> That presentation seems confused since PRISM is not "a mass surveillance program" or "an alliance with American firms", it's a database the government puts the results of subpoenas in.
I feel like this is a terrible mischaracterization of PRISM, even if it is almost true. The NSA deployed hardware (following demand letters) to service providers and collected large swaths of traffic based on various types of keyword and attribute matches. This was then put in a big searchable database.
That's XKeyscore, not PRISM (sorry that sounds like a nitpick…). But no NSA program ever involved secret cooperation from Apple or Google; that's why they were spying on Google datacenter traffic by tapping it. Why telecom companies did cooperate seems like a cultural question.
(Remember they both said explicitly said they never cooperated, and it's illegal for companies to lie to you, or for the government to make them lie to you. If they were lying, you can sue them for securities fraud. They can refuse to answer questions, of course, which is the usual approach when they don't want to talk about something, but that's quite different from explicit denials.)
> But no NSA program ever involved secret cooperation from Apple or Google
This isn't true. PRISM collection involved demands to internet companies ordered by secret courts under section 702 of FISA. XKeyScore involved secret cooperation from telcos.
I invite you to review some of the documents curated by the Washington Post in response to the Snowden disclosures.
Your argument seems like it's just parroting the DNI's factsheet, which is known to whitewash the programs involved (and is even more charitable to the program than the DNI's own factsheet).
I feel like this is a terrible mischaracterization of PRISM, even if it is almost true. The NSA deployed hardware (following demand letters) to service providers and collected large swaths of traffic based on various types of keyword and attribute matches. This was then put in a big searchable database.