就越少。”一些人质疑，现在打击恐怖分子的成本是否超过了公民隐私的损失。

Nick Xenophon, an Australian independent senator, asked Bob Carr, the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, if e-mail addresses of Australian parliamentarians were exempt from PRISM, Mainway, Marina, and/or Nucleon. After Carr replied that there was a legal framework to protect Australians but that the government would not comment on intelligence matters, Xenophon argued that this was not a specific answer to his question.[156]
参考译文：澳大利亚独立参议员尼克·克森纳问澳大利亚外交部长鲍勃·卡尔，澳大利亚议员的电子邮件地址是否被豁免免受PRISM、Mainway、Marina和/或Nucleon的影响。卡尔回答说，有一个法律框架来保护澳大利亚人，但政府不会对情报事务发表评论。克森纳认为这并不是对他问题的具体回答。

Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid said, “We knew about their past efforts to trace our system. We have used our technical resources to foil their efforts and have been able to stop them from succeeding so far.”[157][158] However CNN has reported that terrorist groups have changed their “communications behaviors” in response to the leaks.[63]
参考译文：塔利班发言人扎比乌拉·穆贾希德表示：“我们知道他们过去追踪我们系统的努力。我们利用我们的技术资源挫败了他们的努力，并且一直成功地阻止了他们。”然而，CNN报道称，恐怖组织已经改变了他们的“通信行为”以应对这些泄露。

In 2013 the Cloud Security Alliance surveyed cloud computing stakeholders about their reactions to the US PRISM spying scandal. About 10% of non-US residents indicated that they had cancelled a project with a US-based cloud computing provider, in the wake of PRISM; 56% said that they would be less likely to use a US-based cloud computing service. The Alliance predicted that US cloud computing providers might lose as much as €26 billion and 20% of its share of cloud services in foreign markets because of the PRISM spying scandal.[159]
参考译文：2013年，云安全联盟对云计算利益相关者就美国PRISM监控丑闻采取了调查。约10%的非美国居民表示，在PRISM丑闻爆发后，他们取消了与总部位于美国的云计算服务提供商的项目；56%的受访者表示，他们将不太可能使用总部位于美国的云计算服务。云安全联盟预测，由于PRISM监控丑闻，美国云计算服务提供商在海外市场可能损失高达260亿欧元和20%的市场份额。

3.4.3 中国 | China

Reactions of internet users in China were mixed between viewing a loss of freedom worldwide and seeing state surveillance coming out of secrecy. The story broke just before U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in California.^[160][161] When asked about NSA hacking China, the spokeswoman of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China said, “China strongly advocates cybersecurity.”^[162] The party-owned newspaper Liberation Daily described this surveillance like Nineteen Eighty-Four-style.^[163] Hong Kong legislators Gary Fan and Claudia Mo wrote a letter to Obama stating, “the revelations of blanket surveillance of global communications by the world’s leading democracy have damaged the image of the U.S. among freedom-loving peoples around the world.”^[164]Ai Weiwei, a Chinese dissident, said, “Even though we know governments do all kinds of things I was shocked by the information about the US surveillance operation, Prism. To me, it’s abusively using government powers to interfere in individuals’ privacy. This is an important moment for international society to reconsider and protect individual rights.”^[165]
参考译文：中国网民对此有着不同的反应，一方面认为这代表了全球自由的丧失，另一方面则认为这揭示了国家监控行为的秘密。这一消息在美国总统奥巴马和中国国家主席习近平在加利福尼亚会晤前夕曝光。中国外交部发言人在被问到美国国家安全局是否黑客攻击中国时表示，“中国坚决倡导网络安全”。中国党报《解放日报》形容这种监控行为就像《1984》一样。香港立法者范国威和毛孟静给奥巴马写了一封信称，“这个世界领先的民主国家对全球通信进行的全面监控的曝光，已经损害了美国在自由爱好者中的形象”。中国异议人士艾未未说：“尽管我们知道政府会做各种各样的事情，但我对美国的监控行动——棱镜计划的信息感到震惊。对我来说，这是政府滥用权力干预个人隐私的行为。这是国际社会重新考虑和保护个人权利的重要时刻。”

3.4.4 欧洲 | Europe

图片题注：Digital rights group Digitale Gesellschaft protest at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, Germany (June 18, 2013)
参考译文：数字版权组织 Digitale Gesellschaft 在德国柏林查理检查站抗议（2013 年 6 月 18 日）

图片作者：Digitale Gesellschaft

图片题注：Protesters against PRISM in Berlin, Germany wearing Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden masks (June 19, 2013)
参考译文：德国柏林反对棱镜运动的抗议者戴着切尔西·曼宁和爱德华·斯诺登面具（2013 年 6 月 19 日）

图片来源：Mike Herbst from Berlin, Germany

Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch Member of the European Parliament, called PRISM “a violation of EU laws.”[166]
参考译文：欧洲议会荷兰议员 Sophie in ‘t Veld 称 PRISM“违反了欧盟法律。”[166]

The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Peter Schaar, condemned the program as “monstrous.”[167] He further added that White House claims do “not reassure me at all” and that “given the large number of German users of Google, Facebook, Apple or Microsoft services, I expect the German government … is committed to clarification and limitation of surveillance.” Steffen Seibert, press secretary of the Chancellor’s office, announced that Angela Merkel will put these issues on the agenda of the talks with Barack Obama during his pending visit in Berlin.[168] Wolfgang Schmidt, a former lieutenant colonel with the Stasi, said that the Stasi would have seen such a program as a “dream come true” since the Stasi lacked the technology that made PRISM possible.[169] Schmidt expressed opposition, saying, “It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used. This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”[98] Many Germans organized protests, including one at Checkpoint Charlie, when Obama went to Berlin to speak. Matthew Schofield of the McClatchy Washington Bureau said, “Germans are dismayed at Obama’s role in allowing the collection of so much information.”[98]
参考译文：德国联邦数据保护和信息自由专员彼得·夏尔谴责该计划为“可怕的”[167]。他进一步表示，白宫的声明“一点也不能让我放心”，并且“考虑到德国使用谷歌、Facebook、苹果或微软服务的大量用户，我希望德国政府……致力于澄清和限制监控。”总理办公室新闻秘书斯特芬·塞伯特宣布，安格拉·默克尔将在巴拉克·奥巴马即将访问柏林期间将这些问题置于讨论议程上[168]。前东德国家安全局中校沃尔夫冈·施密特表示，东德国家安全局将视这样的计划为“梦想成真”，因为东德国家安全局缺乏使PRISM成为可能的技术[169]。施密特表示反对，称“认为一旦收集了这些信息就不会被使用是非常天真的。这是秘密政府组织的本质。保护人民隐私的唯一方法就是不让政府首先收集他们的信息。”[98]许多德国人组织了抗议活动，包括在查理检查站举行的一次抗议活动，当奥巴马前往柏林演讲时。麦卡锡华盛顿分社的马修·斯科菲尔德说：“德国人对奥巴马在允许收集如此多信息方面的角色感到失望。”[98]

The Italian president of the Guarantor for the protection of personal data, Antonello Soro, said that the surveillance dragnet “would not be legal in Italy” and would be “contrary to the principles of our legislation and would represent a very serious violation.”[170]
参考译文：意大利个人数据保护担保人主席安东内洛·索罗 (Antonello Soro) 表示，监视和拉取网络数据“在意大利是不合法的”，并且“违反我们的立法原则，构成非常严重的违规行为”。 170]

CNIL (French data protection watchdog) ordered Google to change its privacy policies within three months or risk fines up to 150,000 euros. Spanish Agency of data protection (AEPD) planned to fine Google between 40,000 and 300,000 euros if it failed to clear stored data on the Spanish users.[171]
参考译文：CNIL（法国数据保护监管机构）要求谷歌在三个月内更改其隐私政策，否则将面临最高 15 万欧元的罚款。 如果谷歌未能清除西班牙用户存储的数据，西班牙数据保护局 (AEPD) 计划对谷歌处以 40,000 至 300,000 欧元的罚款。 [171]

William Hague, the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, dismissed accusations that British security agencies had been circumventing British law by using information gathered on British citizens by PRISM[172] saying, “Any data obtained by us from the United States involving UK nationals is subject to proper UK statutory controls and safeguards.”[172] David Cameron said Britain’s spy agencies that received data collected from PRISM acted within the law: “I’m satisfied that we have intelligence agencies that do a fantastically important job for this country to keep us safe, and they operate within the law.”[172][173] Malcolm Rifkind, the chairman of parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, said that if the British intelligence agencies were seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the UK, then they actually have to get lawful authority.[173] The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office was more cautious, saying it would investigate PRISM alongside other European data agencies: “There are real issues about the extent to which U.S. law agencies can access personal data of UK and other European citizens. Aspects of U.S. law under which companies can be compelled to provide information to U.S. agencies potentially conflict with European data protection law, including the UK’s own Data Protection Act. The ICO has raised this with its European counterparts, and the issue is being considered by the European Commission, who are in discussions with the U.S. Government.”[166]
参考译文：英国外交大臣威廉·黑格驳斥了英国安全机构利用PRISM收集到的英国公民信息来规避英国法律的指控，他表示：“我们从美国获取的任何涉及英国公民的数据都受到适当的英国法定控制和保护。”[172] 英国首相戴维·卡梅伦表示，接收从PRISM收集到的数据的英国间谍机构是在法律范围内行事的：“我对我们的情报机构非常满意，他们为了保护我们的国家安全做了极其重要的工作，而且他们是在法律的框架下运作的。”[172][173] 英国议会情报和安全委员会主席马尔科姆·里夫金德表示，如果英国情报机构试图了解在英国居住的人的电子邮件内容，那么他们必须获得合法的授权[173]。英国信息专员办公室则更加谨慎，表示将与其他欧洲数据机构一起调查PRISM：“美国执法机构访问英国和其他欧洲公民的个人数据的程度存在真实问题。美国法律根据其可以强制公司提供信息给美国机构的条款，可能与欧洲数据保护法相冲突，包括英国自己的数据保护法。信息专员办公室已与其欧洲同行提出了这个问题，并且这个问题正在欧洲委员会进行讨论，他们正在与美国政府进行磋商。”[166]

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, accused western governments of practicing hypocrisy, as they conducted spying on the internet while they criticized other countries for spying on the internet. He stated that internet spying can make people feel reluctant to access intimate and private information that is important to them.[174] In a statement given to Financial Times following the Snowden revelations, Berners-Lee stated “Unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society.”[175]
参考译文：万维网的发明者蒂姆·伯纳斯-李指责西方政府实行虚伪，他们在批评其他国家对互联网进行监控的同时，自己也在进行互联网监控。他表示，互联网监控可能会让人们不愿意访问对他们来说重要的亲密和私人信息[174]。在斯诺登曝光后向英国《金融时报》发表的声明中，伯纳斯-李表示：“无理由的政府监视侵犯了基本人权，威胁到民主社会的基石。”[175]

3.4.5 印度 | India

Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid defended the PRISM program saying, “This is not scrutiny and access to actual messages. It is only computer analysis of patterns of calls and emails that are being sent. It is not actually snooping specifically on content of anybody’s message or conversation. Some of the information they got out of their scrutiny, they were able to use it to prevent serious terrorist attacks in several countries.”[176] His comments contradicted his Foreign Ministry’s characterization of violations of privacy as “unacceptable.”[177][178] When the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal was asked about Khurshid’s comments, he refused to comment on them directly, but said, “We do not know the nature of data or information sought [as part of PRISM]. Even the external ministry does not have any idea.”[179] The media felt that Khurshid’s defence of PRISM was because the India government was rolling out the Central Monitoring System (CMS), which is similar to the PRISM program.[180][181][182]
参考译文：印度外交部长萨尔曼·库尔希德为PRISM计划进行了辩护，他表示：“这并不是对真实信息的审查和获取。它只是对通话和电子邮件模式的计算机分析。实际上，并没有专门窥探任何人信息或对话内容。他们通过对这些信息进行分析，成功阻止了多个国家发生严重的恐怖袭击。”[176] 他的言论与印度外交部将侵犯隐私行为描述为“不可接受”[177][178]的说法相矛盾。当时的通信和信息技术部长卡皮尔·西巴尔在被问及对库尔希德的评论时拒绝直接发表评论，但他表示：“我们不知道所寻求的数据或信息的性质[作为PRISM的一部分]。即使外交部也不知道。”[179] 媒体认为库尔希德为PRISM辩护是因为印度政府正在推出类似PRISM计划的中央监控系统（CMS）[180][181][182]。

Khurshid’s comments were criticized by the Indian media,[183][184] as well as opposition party CPI(M) who stated, “The UPA government should have strongly protested against such surveillance and bugging. Instead, it is shocking that Khurshid has sought to justify it. This shameful remark has come at a time when even the close allies of the US like Germany and France have protested against the snooping on their countries.”[185]
参考译文：库尔希德的言论受到印度媒体[183][184]以及反对党印度共产党（马克思主义）的批评。印度共产党（马克思主义）表示：“联合进步联盟政府应该强烈抗议这种监视和窃听行为。然而，令人震惊的是，库尔希德竟然试图为此辩护。这种可耻的言论出现在连美国的亲密盟友德国和法国都对其对本国的监控表示抗议之际。”[185]

Rajya Sabha MP P. Rajeev told The Times of India that “The act of the USA is a clear violation of Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. But Khurshid is trying to justify it. And the speed of the government of India to reject the asylum application of Edward Snowden is shameful.”[186]
参考译文：印度联邦院议员 P. Rajeev 告诉《印度时报》，“美国的行为明显违反了维也纳外交关系公约。但库希德正在试图为其辩护。印度政府拒绝庇护申请的速度 爱德华·斯诺登的行为是可耻的。”[186]

4. 法律方面 | Legal aspects

4.1 所适用的法律和实践 | Applicable law and practice

On June 8, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence issued a fact sheet stating that PRISM “is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program,” but rather “an internal government computer system” used to facilitate the collection of foreign intelligence information “under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a).”[53] Section 702 provides that “the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.”[187] In order to authorize the targeting, the attorney general and Director of National Intelligence need to obtain an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) pursuant to Section 702 or certify that “intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order.”[187] When requesting an order, the attorney general and Director of National Intelligence must certify to the FISA Court that “a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”[187] They do not need to specify which facilities or property will be targeted.[187]
参考译文：2013年6月8日，美国国家情报总监发表了一份说明书，指出PRISM“不是一个未公开的数据收集或数据挖掘程序”，而是一个“内部政府计算机系统”，用于在《外国情报监视法》第702条的授权和法院监督下，收集外国情报信息（50 U.S.C. § 1881a）[53]。根据第702条，美国司法部长和国家情报总监“可以共同授权，在授权生效的一年内，针对合理相信位于美国以外地区的人进行定向监控，以获取外国情报信息。”[187] 为了授权定向监控，司法部长和国家情报总监需要向外国情报监视法庭（FISA法庭）获得一个命令，根据第702条或者证明“对于美国国家安全至关重要的情报可能会丧失或无法及时获取，而时间又不允许发布命令。”[187] 在请求命令时，司法部长和国家情报总监必须向FISA法庭证明“收集的一个重要目的是获取外国情报信息。”[187] 他们不需要具体指定将监控哪些设施或财产。[187]

After receiving a FISA Court order or determining that there are emergency circumstances, the attorney general and Director of National Intelligence can direct an electronic communication service provider to give them access to information or facilities to carry out the targeting and keep the targeting secret.[187] The provider then has the option to: (1) comply with the directive; (2) reject it; or (3) challenge it with the FISA Court. If the provider complies with the directive, it is released from liability to its users for providing the information and is reimbursed for the cost of providing it,[187] while if the provider rejects the directive, the attorney general may request an order from the FISA Court to enforce it.[187] A provider that fails to comply with the FISA Court’s order can be punished with contempt of court.[187]
参考译文：在获得FISA法庭的命令或确定存在紧急情况后，司法部长和国家情报总监可以指示电子通信服务提供商提供信息或设施，以执行定向监控并保持监控的保密性。[187] 然后，服务提供商可以选择：（1）遵守指示；（2）拒绝指示；或者（3）向FISA法庭提出挑战。如果服务提供商遵守指示，它将免除对其用户提供信息的责任，并获得提供信息的成本的报销，[187] 而如果服务提供商拒绝指示，司法部长可以向FISA法庭请求强制执行命令。[187] 不遵守FISA法庭命令的提供商可能会被判处藐视法庭的处罚。[187]

Finally, a provider can petition the FISA Court to reject the directive.[187] In case the FISA Court denies the petition and orders the provider to comply with the directive, the provider risks contempt of court if it refuses to comply with the FISA Court’s order.[187] The provider can appeal the FISA Court’s denial to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review and then appeal the Court of Review’s decision to the Supreme Court by a writ of certiorari for review under seal.[187]
参考译文：最后，服务提供商可以向FISA法庭申请拒绝指示。[187] 如果FISA法庭拒绝申请并命令提供商遵守指示，在拒绝遵守FISA法庭命令的情况下，提供商面临藐视法庭的风险。[187] 提供商可以将FISA法庭的拒绝决定上诉至外国情报监视法庭审查，并通过保密的认证请求上诉法庭审查的决定。[187]

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the FISA Courts had been put in place to oversee intelligence operations in the period after the death of J. Edgar Hoover. Beverly Gage of Slate said, “When they were created, these new mechanisms were supposed to stop the kinds of abuses that men like Hoover had engineered. Instead, it now looks as if they have come to function as rubber stamps for the expansive ambitions of the intelligence community. J. Edgar Hoover no longer rules Washington, but it turns out we didn’t need him anyway.”[188]
参考译文：

4.2 诉讼 | Litigation

Date 日期	Litigant 当事人	Description 描述
June 11, 2013 2013年6月11日	American Civil Liberties Union 美国公民自由联盟	表注1
June 11, 2013 2013年6月11日	FreedomWatch USA 美国自由观察	表注2
February 18, 2014 2014年2月18日	Rand Paul and Freedom Works, Inc. 兰德·保罗和自由作品国际公司	表注3
June 2, 2014 2014年6月2日	Elliott J. Schuchardt 埃利奥特·J·舒查特	表注4

表注1：

Lawsuit filed against the NSA citing that the “Mass Call Tracking Program” (as the case terms PRISM) “violates Americans’ constitutional rights of free speech, association, and privacy” and constitutes “dragnet” surveillance, in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution, and thereby also “exceeds the authority granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1861, and thereby violates 5 U.S.C. § 706.”[189] The case was joined by Yale Law School, on behalf of its Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic.[190]
参考译文：对美国国家安全局提起诉讼，称“大众电话追踪计划”（本案中称为“棱镜门”）“侵犯了美国人的言论自由、结社自由和隐私的宪法权利”，并构成“天罗地网”监视，违反了第一和第四条 宪法修正案，因此也“超出了《美国法典》第 50 条第 1861 条授予的权力，从而违反了《美国法典》第 5 条第 706 条。”[189] 耶鲁大学法学院代表其媒体自由和信息获取诊所加入了此案 .[190]

表注2：

Class action lawsuit against government bodies and officials believed responsible for PRISM, and 12 companies (including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Skype and their chief executives) who have been disclosed as providing or making available mass information about their users’ communications and data to the NSA under the PRISM program or related programs. The case cites the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, as well as breach of 18 U.S.C. §§2702 (disclosure of communications records), and asks the court to rule that the program operates outside its legal authority (s.215 of the Patriot Act). The class includes the plaintiffs and[191] “other American citizens who, in addition to being members of the Nationwide Class, had their telephone calls and/or emails and/or any other communications made or received through Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Sprint, AT&T, Apple, Microsoft and/or PalTalk actually recorded and/or listened into by or on behalf of [the] Defendants.” In November 2017, the district court dismissed the case.
参考译文：对被认为对PRISM负有责任的政府机构和官员以及12家公司（包括苹果、微软、谷歌、Facebook和Skype及其首席执行官）提起了集体诉讼。这些公司已经被披露为在PRISM计划或相关计划下向NSA提供或提供大量关于其用户通信和数据的信息。该案引用了《宪法》第一、第四和第五修正案，以及违反了18 U.S.C. §§2702（披露通信记录）的规定，并要求法院裁定该计划超出其法定权限（《爱国者法案》第215条）。该集体诉讼包括原告和“其他美国公民，他们除了作为全国类的成员外，还通过Facebook、谷歌、雅虎、YouTube、Skype、AOL、Sprint、AT&T、苹果、微软和/或PalTalk进行的电话、电子邮件和/或任何其他通信实际上被被告或代表被告录制和/或监听的人。”2017年11月，地方法院驳回了该案。

表注3：

Lawsuit filed against President Barack Obama, James R. Clapper, as Director of National Intelligence, Keith B. Alexander, as director of the NSA, James B. Comey, as director of the FBI, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The case contends that the Defendants are violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States by collecting phone metadata. The case is currently stayed pending the outcome of the government’s appeal in the FreedomWatch USA/Klayman case.
参考译文：该诉讼是针对美国总统巴拉克·奥巴马、国家情报总监詹姆斯·克拉珀、国家安全局局长基斯·亚历山大和联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米在哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院提起的。该案称被告通过收集电话元数据违反了美国宪法第四修正案。该案目前暂停，等待政府在FreedomWatch USA/Klayman案件的上诉结果。

表注4：

Lawsuit filed against President Barack Obama, James R. Clapper, as Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Michael R. Rogers, as director of the NSA, James B. Comey, as director of the FBI, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The case contends that the Defendants are violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States by collecting the full content of e-mail in the United States. The complaint asks the Court to find the Defendants’ program unconstitutional, and seeks an injunction. The court is currently considering the government’s motion to dismiss this case.
参考译文：该诉讼是针对美国总统巴拉克·奥巴马、国家情报总监詹姆斯·克拉珀、国家安全局局长迈克尔·罗杰斯上将和联邦调查局局长詹姆斯·科米在宾夕法尼亚州西区联邦地区法院提起的。该案声称被告通过在美国收集电子邮件的全部内容来违反美国宪法第四修正案。起诉书要求法院认定被告的计划违宪，并寻求禁令。法院目前正在考虑政府对此案的驳回动议。

4.3 对法律问题的分析 | Analysis of legal issues

Laura Donohue, a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and its Center on National Security and the Law, has called PRISM and other NSA mass surveillance programs unconstitutional.[192]
参考译文：乔治敦大学法学中心及其国家安全与法律中心的法学教授劳拉·多诺休称PRISM和其他NSA的大规模监视计划违宪。

Woodrow Hartzog, an affiliate at Stanford Law School‘s Center for Internet and Society commented that “[The ACLU will] likely have to demonstrate legitimate First Amendment harms (such as chilling effects) or Fourth Amendment harms (perhaps a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy) … Is it a harm to merely know with certainty that you are being monitored by the government? There’s certainly an argument that it is. People under surveillance act differently, experience a loss of autonomy, are less likely to engage in self exploration and reflection, and are less willing to engage in core expressive political activities such as dissenting speech and government criticism. Such interests are what First and Fourth Amendment seek to protect.”[193]
参考译文：斯坦福法学院互联网与社会中心的联络人伍德罗·哈尔佐格评论道：“（美国公民自由联盟）可能必须证明合法的第一修正案伤害（比如恐吓效应）或第四修正案伤害（可能是对合理隐私期望的侵犯）……仅仅明确地知道自己正在被政府监控，是否构成一种伤害？这当然是有争议的。受到监视的人会有不同的行为，会丧失自主权，不太可能进行自我探索和反思，并且不太愿意参与核心表达政治活动，比如发表异议言论和批评政府。这些利益正是第一修正案和第四修正案所致力保护的。”

4.4 FISA 修正案的合法性 | Legality of the FISA Amendments Act

The FISA Amendments Act (FAA) Section 702 is referenced in PRISM documents detailing the electronic interception, capture and analysis of metadata. Many reports and letters of concern written by members of Congress suggest that this section of FAA in particular is legally and constitutionally problematic, such as by targeting U.S. persons, insofar as “Collections occur in U.S.” as published documents indicate.[194][195][196][197]
参考译文：《外国情报监视法修正案》（FAA）第702条款在PRISM文件中被引用，详细描述了元数据的电子拦截、捕获和分析。许多国会议员撰写的报告和关注信件表明，特别是FAA的这一条款在法律和宪法上存在问题，例如针对美国人的问题，“收集活动发生在美国”，正如公开文件所示。

The ACLU has asserted the following regarding the FAA: “Regardless of abuses, the problem with the FAA is more fundamental: the statute itself is unconstitutional.”[198]
参考译文：美国公民自由联盟就联邦航空局提出了以下主张：“无论是否存在滥用行为，联邦航空局的问题更为根本：该法规本身是违宪的。”[198]

Senator Rand Paul is introducing new legislation called the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 to stop the NSA or other agencies of the United States government from violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution using technology and big data information systems like PRISM and Boundless Informant.[199][200]
参考译文：参议员兰德·保罗正在推出一项名为《第四修正案恢复法案》的新立法，旨在阻止NSA或其他美国政府机构利用像PRISM和无尽清算这样的技术和大数据信息系统侵犯美国宪法第四修正案。

5. 同样使用名称“PRISM”的项目 | Programs sharing the name PRISM

Besides the information collection program started in 2007, there are two other programs sharing the name PRISM:[201]
参考译文：除了 2007 年启动的信息收集计划外，还有另外两个计划共用 PRISM：[201]

(1) The Planning tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization and Management (PRISM), a web tool used by US military intelligence to send tasks and instructions to data collection platforms deployed to military operations.[202]
参考译文：资源整合、同步和管理规划工具（PRISM）是美国军事情报部门使用的一个网络工具，用于向部署在军事行动中的数据收集平台发送任务和指令。

(2) The Portal for Real-time Information Sharing and Management (PRISM), whose existence was revealed by the NSA in July 2013.[201] This is an internal NSA program for real-time sharing of information which is apparently located in the NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate.[201] The NSA’s Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) is a very secretive division which is responsible for safeguarding U.S. government and military secrets by implementing sophisticated encryption techniques.[201]
参考译文：即时信息共享和管理门户（PRISM）是由NSA在2013年7月披露的一个存在。这是NSA的一个内部计划，用于实时共享信息，据说位于NSA的信息保障总局。NSA的信息保障总局（IAD）是一个非常神秘的部门，负责通过实施复杂的加密技术来保护美国政府和军事机密。

6. 美国国安局的相关项目 | Related NSA programs

Main article: List of government mass surveillance projects
主条目：美国政府大规模监视项目列表

图片题注：Idea behind the MUSCULAR program, which gave direct access to Google and Yahoo private clouds, no warrants needed
参考译文：MUSCULAR 计划背后的想法，该计划可以直接访问 Google 和 Yahoo 私有云，无需任何授权

图片来源：U.S. National Security Agency – 原图链接（华盛顿邮报）

Parallel programs, known collectively as SIGADs gather data and metadata from other sources, each SIGAD has a set of defined sources, targets, types of data collected, legal authorities, and software associated with it. Some SIGADs have the same name as the umbrella under which they sit, BLARNEY’s (the SIGAD) summary, set down in the slides alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat, describes it as “an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks.”
参考译文：并行计划，集体称为SIGADs，从其他来源收集数据和元数据，每个SIGAD都有一组定义的来源、目标、收集的数据类型、法律授权和与之相关的软件。一些SIGAD与它们所属的伞形机构具有相同的名称，BLARNEY（SIGAD）的总结在幻灯片中附有一个三叶草和小矮人帽子的卡通徽章，描述它为“一个持续的收集计划，利用情报社区和商业合作伙伴关系来获得并利用从全球网络获取的外国情报”。

Some SIGADs, like PRISM, collect data at the ISP level, but others take it from the top-level infrastructure. This type of collection is known as “upstream”. Upstream collection includes programs known by the blanket terms BLARNEY, FAIRVIEW, OAKSTAR and STORMBREW, under each of these are individual SIGADs. Data that is integrated into a SIGAD can be gathered in other ways besides upstream, and from the service providers, for instance it can be collected from passive sensors around embassies, or even stolen from an individual computer network in a hacking attack.[203][204][205][206][207] Not all SIGADs involve upstream collection, for instance, data could be taken directly from a service provider, either by agreement (as is the case with PRISM), by means of hacking, or other ways.[208][209][210] According to the Washington Post, the much less known MUSCULAR program, which directly taps the unencrypted data inside the Google and Yahoo private clouds, collects more than twice as many data points compared to PRISM.[211] Because the Google and Yahoo clouds span the globe, and because the tap was done outside of the United States, unlike PRISM, the MUSCULAR program requires no (FISA or other type of) warrants.[212]
参考译文：一些SIGADs（如PRISM）在互联网服务提供商（ISP）级别收集数据，而其他一些SIGADs则从顶层基础设施获取数据。这种类型的收集被称为“上游”。上游收集包括BLARNEY、FAIRVIEW、OAKSTAR和STORMBREW等通用术语下的程序，每个程序下都有个别的SIGADs。整合到SIGAD中的数据可以通过上游之外的其他方式从服务提供商那里收集，例如可以从大使馆周围的被动传感器收集，甚至可以通过黑客攻击从个别计算机网络中窃取。并非所有的SIGADs都涉及上游收集，例如，数据可以直接从服务提供商那里获取，可以通过协议（如PRISM的情况），通过黑客攻击或其他方式。根据《华盛顿邮报》的报道，MUSCULAR计划是一个不太为人所知的计划，它直接窃取谷歌和雅虎私有云中的未加密数据，与PRISM相比，MUSCULAR计划收集的数据点数量超过两倍。由于谷歌和雅虎云覆盖全球，并且窃听是在美国境外进行的，与PRISM不同，MUSCULAR计划不需要（FISA或其他类型的）授权。

2. 参见 | See also

2.1 英文词条

• United States portal 美国主题
• Politics portal 政治主题

• Central Monitoring System 中央监控系统
• Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), a U.S. wiretapping law passed in 1994
  执法通信援助法 (CALEA)，美国 1994 年通过的窃听法
• DRDO NETRA DRDO网络
• ECHELON, a signals intelligence collection and analysis network operated on behalf of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States
  ECHELON，代表澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰、英国和美国运营的信号情报收集和分析网络
• Economic espionage 经济间谍活动
• Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 美国宪法第四修正案
• INDECT, European Union automatic threat detection research project INDECT，欧盟自动威胁检测研究项目
• Information Awareness Office, a defunct DARPA project 信息意识办公室，一个已解散的 DARPA 项目
• Law Enforcement Information Exchange 执法信息交换
• Lawful interception 合法拦截
• Mass surveillance 大规模监视
• Muscular (surveillance program) 肌肉发达（监视程序）
• NSA call database, contains call detail information for hundreds of billions of telephone calls made through the largest U.S. telephone carriers
  NSA 呼叫数据库包含通过美国最大的电话运营商拨打的数千亿个电话的详细信息
• Room 641A 641A室
• Signals intelligence 信号情报
• SORM, Russian telephone and internet surveillance project SORM，俄罗斯电话和互联网监控项目
• Surveillance 监视
• Targeted surveillance 有针对性的监视
• Tempora, the data-gathering project run by the British GCHQ Tempora，英国 GCHQ 运营的数据收集项目
• TURBINE (US government project) 涡轮机（美国政府项目）
• Utah Data Center, a data storage facility supporting the U.S. Intelligence Community
  犹他数据中心，支持美国情报界的数据存储设施

2.2 中文词条

• 爱德华·斯诺登
• 网络主权
• 大规模监控
• 梯队系统
• 犹他数据中心
• 恒星风（情报活动代号）
• 时代计划（英国同类计划）
• 电子通信隐私法
• 通信协助执法法
• 美国国家安全局无证监听争议
• 美国国家安全局
• 美国联邦调查局
• 美国中央情报局
• 美国国务院
• 美国国防部
• 蜻蜓项目
• 政治媒体复合体

3. 参考文献 | References

3.1 英文词条

1. ·  Gellman, Barton; Poitras, Laura (June 6, 2013). “US Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 28, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
2. ·  Greenwald, Glenn; MacAskill, Ewen (June 6, 2013). “NSA Taps in to Internet Giants’ Systems to Mine User Data, Secret Files Reveal – Top-Secret Prism Program Claims Direct Access to Servers of Firms Including Google, Apple and Facebook – Companies Deny Any Knowledge of Program in Operation Since 2007 – Obama Orders US to Draw Up Overseas Target List for Cyber-Attacks”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 7, 2019. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
3. ·  Braun, Stephen; Flaherty, Anne; Gillum, Jack; Apuzzo, Matt (June 15, 2013). “Secret to PRISM Program: Even Bigger Data Seizures”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 10, 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2013. 
4. ·  Chappell, Bill (June 6, 2013). “NSA Reportedly Mines Servers of US Internet Firms for Data”. NPR. The Two-Way (blog of NPR). Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
5. ·  ZDNet Community; Whittaker, Zack (June 8, 2013). “PRISM: Here’s How the NSA Wiretapped the Internet”. ZDNet. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on June 14, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
6. ·  Barton Gellman & Ashkan Soltani (October 30, 2013). “NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 6, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2013. 
7. ·  Siobhan Gorman & Jennifer Valentiono-Devries (August 20, 2013). “New Details Show Broader NSA Surveillance Reach – Programs Cover 75% of Nation’s Traffic, Can Snare Emails”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 21, 2013. 
8. ·  “Graphic: How the NSA Scours Internet Traffic in the U.S.” The Wall Street Journal. August 20, 2013. Retrieved August 21, 2013. 
9. ·  Jennifer Valentiono-Devries & Siobhan Gorman (August 20, 2013). “What You Need to Know on New Details of NSA Spying”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved August 21, 2013. 
10. ·  Lee, Timothy B. (June 6, 2013). “How Congress Unknowingly Legalized PRISM in 2007”. Wonkblog (blog of The Washington Post). Retrieved July 4, 2013.
11. ·  Johnson, Luke (July 1, 2013). “George W. Bush Defends PRISM: ‘I Put That Program in Place to Protect the Country'” Archived July 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 4, 2013.
12. ·  Office of the Director of National Intelligence (June 8, 2013). “Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (PDF). dni.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 2, 2013. Retrieved July 25, 2013. 
13. ·  Mezzofiore, Gianluca (June 17, 2013). “NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: Washington Snoopers Are Criminals” Archived September 17, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. International Business Times. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
14. ·  MacAskill, Ewan (August 23, 2013). “NSA paid millions to cover Prism compliance costs for tech companies”. Archived from the original on November 3, 2015. Retrieved August 27, 2013. 
15. ·  Staff (June 6, 2013). “NSA Slides Explain the PRISM Data-Collection Program”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 15, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
16. ·  John D Bates (October 3, 2011). “[redacted]” (PDF). p. 71. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 24, 2013. Retrieved August 21, 2013. 
17. ·  Savage, Charlie; Wyatt, Edward; Baker, Peter (June 6, 2013). “U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 16, 2017. Retrieved June 6, 2013. 
18. ·  Greenwald, Glenn (June 5, 2013). “NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Verizon Customers Daily – Top Secret Court Order Requiring Verizon to Hand Over All Call Data Shows Scale of Domestic Surveillance under Obama”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 16, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
19. ·  Staff (June 6, 2013). “Intelligence Chief Blasts NSA Leaks, Declassifies Some Details about Phone Program Limits”. Associated Press (via The Washington Post). Archived from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
20. ·  Ovide, Shira (June 8, 2013). “U.S. Official Releases Details of Prism Program”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 9, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
21. ·  Madison, Lucy (June 19, 2013). “Obama Defends ‘Narrow’ Surveillance Programs”. CBS News. Archived from the original on June 27, 2013. Retrieved June 30, 2013. 
22. ·  Johnson, Kevin; Martin, Scott; O’Donnell, Jayne; Winter, Michael (June 15, 2013). “Reports: NSA Siphons Data from 9 Major Net Firms”. USA Today. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2013. 
23. ·  MacAskill, Ewen; Borger, Julian; Hopkins, Nick; Davies, Nick; Ball, James (June 21, 2013). “GCHQ Taps Fibre-Optic Cables for Secret Access to World’s Communications – Exclusive: British Spy Agency Collects and Stores Vast Quantities of Global Email Messages, Facebook Posts, Internet Histories and Calls, and Shares Them with NSA, Latest Documents from Edward Snowden Reveal” Archived October 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
24. ·  Staff (June 22, 2013). “GCHQ Data-Tapping Claims Nightmarish, Says German Justice Minister” Archived January 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine. BBC News. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
25. ·  Clayton, Mark (June 22, 2013). “When in Doubt, NSA Searches Information on Americans – According to Newly Revealed Secret Documents, the NSA Retains Wide Discretion over Targeting Individuals for Surveillance – Including, Potentially, Americans – Civil Libertarians Say ‘It Confirms Our Worst Fears'”. Archived from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved June 25, 2013.. The Christian Science Monitor (via Yahoo! News). Retrieved June 30, 2013.
26. ·  Staff (June 20, 2013). “Procedures Used by NSA to Target Non-US Persons: Exhibit A – Full Document – Top-Secret Documents Show FISA Judges Have Signed Off on Broad Orders Allowing the NSA to Make Use of Information ‘Inadvertently’ Collected from Domestic US Communications Without a Warrant” Archived January 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
27. ·  Bump, Philip (June 20, 2013). “The NSA Guidelines for Spying on You Are Looser Than You’ve Been Told” Archived June 23, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Atlantic Wire. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
28. ·  “Espionnage de la NSA : tous les documents publiés par ‘Le Monde'”. Le Monde. October 21, 2013. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013. 
29. ·  “NSA Prism program slides”. The Guardian. November 1, 2013. Archived from the original on March 20, 2014. Retrieved March 19, 2014. 
30. ·  Gates, David Edgerley (June 26, 2013). “Through a Glass, Darkly”. Spying. Santa Fe: SleuthSayers. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
31. ·  Lundin, Leigh (July 7, 2013). “Pam, Prism, and Poindexter”. Spying. Washington: SleuthSayers. Archived from the original on January 4, 2014. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
32. ·  Dean, John W. (December 30, 2005). “George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress’ Laws to Protect National Security”. FindLaw. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved June 12, 2013. 
33. ·  Holtzman, Elizabeth (January 11, 2006). “The Impeachment of George W. Bush”. The Nation. Archived from the original on July 2, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013. 
34. ·  “Adopted by the House of Delegates” (PDF). American Bar Association. February 13, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2016. Retrieved August 26, 2013. 
35. ·  Staff (February 14, 2006). “Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program” Archived December 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 15, 2013.
36. ·  McAllister, Neil (December 29, 2012). “Senate Votes to Continue FISA Domestic Spying Through 2017 – All Proposed Privacy Amendments Rejected”. The Register. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
37. ·  “H.R. 5949 (112th Congress): FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012”. Archived from the original on May 20, 2013. Retrieved June 19, 2013. 
38. ·  Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, “Report on the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (PDF). pclob.gov. July 2, 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 18, 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2015. 
39. ·  “FBI, CIA Use Backdoor Searches To Warrentlessly Spy On Americans’ Communications”. TechDirt. June 30, 2014. Archived from the original on February 19, 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2015. 
40. ·  “NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program”. July 10, 2013. Archived from the original on March 15, 2014. Retrieved September 7, 2017. An annotated presentation of the NSA PRISM program as published by the Washington Post on 6 June 2013 and updated on 10 July 2013
41. ·  Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill, Laura Poitras, Spencer Ackerman and Dominic Rushe (July 11, 2013). “Revealed: how Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on November 19, 2015. Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
42. ·  “The NSA Files”. The Guardian. June 8, 2013. Archived from the original on October 3, 2014. Retrieved December 12, 2016. 
43. ·  Rea, Kari (July 28, 2013). “Glenn Greenwald: Low-Level NSA Analysts Have ‘Powerful and Invasive’ Search Tool”. ABC News. Archived from the original on July 30, 2013. Retrieved July 30, 2013. 
44. ·  Glenn Greenwald (July 31, 2013). “Revealed: NSA program collects ‘nearly everything a user does on the internet'”. Theguardian.com. Archived from the original on December 31, 2013. Retrieved January 27, 2014. 
45. ·  File:Prism-week-in-life-straight.png 
46. ·  “DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA”. Director of National Intelligence. June 6, 2013. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. 
47. ·  Greenberg, Andy (June 6, 2013). “Top U.S. Intelligence Officials Repeatedly Deny NSA Spying on Americans”. Forbes. Archived from the original on June 10, 2013. Retrieved June 7, 2013. 
48. ·  Shane, Scott; Sanger, David E. (June 30, 2013). “Job Title Key to Inner Access Held by Snowden”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 4, 2013. Retrieved June 30, 2013. 
49. ·  “TRANSCRIPT OF ANDREA MITCHELL’S INTERVIEW WITH DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE JAMES CLAPPER”. NBC News. June 9, 2013. Archived from the original on September 8, 2015. 
50. ·  “Obama Defends US Surveillance Programs | Voice of America – English”. www.voanews.com. Retrieved November 1, 2020. 
51. ·  Savage, Charlie; Wyatt, Edward; Baker, Peter; Shear, Michael D. (June 7, 2013). “Obama Calls Surveillance Programs Legal and Limited”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved June 7, 2013. 
52. ·  Weisman, Jonathan; Sanger, David (June 8, 2013). “White House Plays Down Data Program”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved June 8, 2013. 
53. ·  “Facts on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”. Director of National Intelligence. June 8, 2013. Archived from the original on June 11, 2013. Retrieved June 8, 2013. 
54. ·  “DNI Statement on the Collection of Intelligence Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”. Director of National Intelligence. June 8, 2013. Archived from the original on June 11, 2013. Retrieved June 8, 2013. 
55. ·  Miller, Greg; Nakashima, Ellen (June 25, 2013). “NSA Fact Sheet on Surveillance Program Pulled from Web After Senators’ Criticism” Archived April 10, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 2, 2013.
56. ·  Staff (June 13, 2013). “Snowden Leaks Caused US ‘Significant Harm’ – Mueller” Archived February 18, 2019, at the Wayback Machine. BBC News. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
57. ·  Press release (June 13, 2013). “Udall, Wyden Call on National Security Agency Director to Clarify Comments on Effectiveness of Phone Data Collection Program” Archived February 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Office of Ron Wyden. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
58. ·  Gerstein, Josh (June 18, 2013). “NSA: PRISM Stopped NYSE Attack” Archived June 21, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Politico. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
59. ·  Nakashima, Ellen (June 18, 2013). “Officials: surveillance programs foiled more than 50 terrorist attacks”. Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2017. 
60. ·  Chang, Ailsa (June 19, 2013). “Secret Surveillance Credited with Preventing Terror Acts”. NPR. Archived from the original on July 2, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
61. ·  “NSA Claim of Thwarted NYSE Plot Contradicted by Court Documents”. ABC News. June 19, 2013. Archived from the original on July 14, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2013. 
62. ·  “Udall, Bipartisan Group of Senators Seek Answers from DNI Clapper on Bulk Data Collection Program”. June 28, 2013. Archived from the original on July 8, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2013. 
63. ·  Starr, Barbara (June 25, 2013). “Terrorists Try Changes After Snowden Leaks, Official Says” Archived June 26, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Security Clearance (blog of CNN). Retrieved June 29, 2013.
64. ·  Nakashima, Ellen; Miller, Greg (June 24, 2013). “U.S. Worried About Security of Files Snowden Is Thought to Have”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 27, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 
65. ·  Blake, Aaron (June 7, 2013). “Congress All But Silent on Surveillance of Internet Records”. Post Politics (blog of The Washington Post). Archived from the original on June 11, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
66. ·  Everett, Burgess; Sherman, Jake (June 7, 2013). “Republican Lawmakers: NSA Surveillance News to Me”. Politico. Archived from the original on June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
67. ·  Klinck, Patrick (June 9, 2013). “Higgins on Surveillance: Balance Is Key”. WGRZ. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
68. ·  Bohan, Caren (June 9, 2013). “Lawmakers Urge Review of Domestic Spying, Patriot Act”. Chicago Tribune. Reuters. Archived from the original on June 16, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
69. ·  Knowlton, Brian (June 9, 2013). “Feinstein ‘Open’ to Hearings on Surveillance Programs”. The Caucus (blog of The New York Times). Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
70. ·  Van Susteren, Greta (June 11, 2013). “Sen. Feinstein Says Declassifying Info on NSA Program Would Show the Benefits of the Program”. Gretawire (blog of Fox News Channel). Archived from the original on June 16, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
71. ·  Chang, Ailsa (June 11, 2013). “What Did Congress Really Know About NSA Tracking”. NPR. Archived from the original on June 16, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
72. ·  Sensenbrenner, Jim (June 9, 2013). “This Abuse of the Patriot Act Must End – President Obama Falsely Claims Congress Authorised All NSA Surveillance – In Fact, Our Law Was Designed to Protect Liberties”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
73. ·  McClanahan, Mike (June 9, 2013). “U.S. Leaders React to Leak Detailing NSA Surveillance Program”. WIAT. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
74. ·  Howell, Jr., Tom (June 10, 2013). “Rep. Todd Rokita: No Government Snooping Without Probable Cause”. The Washington Times. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
75. ·  Risen, James (June 11, 2013). “Report Indicates More Extensive Cooperation by Microsoft on Surveillance”. New York Times. Archived from the original on July 12, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013. 
76. ·  Watkins, Aiy (July 17, 2013). “Skeptical Congress turns its spycam on NSA surveillance”. McClatchy News Service. Archived from the original on July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013. 
77. ·  Leonnig, Carol D.; Ellen Nakashima, Ellen; Gellman, Barton (June 29, 2013). “Secret-Court Judges Upset at Portrayal of ‘Collaboration’ with Government”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 30, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
78. ·  Lichtblau, Eric (July 6, 2013). “In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A.” The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved July 8, 2013. 
79. ·  Rosenthal, Andrew (July 9, 2013). “A Court Without Adversaries”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved July 10, 2013. 
80. ·  John Shiffman & Kristina Cooke (June 21, 2013). “The judges who preside over America’s secret court”. Reuters. Archived from the original on June 23, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2013. 
81. ·  Walton, Reggie B. (July 29, 2013). “2013-07-29 Letter of FISA Court president Reggie B. Walton to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick J. Leahy about certain operations of the FISA Court”. www.leahy.senate.gov. Archived from the original on August 18, 2013. Retrieved August 25, 2013. 
82. ·  Ackerman, Spencer; Roberts, Dan (June 28, 2013). “US Army Blocks Access to Guardian Website to Preserve ‘Network Hygiene’ – Military Admits to Filtering Reports and Content Relating to Government Surveillance Programs for Thousands of Personnel” Archived January 3, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
83. ·  Ackerman, Spencer (July 1, 2013). “US military blocks entire Guardian website for troops stationed abroad”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 2, 2017. Retrieved December 12, 2016. 
84. ·  Ex-Verfassungsschützer: US-Überwachung auch in Österreich Archived July 9, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, 2013-07-06.(in German)
85. ·  Gert Polli rechnet mit der CIA ab: NEWS-Talk mit dem Ex-Verfassungsschutz-Boss Archived July 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, 2009-11-11.(in German)
86. ·  Talor, Josh (June 11, 2013). “Australian Government to Assess Prism Impact” Archived June 14, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. ZDNet. Retrieved June 11, 2013.
87. ·  Taylor, Josh. “Australian government to assess PRISM impact”. ZDnet. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved January 13, 2014. 
88. ·  Morning Post, South China (January 23, 2014). “Australian minister slams ‘treachery’ of NSA whistleblower Snowden”. Archived from the original on February 9, 2014. Retrieved March 20, 2014. 
89. ·  “Dilma Rousseff cancels preparations for US trip over spying row” Archived December 31, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Donna Bowater, The Telegraph, September 5, 2013. Retrieved October 20, 2013.
90. ·  “At U.N. General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff Blasts U.S. Spying Operations” Archived October 18, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, Dilma Rousseff, Video and transcript, Democracy Now!, September 24, 2013. Retrieved October 20, 2013.
91. ·  Soto, Alonso (December 18, 2013). “UPDATE 3-Saab wins Brazil jet deal after NSA spying sours Boeing bid”. Reuters. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved January 27, 2014. 
92. ·  Horgan, Colin (June 10, 2013). “Should Canadians Worry About the NSA’s PRISM Program? Maybe”. ipolitics.ca. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved June 16, 2013. 
93. ·  Parsons, Christopher (March 27, 2014). “Mapping the Canadian Government’s Telecommunications Surveillance”. citizenlab.org. Archived from the original on July 9, 2014. Retrieved March 28, 2014. 
94. ·  “Rules Shielding Online Data From N.S.A. and Other Prying Eyes Advance in Europe” Archived November 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, James Kanter and Mike Scott, New York Times, 21 October 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
95. ·  Loek Essers (February 17, 2014). “Merkel and Hollande to talk about avoiding US servers”. ITworld. Archived from the original on February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 18, 2014. 
96. ·  “France Calls U.S. Ambassador Over Spying Report”[permanent dead link], Adrian Croft, Arshad Mohammed, Alexandria Sage, and Mark John, New York Times (Reuters), October 21, 2013. Retrieved October 21, 2013.
97. ·  Prodhan, Georgina; Davenport, Claire (June 7, 2013). “U.S. Surveillance Revelations Deepen European Fears of Web Giants” Archived September 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Reuters. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
98. ·  Schofield, Matthew. (June 26, 2013). “Memories of Stasi Color Germans’ View of U.S. Surveillance Programs” Archived June 28, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Retrieved June 30, 2013.
99. ·  “The German Army was using PRISM to support its operations in Afghanistan as early as 2011”. Der Spiegel (in German). July 17, 2013. Archived from the original on July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 18, 2013. 
100. ·  Jackson, David (October 23, 2013). “Obama says NSA not spying on Merkel’s cellphone”. USA Today. Archived from the original on October 23, 2013. Retrieved October 24, 2013. 
101. ·  Smith-Spark, Laura (October 24, 2013). “Merkel calls Obama: Spying on friends ‘never acceptable'”. CNN. Archived from the original on October 25, 2013. Retrieved October 24, 2013. 
102. ·  Sadan, Nitzan (June 8, 2013). “Report: ‘Big Brother’ of the U.S. Government Relies on Israeli Technology” (Google English translation of Hebrew article) Archived January 7, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Calcalist. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
103. ·  Kelley, Michael (June 7, 2013). “Did You Know?: Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged the US Telecommunications Grid for the NSA” Archived June 9, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Business Insider. Retrieved June 10, 2013.
104. ·  Villamil, Jenaro (June 18, 2013).“Big Brother y CISEN millionario negocio en puerta.” Archived June 23, 2013, at the Wayback Machine proceso.com.mx. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
105. ·  McCorkindale, Wilma (June 11, 2013). “Expert Says Kiwis under Constant Surveillance” Archived October 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
106. ·  “Dotcom doubts big reveal will hurt Key”. The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on October 5, 2014. Retrieved October 5, 2014. 
107. ·  “Spain Summons American Ambassador on New Reports of N.S.A. Spying” Archived March 28, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Raphael Minder, New York Times, October 28, 2013. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
108. ·  “Statement on GCHQ’s Alleged Interception of Communications under the US PRISM Programme” (PDF). Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. July 17, 2013. Retrieved December 17, 2013. 
109. ·  “NSA files: why the Guardian in London destroyed hard drives of leaked files” Archived February 4, 2017, at the Wayback Machine The Guardian, 20 August 2013
110. ·  Farivar, Cyrus (June 6, 2013). “New Leak Shows Feds Can Access User Accounts for Google, Facebook and More – Secret Slides Reveal Massive Government Spying, Tech Companies Dispute Reports”. Ars Technica. Archived from the original on June 10, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013. 
111. ·  Lardinois, Frederic (June 6, 2013). “Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple Deny Participation in NSA PRISM Surveillance Program”. TechCrunch. Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013. 
112. ·  Lee, Timothy B. (June 12, 2013). “Here’s Everything We Know About PRISM to Date”. Wonkblog (blog of The Washington Post). Archived from the original on June 14, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
113. ·  Bekker, Scott (June 20, 2013). “PRISM and Microsoft: What We Know So Far”. Redmond Channel Partner. Archived from the original on July 26, 2013. Retrieved July 12, 2013. 
114. ·  LeFebvre, Rob (June 7, 2013). “Everything You Need To Know About Apple And PRISM [Updated]”. Cult of Mac. Archived from the original on June 9, 2013. Retrieved February 26, 2019. 
115. ·  Stern, Joanna (June 7, 2013). “Dissecting Big Tech’s Denial of Involvement in NSA’s PRISM Spying Program”. ABC News. Archived from the original on June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
116. ·  Elias, Paul (May 31, 2013). “Judge Orders Google to Turn Over Data to FBI”. Associated Press (via Yahoo! News). Archived from the original on June 8, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
117. ·  Grant, Rebecca (June 6, 2013). “Google Tried to Resist FBI Requests for Data, But the FBI Took It Anyway”. VentureBeat. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
118. ·  “Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program”. The New York Times. June 7, 2013. Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved June 8, 2013. 
119. ·  Ball, James (June 8, 2013). “NSA’s Prism Surveillance Program: How It Works and What It Can Do – Slide from Secret PowerPoint Presentation Describes How Program Collects Data ‘Directly from the Servers’ of Tech Firms – Obama Deflects Criticism over NSA Surveillance”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 31, 2013. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 
120. ·  Zetter, Kim (June 11, 2013). “Google’s Real Secret Spy Program? Secure FTP”. Wired. Archived from the original on June 14, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
121. ·  Ullyot, Ted (Facebook General Counsel) (June 14, 2013). “Facebook Releases Data, Including All National Security Requests”. Facebook. Archived from the original on July 4, 2013. Retrieved July 4, 2013. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
122. ·  Frank, Jon (Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft) (June 14, 2013). “Microsoft’s U.S. Law Enforcement and National Security Requests for Last Half of 2012”. Microsoft on the Issues (blog of Microsoft). Archived from the original on July 3, 2013. Retrieved July 4, 2013. 
123. ·  Miller, Claire Cain (June 15, 2013). “Google Calls U.S. Data Request Disclosures a Step Backward for Users”. Bits (blog of The New York Times). Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved July 4, 2013. 
124. ·  Mims, Christopher (November 14, 2013). “Cisco’s disastrous quarter shows how NSA spying could freeze US companies out of a trillion-dollar opportunity”. Quartz. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved January 27, 2014. 
125. ·  Ron Bell; General Counsel (September 12, 2014). “Shedding Light on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC): Court Findings from Our 2007-2008 Case”. Yahoo!. Archived from the original on November 14, 2014. Retrieved September 12, 2014. 
126. ·  Editorial (June 6, 2013). “President Obama’s Dragnet”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2013. 
127. ·  Editorial (June 10, 2013). “A Real Debate on Surveillance”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 11, 2013. Retrieved June 10, 2013. 
128. ·  The New York Times Editorial Board (July 8, 2013). “The Laws You Can’t See”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2013. 
129. ·  Braun, Stephan (July 9, 2013). “Former Judge Admits Flaws in Secret Court”. Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 11, 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2013. 
130. ·  Savage, Charlie (July 9, 2013). “Nation Will Gain by Discussing Surveillance, Expert Tells Privacy Board”. The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 10, 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2013. 
131. ·  Wilson, Valerie Plame and Joe [Joseph C.] Wilson (June 23, 2013). “The NSA’s Metastasised Intelligence-Industrial Complex Is ripe for Abuse – Where Oversight and Accountability Have Failed, Snowden’s Leaks Have Opened Up a Vital Public Debate on Our Rights and Privacy” Archived February 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
132. ·  Staff (undated). “Massive Spying Program Exposed – Demand Answers Now” Archived June 13, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
133. ·  Ed Pilkington; Nicholas Watt (June 12, 2013). “NSA Surveillance Played Little Role in Foiling Terror Plots, Experts Say”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 1, 2013. Retrieved June 14, 2013. Obama Administration Says NSA Data Helped Make Arrests in Two Important Cases – But Critics Say That Simply Isn’t True 
134. ·  Daly, Michael (June 12, 2013). “NSA Surveillance Program Failed to Invade Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Privacy” Archived June 14, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Daily Beast. Retrieved June 14, 2013.
135. ·  Weiner, Rachel (June 10, 2013). “Ron Paul Praises Edward Snowden”. Post Politics (blog of The Washington Post). Retrieved June 16, 2013. “We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. … They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.” “The government does not need to know more about what we are doing. … We need to know more about what the government is doing.”
136. ·  Malyun, Ali (2020). I Cannot Be Silenced. Page Publishing. 
137. ·  Friedman, Thomas L. (June 11, 2013). “Blowing a whistle”. New York Times. Archived from the original on March 19, 2017. Retrieved February 28, 2017. 
138. ·  “Shields and Brooks on Syria, Snowden and surveillance”. PBS NewsHour. June 14, 2013. Archived from the original on January 30, 2014. Retrieved September 7, 2017. 
139. ·  Krauthammer, Charles (June 13, 2013). “Pushing the envelope, NSA-style”. Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 14, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2017. 
140. ·  Duncan, Ian (June 8, 2013). “David Simon Weighs In on NSA Surveillance – Creator of ‘The Wire’ Describes 1980s Data Collection by Baltimore Police in Blog Post” Archived June 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
141. ·  “We Are Shocked, Shocked…” (Archive) David Simon Blog. June 7, 2013. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
142. ·  Harvey, Fiona (June 19, 2013). “NSA Surveillance Is an Attack on American Citizens, Says Noam Chomsky – Governments Will Use Whatever Technology Is Available to Combat Their Primary Enemy – Their Own Population, Says Critic” Archived January 12, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved June 20, 2013.
143. ·  LoGiurato, Brett (June 17, 2013). “The NSA’s PRISM Program Is Shockingly Uncontroversial with the American Public” Archived June 22, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Business Insider. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
144. ·  “CNN/ORC Poll for release June 17, 2013” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 26, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013. 
145. ·  “U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Big Shift On Civil Liberties vs. Counter-Terrorism”. Quinnipiac University. July 10, 2013. Archived from the original on July 14, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2012. 
146. ·  “Terrorism”. PollingReport.com. Archived from the original on July 28, 2013. Retrieved July 13, 2013. 
147. ·  Cohen, Jon; Balz, Dan (July 24, 2013). “Poll: Privacy concerns rise after NSA leaks”. Washington Post. Archived from the original on January 27, 2014. Retrieved July 25, 2013. 
148. ·  Castro, Daniel (August 2013). “How Much Will PRISM Cost the U.S. Cloud Computing Industry?” (PDF). The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 10, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013. 
149. ·  Peterson, Andrea (August 7, 2013). “NSA snooping could cost U.S. tech companies $35 billion over three years”. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 8, 2013. 
150. ·  Rosenbush, Steve (August 6, 2013). “Cloud Industry Could Lose Billions on NSA Disclosures”. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on August 9, 2013. Retrieved August 8, 2013. 
151. ·  Yaron, Oded (August 8, 2013). “Study: NSA leaks could cost U.S. $22–35 billion”. Haaretz. Archived from the original on August 9, 2013. Retrieved August 8, 2013. 
152. ·  Palmer, Danny (August 6, 2013). “PRISM could cost US cloud firms $35bn but benefit European providers”. computing.co.uk. Archived from the original on August 13, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013. 
153. ·  Berman, Matt (June 12, 2013). “International Response to NSA: WTF, America?”. National Journal (via Yahoo! News). Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
154. ·  Staff (June 25, 2013). “World from Berlin: ‘Do Costs of Hunting Terrorists Exceed Benefits?'”. Der Spiegel. Archived from the original on July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
155. ·  Fitsanakis, Joseph (June 20, 2013). “Analysis: PRISM Revelations Harm US Political, Financial Interests”. IntelNews. Archived from the original on July 1, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2013. 
156. ·  Murphy, Katherine (June 20, 2013). “NSA Revelations Prompt Questions about Australian Intelligence Agencies – Senator Nick Xenophon Seeks Reassurances That Australian MPs Are Not Being Watched in Wake of Prism Disclosures” Archived March 15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. The Guardian. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
157. ·  Sieff, Kevin (June 16, 2013). “NSA Spying Leaks? Taliban Says: Ho-Hum” Archived January 27, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. The Washington Post (via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). Retrieved June 16, 2013.
158. ·  Staff (June 16, 2013). “Spy Programmes No Secret to Taliban” Archived June 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. The Washington Post (via the South China Morning Post). Retrieved June 16, 2013.
159. ·  Jeremy Fleming (October 29, 2013). “Brussels to set up security, business networks in push for European cloud”. EurActiv. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved January 27, 2014. 
160. ·  FlorCruz, Michelle (June 7, 2013). “Chinese Netizens Respond to NSA PRISM Data Mining Scandal”. International Business Times. Archived from the original on December 9, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
161. ·  Staff (June 8, 2013). “Obama Presses Chinese Leader on Cybersecurity”. Associated Press (via the Fox News Channel). Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
162. ·  Guangjin, Cheng; Chan, Kahon (June 14, 2013). “US Should ‘Explain Hacking Activity'” Archived December 9, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. China Daily. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
163. ·  Staff (June 11, 2013). “China Media: US Whistleblower” Archived March 1, 2019, at the Wayback Machine. BBC News. Retrieved June 16, 2013.
164. ·  Staff (June 13, 2013). “H.K. Lawmakers Petition Obama for Leniency Against Whistleblower” Archived June 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Kyodo News (via GlobalPost). Retrieved June 16, 2013.
165. ·  Ai, Weiwei (June 11, 2013). “NSA Surveillance: The US Is Behaving Like China – Both Governments Think They Are Doing What Is Best for the State and People – But, As I Know, Such Abuse of Power Can Ruin Lives” Archived February 1, 2017, at the Wayback Machine (archive). The Guardian. Retrieved June 13, 2013.
166. ·  Collier, Kevin (June 7, 2013). “Does the NSA’s PRISM Spying Program Violate EU Law?”. The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
167. ·  Meyer, David (June 7, 2013). “Europeans Call for Answers over U.S. Web Spying Allegations”. GigaOM. Archived from the original on June 12, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
168. ·  Staff (June 10, 2013). “Späh-Programm der NSA: Merkel will Prism-Skandal bei Obama-Besuch ansprechen” [NSA Spying Program: Merkel Will Address PRISM-Scandal at Obama Visit]. Spiegel Online (in German). Archived from the original on September 25, 2013. Retrieved June 11, 2013. 
169. ·  Schofield, Matthew (June 26, 2013). “Memories of Stasi Color Germans’ View of U.S. Surveillance Programs” Archived June 28, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. McClatchy Washington Bureau. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
170. ·  Roberts, Dan; MacAskill, Ewen; Ball, James (June 10, 2013). “Obama Pressured over NSA Snooping as US Senator Denounces ‘Act of Treason’ – Information Chiefs Worldwide Sound Alarm While US Senator Dianne Feinstein Orders NSA to Review Monitoring Program”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 22, 2013. Retrieved June 10, 2013. 
171. ·  “Facebook, WhatsApp Fined by Spain for Failure to Obtain Consent”. news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved December 12, 2020. 
172. ·  Osborn, Andrew; Young, Sarah (June 10, 2013). “UK Government Rejects Accusations Its Use of U.S. Spy System Was Illegal”. Reuters UK. Archived from the original on June 13, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
173. ·  Young, Sarah (June 10, 2013). “UK’s Cameron Defends Spy Agencies over PRISM Cyber-Snooping”. Reuters (via Yahoo! News). Archived from the original on June 15, 2013. Retrieved July 2, 2013. 
174. ·  wcoats (June 11, 2013). “Government Surveillance and the Right to Privacy”. Warren’s space. Retrieved December 12, 2020. 
175. ·  Bradshaw, Tim (2013). “Tim Berners-Lee is “deeply concerned” about PRISM”. Financial Times. Retrieved June 15, 2020. 
176. ·  “Salman Khurshid defends US surveillance programme, says ‘it is not snooping'”. Ibnlive.in.com. July 2, 2013. Archived from the original on October 27, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
177. ·  “India sees ‘no reason to say yes’ to asylum for Snowden”. Hindustan Times. July 2, 2013. Archived from the original on July 23, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
178. ·  “It is not actually snooping: Khurshid on US surveillance”. The Hindu. PTI. July 2, 2013. Archived from the original on July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
179. ·  “Khurshid, Sibal at odds over US snooping”. The Times of India. July 3, 2013. Archived from the original on July 11, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
180. ·  Muzaffar, Maroosha (July 4, 2013). “Why India is taking the U.S.’s Side in the Snowden Scandal”. New Republic. Archived from the original on October 29, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
181. ·  Brindaalakshmi K (July 8, 2013). “MP Starts Public Petition For Disclosure Of Indian Data Accessed By PRISM”. MediaNama. Archived from the original on July 9, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
182. ·  Champion, Marc (July 8, 2013). “Indians See a Gift in NSA Leaks”. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on July 13, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
183. ·  “Why India needs to speak up!”. Rediff.com. July 5, 2013. Archived from the original on July 10, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
184. ·  Shiv Visvanathan (July 4, 2013). “Why India needs to speak up!”. Firstpost. Archived from the original on July 6, 2013. Retrieved July 15, 2013. 
185. ·  “India rejects Snowden’s request for asylum, Khurshid backs surveillance”. Indian Express. July 3, 2013. Archived from the original on July 19, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
186. ·  “Rajya Sabha MP P Rajeev slams Khurshid on US surveillance issue”. The Times of India. July 3, 2013. Archived from the original on July 12, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2013. 
187. ·  “Title 50, section 1881a. Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons”. US Code. Cornell. Archived from the original on July 16, 2013. Retrieved July 29, 2013. 
188. ·  Gage, Beverly (June 7, 2013). “Somewhere, J. Edgar Hoover Is Smiling Archived June 10, 2013, at the Wayback Machine – The FBI Director and Notorious Snoop Would Have Loved PRISM.” Slate. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
189. ·  Kaufman, Brett Max (June 11, 2013). “ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging NSA’s Patriot Act Phone Surveillance” Archived March 25, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Free Future (blog of the American Civil Liberties Union). Retrieved June 13, 2013.
190. ·  Press release (June 11, 2013). Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, ACLU Ask Spy Court to Release Secret Opinions on Patriot Act Surveillance Powers”. Yale Law School. Retrieved July 2, 2013.
191. ·  “Second Class Action over Obama/NSA Alleged Privacy Abuse – Klayman Sues Obama, Holder, NSA and 12 More Complicit ‘PRISM’ Companies”. freedomwatchusa.org (Press release). June 12, 2013. Archived from the original on June 18, 2013. Retrieved July 2, 2013. (direct link to lawsuit Archived August 7, 2013, at the Wayback Machine; PDF format)
192. ·  Donohue, Laura K. (June 21, 2013). “NSA Surveillance May Be Legal – But It’s Unconstitutional”. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 29, 2013. 
193. ·  Dwoskin, Elizabeth (June 13, 2013). “Rand Paul Recruits for a Class Action Against NSA” Archived June 17, 2013, at the Wayback Machine. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
194. ·  Office, Communications (December 10, 2012). “FISA Correspondence Update | U.S. Senator Ron Wyden”. Wyden.senate.gov. Archived from the original on February 27, 2013. Retrieved June 9, 2013. 
195. ·  “Download | U.S. Senator Ron Wyden”. Wyden.senate.gov. Archived from the original on March 6, 2013. Retrieved June 9, 2013. 
196. ·  I. Charles McCullough to Ron Wyden & Mark Udall (June 15, 2012), via Wired.com: https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/06/IC-IG-Letter.pdf (Archive).
197. ·  Briefing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA): Section 702 (September 23, 2010), via ACLU.org: https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI0065.pdf (Archive).
198. ·  “FAA FOIA Documents | American Civil Liberties Union”. Aclu.org. December 2, 2010. Archived from the original on July 13, 2013. Retrieved June 9, 2013. 
199. ·  “Sen. Paul to Introduce Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 Rand Paul | United States Senator”. Paul.senate.gov. Archived from the original on June 9, 2013. Retrieved October 5, 2013. 
200. ·  “113th Congress: 1st Session: A Bill to stop the National Security Agency from spying on citizens of the United States and for other purposes” (PDF). Paul.senate.gov. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 12, 2013. Retrieved October 5, 2013. 
201. ·  “NSA says there are three different PRISMs”. Top Level Telecommunications. July 26, 2013. Archived from the original on August 10, 2013. Retrieved August 27, 2013. 
202. ·  Drum, Kevin (June 10, 2013). “What Does PRISM Do? How Does It Work? Take 2”. Kevin Drum (blog of Mother Jones). Archived from the original on June 19, 2013. Retrieved June 18, 2013. 
203. ·  Ball, James (June 8, 2013). “NSA’s Prism surveillance program: how it works and what it can do”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 31, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
204. ·  Timberg, Craig (July 10, 2013). “The NSA slide you haven’t seen”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 10, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013. 
205. ·  Craig Timberg & Ellen Nakashima (July 6, 2013). “Agreements with private companies protect U.S. access to cables’ data for surveillance”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 10, 2014. 
206. ·  Lindemann, Todd (July 6, 2013). “A connected world”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 14, 2018. Retrieved February 12, 2014. 
207. ·  Bamford, James (July 12, 2013). “They Know Much More Than You Think”. The New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on July 27, 2013. Retrieved July 29, 2013. 
208. ·  Gellman, Barton; Poitras, Laura (June 6, 2013). “Codename PRISM: Secret Government Program Mines Data from 9 U.S. Internet Companies, Including Photographs, Email and More”. The Washington Post (via The Republican). Archived from the original on June 10, 2013. Retrieved June 13, 2013. 
209. ·  Gallagher, Ryan (September 9, 2013). “New Snowden Documents Show NSA Deemed Google Networks a “Target””. Archived from the original on October 26, 2013. Retrieved September 10, 2013. 
210. ·  “NSA Documents Show United States Spied Brazilian Oil Giant”. September 8, 2013. Archived from the original on March 11, 2014. Retrieved September 9, 2013. 
211. ·  Gellman, Barton; Soltani, Ashkan (October 30, 2013). “NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 6, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2013. 
212. ·  Gallagher, Sean (October 31, 2013). “How the NSA’s MUSCULAR tapped Google’s and Yahoo’s private networks”. Ars Technica. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2013.

3.2 中文词条

1. ·  美国“棱镜”项目引发欧洲担忧 互联网档案馆的存档，存档日期2016-03-04.，亚太日报，2013年6月14日
2. ·  Savage, Charlie; Wyatt, Edward; Baker, Peter. U.S. says it gathers online data abroad. New York Times. June 6, 2013 [2013-06-07]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-07）. 
3. ·  GOVERNMENT: 11 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT U.S. DOMESTIC SPYING. The Blaze, Inc. 2013-06-07 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-07-03）. 
4. ·  NSA Reportedly Mines Servers Of U.S. Internet Firms For Data. NPR. 6 June 2013 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-08-11）. 
5. ·  Greenwald, Glenn. NSA taps in to internet giants’ systems to mine user data, secret files reveal. The Guardian. June 6, 2013 [June 6, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2019-01-06）. 
6. ·  Prism scandal: Government program secretly probes Internet servers. 06-07-2013. （原始内容存档于2013-06-07）. 
7. ·  Greenwald, Glenn. NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily. The Guardian. June 6, 2013 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-07-26）. 
8. ·  Greenwald, Glenn; Ewen MacAskill. Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance. The Guardian (Hong Kong: Guardian Media Group). 9 June 2013 [9 June 2013]. （原始内容存档于2018-12-25）. 
9. ·  Dean, John W. George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress’ Laws to Protect National Security （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
10. ·  The Impeachment of George W. Bush （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
11. ·  Adopted By The House Of Delegates （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, American Bar Association, February 13, 2006
12. ·  Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, Washington Post, February 14, 2006
13. ·  NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program. The Washington Post. June 6, 2013 [2013-06-07]. （原始内容存档于2013-07-24）. 
14. ·  U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program. The Washington Post. June 6, 2013 [June 6, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-15）. 
15. ·  Winter, Michael. Reports: NSA siphons data from 9 major Net firms. USA Today. June 6, 2013 [June 6, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2018-02-11）. 
16. ·  Rushe, Dominic. Facebook and Google insist they did not know of Prism surveillance program. The Guardian. June 7, 2013 [June 8, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-08）. 
17. ·  Yahoo 證實美國政府威脅加入稜鏡計劃，不參與就每天罰 25 萬美元 – T客邦. T客邦 – 我只推荐好东西. 2014-09-12 [2014-09-19]. （原始内容存档于2014-09-17）. 
18. ·  Shedding Light on the Foreign Intelligence… – Yahoo Global Public Policy. yahoopolicy.tumblr.com. [2019-08-05]. （原始内容存档于2019-08-08）. 
19. ·  Hopkins, Nick. UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation. The Guardian. 7 June 2013 [7 June 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-08）. 
20. ·  Morris, Nigel; Sengupta, Kim; Burrell, Ian. Thousands of Britain’s may have been spied on by GCHQ as link to Prism scandal is laid bare. Independent. 06-07-2013 [06-07-2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-07）. 
21. ·  Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program. Tech Crunch. June 6, 2013 [June 6, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-07）. 
22. ·  What the …?. Google Official Blog. June 7, 2013 [June 8, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-08）. 
23. ·  Google, Apple and Facebook Outright Deny They’re Helping the NSA Mine Data. AllThingsD. June 6, 2013 [June 6, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-13）. 
24. ·  Michael Liedtke. Denials in surveillance program require decoding. Yahoo! News. June 7, 2013 [June 8, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-14）. 
25. ·  Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data. Google Blog. June 11, 2013 [2013-06-13]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-12）. 
26. ·  美国安局监控项目遭硅谷和民权组织挑战. 华尔街日报中文版. 2013年6月12日 [2013-06-13]. （原始内容存档于2013年6月15日）. 
27. ·  DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. June 6, 2013 [June 7, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013年6月7日）. 
28. ·  Zetter, Kim. Intel Director Sets Record Straight on PRISM, Sort Of. Wired. June 8, 2013 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-11）.（声明原文 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆））
29. ·  Obama on NSA surveillance: Can’t have 100% security and 100% privacy. RT USA. June 7, 2013 [June 8, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-09）. 
30. ·  NSA Whistleblower Speaks Out on Verizon, PRISM, and the Utah Data Center. libertasutah.org. [2019-08-05]. （原始内容存档于2019-08-05）. 
31. ·  存档副本. [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-09）. 
32. ·  We Call a Top NSA Whistleblower … And Get the REAL SCOOP on Spying – Zero Hedge – Zero Hedge. www.zerohedge.com. [2019-08-05]. （原始内容存档于2019-08-05）. 
33. ·  NSA Can Access Much of Americans’ Digital Lives. American Civil Liberties Union website. June 7, 2013 [June 7, 2013]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-07）. 
34. ·  Biden in 2006 schools Obama in 2013 over NSA spying program. [2019-08-05]. （原始内容存档于2019-11-08） –通过www.youtube.com. 
35. ·  Mozilla: Moving Persona servers outside the US to escape surveillance won’t work, but changing the law will. The Next Web. [2013-06-13]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-15）. 
36. ·  反对政府监视，Mozilla 发布 StopWatching.US 收集民众签名. ifanr. 2013-06-12 [2013-06-13]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-13）. 
37. ·  Alexander Hanff. PRISM-Break List is dangerously misleading. 2013年6月13日. （原始内容存档于2013年11月11日）. There is a big Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) logo at the top which led myself and according to EFF’s Parker Higgins many other people to believe this was an EFF web site. As such I wrote to EFF last night expressing my concerns that the site is dangerously misleading – EFF replied that they shared my concerns and explained it was not their site.（英文） 
38. ·  原文 Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop reporting your online activities to the American government with these free alternatives to proprietary software.
39. ·  Site of the day: prism-break.org – Max Keiser. www.maxkeiser.com. [2013-07-02]. （原始内容存档于2013-07-09）. 
40. ·  Meyer, David. Europeans call for answers over U.S. web spying allegations. GigaOM. 7 June 2013 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-12）. 
41. ·  Collier, Kevin. Does the NSA’s PRISM spying program violate EU law?. The Daily Dot. 7 June 2013 [2013-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2013-06-19）. 
42. ·  無綫新聞 – – 外交部回應美監控網絡事件暗批雙重標準. news.tvb.com. [2020-09-16]. （原始内容存档于2020-08-07）. 
43. ·  梁振英:将按香港法律和既定程序处理斯诺登事件. news.sina.com.cn. [2022-06-28]. （原始内容存档于2022-06-28）. 
44. ·  big5.chinanews.com:89/gj/2013/09-05/5250787.shtml

4. 外部链接 | External links

4.1 英文词条

Wikimedia Commons has media related to PRISM (surveillance program).
维基共享资源有与 PRISM（监视程序）相关的媒体。

• Gellman, Barton; Lindeman, Todd (June 10, 2013). “Inner workings of a top-secret spy program”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2017. Annotated presentation how the NSA PRISM program works.
  格尔曼，巴顿； 托德·林德曼（2013 年 6 月 10 日）。 “绝密间谍计划的内部运作”。 华盛顿邮报。 原始存档于 2017 年 8 月 30 日。检索于 2017 年 9 月 7 日。带注释的演示如何 NSA PRISM 计划的运作。
• Hallam-Baker, Phillip. “PRISM-Proof Security Considerations”. Draft (IETF Internet ed.). Comodo Group, Inc. Archived from the original on October 17, 2013.
  哈勒姆-贝克，菲利普. “棱镜证明安全考虑”。 草案（IETF 互联网版）。 Comodo Group, Inc. 原始存档于2013年10月17日。
• “NSA Spying How It Works”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. December 3, 2012. Timeline and details about the events.
  “国家安全局间谍活动是如何运作的”。 电子前沿基金会。 2012 年 12 月 3 日。有关事件的时间表和详细信息。
• Sottek, T.C. & Kopfstein, Janus (July 17, 2013). “Everything you need to know about PRISM (press compilation)”. The Verge.
  索特克，T.C. & Kopfstein, Janus（2013 年 7 月 17 日）。 “关于 PRISM 您需要了解的一切（新闻编译）”。 边缘。
• “Surveillance Self-Defense”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Detailed how-to enabling average citizens to take steps to defend their privacy
  “监视自卫”。电子前沿基金会。详细说明如何让普通公民采取措施保护自己的隐私
• “The Government Is Profiling You”. Video.MIT.edu. Video explaining the recent history of domestic spying at NSA.
  “政府正在对你进行分析”。 视频.MIT.edu。 视频解释了国家安全局近期国内间谍活动的历史。
• Top Level Telecommunications. “What is known about NSA’s PRISM program”. Electrospaces. Retrieved April 23, 2014. A detailed explanation of all known slides about the PRISM program and its inner workings.
  顶级电信。 “关于 NSA 棱镜计划的已知信息”。 电空间。 检索于 2014 年 4 月 23 日。有关 PRISM 计划及其内部运作的所有已知幻灯片的详细解释。
• Zhong, Peng. “A list of alternatives to software and systems that are vulnerable to eavesdropping”. PRISM-break.org.
  钟、彭. “易受窃听的软件和系统的替代品列表”。 PRISM-break.org。
• Adam Hart-Davis. “DHD Multimedia Gallery: Natural Science: Prism 2”. Source of PRISM logo.
  亚当·哈特-戴维斯。 “DHD多媒体画廊：自然科学：棱镜2”。 PRISM 标志的来源。

4.2 中文词条

• 国家安全局国内间谍活动时间表 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）（英文）
• “粉碎棱镜”网站 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） （英文）
• “Troll the NSA”网站 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） （呼吁对国家安全局的监听系统实施 DDoS 攻击）（英文）
• Stop Watching Us网站 （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）（英文）