Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 132 posts

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#41

Post by AnimalMuppet »

elevenfist wrote: post #36
logn wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah so that lends credence to my rationale for scraping websites. Until I actually look at the scraped data no scraping has taken place so no terms of use have been violated. When I look at the scraped data the terms of use come into effect but now I'm personally present so no robotic scraping has taken place.

Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.

Eureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#42

Post by jwtadvice »

elevenfist wrote: post #34
nyolfen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at it at some point down the line. your web browsing history (or whatever) sitting on a hard drive in utah doesn't fall under this definition until they look at it. [1] https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE

This isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.

The important aspect for the NSA's interpretation is that algorithms can look at and process the data and create metadata or synopsis information from it.

Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection".

Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records.

Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#43

Post by engx »

jancsika wrote: post #17

We can't sensibly discuss this story here unless we know which definition of "collect" is being used in the story. Normal definition: collect. For example: "Even collected all the data going to and from Bob's house by putting a splitter on the cable." NSA's definition: not that, as cited in various stories sourced by the Snowden leaks from the Guardian. I won't attempt to define exactly how the NSA defines "collect"…

General Hayden was recently on Sam Harris' podcast and he briefly explained the 'retroactive collection' concept-

https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/privacy-and-security

I'd say his arguments appear clear and convincing, even to a skeptic like myself. I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening.

To be clear, I don't believe Hayden, he is likely lying about aspects of it, these systems will inevitably be used in the future for regular law enforcement purposes and the previous abuses by NSA staff is understated. Plus, it is unequivocally illegal and a violation of natural rights. And just a bad idea which will lead to a dangerous future.

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#44

Post by lern_too_spel »

jancsika wrote: post #17

We can't sensibly discuss this story here unless we know which definition of "collect" is being used in the story. Normal definition: collect. For example: "Even collected all the data going to and from Bob's house by putting a splitter on the cable." NSA's definition: not that, as cited in various stories sourced by the Snowden leaks from the Guardian. I won't attempt to define exactly how the NSA defines "collect"…

The NSA doesn't define "collect." It defines "acquisition" of data, and their definition matches the definition you or I would use. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/minimization_procedures_us...

There were some conspiracy theories about ​the NSA's definition of "collect" around when the first Snowden documents were published, but those were never substantiated in the documents, while the normal definition was confirmed in Snowden's documents (above).

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#45

Post by infogulch »

nyolfen wrote: post #23
jancsika wrote: post #17

We can't sensibly discuss this story here unless we know which definition of "collect" is being used in the story. Normal definition: collect. For example: "Even collected all the data going to and from Bob's house by putting a splitter on the cable." NSA's definition: not that, as cited in various stories sourced by the Snowden leaks from the Guardian. I won't attempt to define exactly how the NSA defines "collect"…

their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at it at some point down the line. your web browsing history (or whatever) sitting on a hard drive in utah doesn't fall under this definition until they look at it. [1] https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE

So all it would take is for them to change their policy at any point in the future, even only for a few minutes, and instantly "collect" all current and historical emails from Americans.

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#46

Post by lern_too_spel »

Jerry2 wrote: post #14

If they don't collect it under this program, they'll collect it under some other program. Or they'll just let one of the FIVE EYES partners spy on Americans. That's how they operate.

One of the main points of the Five Eyes agreement (originally BRUSA) is that the member states have a "no-spy agreement" with each other. That's why you see French leaders in the leaks but not heads of state of Canada or the UK. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/an-exclusive-club-the-fi...

The rumor that they spy on each other and share that data is not substantiated in any leaks and specifically goes against one of the main planks, making it an especially strange rumor.

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#47

Post by nyolfen »

elevenfist wrote: post #34
nyolfen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at it at some point down the line. your web browsing history (or whatever) sitting on a hard drive in utah doesn't fall under this definition until they look at it. [1] https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE

This isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.

well, it's a secret interpretation of a particular executive order (EO 12333 signed by reagan, if you're curious), in the sense that it's not obvious on its face from reading the order that one should come to the same interpretation as they have, and that they don't officially divulge that interpretation.

prior to snowden, almost everybody (you and your clever colleagues excluded, obviously) would think it was paranoid to believe this was the case. at least, there's no way i could make the leap from:

'EULA's state that recording activity on a company's servers by that company [i assume this is what you mean?] doesn't require a warrant but the government reading it does'

to:

'the government records incomprehensible amounts of domestic traffic but it doesn't count as warrantless surveillance because they don't read most of it'

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#48

Post by pyre »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41
elevenfist wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.

Eureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!

The government can exempt themselves from IP laws. For example, the government has exempted itself and defence contractors for violating patents (to build top secret devices) in the past.

Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets

#50

Post by rietta »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41
elevenfist wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.

Eureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!

Yeah, not going to happen because of "the national security interest of the United States". A related concept is a contract contrary to public policy.
Post reply on HN