51–60 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they have data on you, then you are already on a list. Circular logic. It just so happens everybody is on the list. There's no special treatment.
There are probably more than one list.
>> To request this information yourself, visit FOIAonline Apparently link has been changed since article publication. https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Derelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable. >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance . FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ... the target of the electronic su…
So if surveillance doesn’t last 72 hours (one and done), does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing a FISA warrant?
>> To request this information yourself, visit FOIAonline Apparently link has been changed since article publication. https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request
I don't see DHS as a listed agency--which ones would be the most interesting for an average person?
What really worries me about this is that anyone can effectively request anyone else's data because there is no identity verification.
It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a : > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a : > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
5,000$ USD might be worth it for a paparazzo or other neerdewel.
Since no one verifies anything it's a worst case scenario.
What really worries me about this is that anyone can effectively request anyone else's data because there is no identity verification.
Since pretty every ID and all passports are leaked, it's almost impossible to verifie a person online.
At least it's something.
What do you think would happen if an european citizen were to request a GDPR data deletion of the US Department of Homeland Security? Is there any chance that they would comply?
From GDPR article 2: > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a : > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
5,000$ USD might be worth it for a paparazzo or other neerdewel.
From https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/neer-do-well.html
"The term 'ne'er do well' is of course a contraction of 'never do well'. Ne'er has been used in that shortened form since the 13th century, notably in the North of England and in Scotland. 'Ne'er do well' itself originated in Scotland and an early citation of it in print is found in the Scottish poet and playwright Allan Ramsay's A collection of Scots proverbs, 1737:
Some ha'e a hantla fauts [have many faults] , ye are only a ne'er-do-well."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Derelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable. >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance . FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ... the target of the electronic su…
So if surveillance doesn’t last 72 hours (one and done), does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing a FISA warrant?