Wow can't say I expected this under President Trump, It's something I thought Obama would do.
N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
121–130 of 132 posts
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#122Sorry, but the NSA has zero credibility at this point. I don't believe a word of it.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OK…
This seems like such an obvious violation of the fourth amendment to me.
> no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything and keep it as long as they "promise" to not review it until they do get a warrant. Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment to you?
There are so many laws that it's unknowable to be sure that you're not violating one at any moment, and in fact it's been estimated that you break three federal laws every day [1]. With the amount of information the NSA stores it's likely they could legally put away any citizen in the country. This gives them absolute power, since all they have to do is invent a story about how they legally "collected" the information, aka Parallel Construction [2].
Now lets add in arbitrary, secret laws (which completely undermine the purpose of laws and democratic/representative government, btw) and their necessary secret trials. This turns the "unknowable" in the previous paragraph from "practically true because it's untenable" to "literally true" because you're not allowed to know it. This means on top of all of the above, there can be no oversight or public accountability of the actions of the government against citizens.
This is a mindbogglingly omnipotent combination: Retroactive "Collection" + every citizen could be tried as a felon + Parallel Construction + no accountability.
I don't understand how this wouldn't concern you.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only do they "promise" but they realize they'd be violating the legal boundaries placed on their organization if they do. Arguing they shouldn't have the capability for this is like arguing the army shouldn't be allowed to have tanks because then they have the capacity to perform a military coup. No judge has ever signed an NSL. That's precisely the distinction between a "regular" judicial subpoena and an adminis…
Maybe I should have ended with a smiley, because I don't feeel tardy^H^H^H^H^H angry. I was just trying to point out that there is a way that "retroactive collection" can take place that isn't "judicially approved." I do think the US could use some legislative work on privacy. I'm glad there are FISA courts issuing search warrants, but don't think national security letters should actually be a thing.
Yeah, and cops can murder people. The solution isn't to take away their guns.
Good call re: NSL. I don't quite understand why investigators need NSL instead of a court order. Avenues for abuse seem relatively clear with no obvious ways to recourse or even know when it occurs!
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OK…
This seems like such an obvious violation of the fourth amendment to me. > no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything a…
No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see?
Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare.
Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-public data sources. Parents, do it too. If you're upset about it you're a child.
"Arbitrary, secret laws"? What a load of nonsense. Congress passes and debates every federal law in public (albeit sometimes a bit quickly). You mean secret interpretations of laws by FISA? Yeah, not exactly news and relatively public and subject to review by elected lawmakers. How, exactly, do you suggest counterintel should work, sans secret courts?
It doesn't concern me because this combination stems from ignorance and an overactive imagination that wants to see evil where there is no evidence of evil. I imagine the systems you mention has avenues for abuse and also checks to make sure they are not abused. We should absolutely be vigilant for signs of abuse and talk about them.
Given the concrete issues facing our society right now, abuse by lawless investigators colluding with a court appointed by SCOTUS to... do what, exactly?
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas! Sovereign immunity means you can't sue the government without their permission.
Where are you going to sue the government... in a government court?
...yes? Couldn't there be valid causes of action for government acts? Are we simply assuming bad faith on the part of the government for any possible scenarios?
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like such an obvious violation of the fourth amendment to me. > no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything a…
No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare. Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-publi…
I see, so you'd be fine with them scanning and storing a copy of every piece of mail that ever crossed your mailbox in the same fashion.
If you're ok with having to rely on their discretion we may already be talking past each other. A bedrock principle of the constitution and amendments are that the government's discretion can't be trusted, so discretion must be limited and controlled and standardized. My point is that discretion to use a power is no different from just having the power outright.
Appeal to tradition, a strawman, followed by an ad hominem. I hope you're saving a better counter for later. Parents don't need parallel construction, they already have absolute power and can investigate however they wish. Are you sure you understand what parallel construction is? A simplified example: A prosecutor wants to convict a citizen (for whatever reason) but they don't have any evidence, so they use illegal means to find evidence that they couldn't have practically found otherwise. But this is inadmissible in court, so they fabricate an "investigation" that -- through the prosecutor's superior "intuition" and uncannily accurate "hunches" -- ends up producing some of the same evidence, enough to make a conviction. I don't understand your goal here, are you saying that parallel construction is fine and the source of evidence doesn't matter? It sounds like you're trying to throw out the exclusionary rule altogether.
I'm sorry you're not aware about the existence of secret laws. Please read up on it [1], it may be enlightening. If you take issue with my use of the adjective "arbitrary", I'll give you that. (But if they're secret how is that really so different from arbitrary?) If you take issue with my colloquial use of "law" that includes regulations, executive branch pronouncements, and secret interpretations that fundamentally change the plain reading of statutes, I'm not sure what to tell you other than to stop being pedantic and think of the bigger picture. "Couterintel" is an overused excuse employed to dodge accountability, most of the time it doesn't need to be secret. "Subject to review". Yeah, sure [2].
What you see as "overactive imagination" I see as a healthy distrust of the government, because "all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" [James Madison, 3]. Yes the checks exist, but the systems I mention are the circumvention of these same checks. What I see from you is sticking your fingers in your ear, burying your head in the sand, and singing LALALA as loud as you can when presented with evidence of the very abuses for which you say we should stay vigilant.
[1]: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-a...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-c...
[3]: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#128> give the N.S.A. copies of internet messages that cross the international border and contain a search term that identifies foreigners
That's a pretty misleading way to state the criteria. A reader that doesn't know any better would assume that a message that is sent from within the USA to somewhere else within the USA, would already have been exempt from this program.
But everybody with a little bit of background knowledge, including the author, knows that internet packets are routed, cached and stored all over the planet without regard to international borders. Even a packet or message that has both endpoints on US soil is very likely to cross international borders at some point in its route, because that's how the internet works and these services' infrastructure.
Just like calling this a "major development". I mean really, is this defeat? Sunk the bar that low? Call it "highly unlikely", "unprecedented" or something like that if you want to highlight the fact how unusual it is that the NSA gives up a tiny crumb of its capabilities. Call it "promising" maybe if you want to be really optimistic about it (hah).
But in what universe is this a "major development", instead of a tiny insignifant drop in the ocean of the NSAs vast and total surveillance capabilities? Does anybody believe that they are now in any way subject to less surveillance than before? It's like lowering the speed limit by 0.1mph and calling it a "major development" for the safety of kids playing on the streets.
Here's another nice one:
> The inquiries were conducted for legitimate intelligence purposes, the official said, but under rules imposed by the intelligence court, analysts were not supposed to search for Americans’ information within that data set
So ... the inquiries were conducted for legitimate purposes, it's just that they were against the rules, is all. I'm not sure I'm familiar with this new interpretation of the word "legitimate".
No but seriously can anyone explain this line? If I'm being as favourable as I can possibly manage, I suppose they mean this: The purpose of the inquiries was legitimate, it's just performing them is not. So what does it mean if merely the purpose is legitimate? Did this official just try to let off these NSA-analysts because "the ends justified the means" ??
Not that it matters that much to me any way, because I am one of those filthy foreigners that doesn't have any right to any privacy whatsoever in the eyes of the NSA and a worryingly large percentage of US citizens cheering them on for that, because it is not them--ehm I mean because it is their job (if you don't think too hard about it). There's so many people arguing, many people who are otherwise very reasonable, that it's somehow okay to utterly violate people's privacy (on an unprecedented global scale) for no other reason than they are foreigners. No other reason. Being foreign is enough that you decided my private life is somehow not my own. And of course that my government is doing it too! Except that they don't have the budget or the unique position in internet infrastructure to violate privacy on such a global scale. But they do still try. And I won't let that slide or cheer them on for it either, just because they're doing it to "other" people.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#129Earlier 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
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.
That's what I do! I just download and store (but not collect!!) all those stupid Marvel comic films, just to piss off the MPAA (and for security purposes / the children). And this is fine because I don't actually watch them. Or can stand them. It's the rules, and I don't wanna break them!
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you still have the thing, it clearly hasn't been seized. Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
That draws an interesting counterpoint: the RIAA's long standing attempt to have copying of non-physical things be perceived as theft.
It is right out of a comedian sketch. Then govt massively penalizes citizens for doing a thing. Turn around with a straight face and tell you, in the name of National Security, that it is okay for them to do it.