It is time for American businesses, particularly those in IT, as well as citizens, to demand specific answers about just how much information the NSA is collecting under Prism, where they are getting it, and what uses they are putting it to, writes Wikibon Analyst, Consultant, and former CIO Scott Lowe.

The latest allegations stemming from the famous Edward Snowdon leaks have indicted Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Facebook, among other U.S. IT companies, for providing information to the NSA. While the companies have stated that the amount of information involved is much less than the media has alleged, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court does not allow them to make more than very general, and completely unsatisfying, statements.

Even more disturbing, Lowe writes, the original “fact sheet” that the NSA published and then pulled from its Web site revealed a major expansion of its use of the data, specifically to cover “other criminal activities” besides terrorism, as interpreted by the NSA. This, Lowe (who is not a Constitutional lawyer) argues, appears on its face to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but so far no test case has appeared for the Supreme Court to rule on.

And, he says, “Portions of the U.S. government have proven beyond a doubt that they are willing to move forward in prosecuting people based on out-of-context statements made in public forums”, raising the specter of prosecutions based on similar out-of-context information gathered by the NSA. It also leaves one to wonder what other uses the U.S. government is finding, or may in the future find, for all this data.

Not to mention the potential for government officials to reveal corporate trade secrets and other sensitive information that has no connection to terrorism.

All of this, Lowe warns, can cause foreign and even U.S. companies to move their services and other IT business to non-U.S. (specifically Swiss) companies. “I’ve personally seen even Canadian organizations avoid U.S.-based services out of fear of the Patriot Act,” he writes.

This puts the long-term success of America’s technology sector into question. “These kinds of services are based on extremely high levels of trust, and, as things currently stand, there are too many secret activities taking place in the name of fighting terrorism for the public and for foreign organizations to have any faith whatsoever that their intellectual property, business methods, contract deals, and sensitive personal user information can be adequately protected.

“As history as taught us, information is power, and, when in the wrong hands, the damage can be considerable,” Lowe concludes. “U.S.-based technology companies — and the American public — need to demand concrete answers and actions based on these revelations to ensure to the world, and to American companies, that the United States is open for business in a way that is transparent and trustworthy.”