211–220 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require all your allies to be perfect people... ... you won't be left with many allies.
I mean wanting to put people in jail for using their first amendment rights is kind of big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allowing third-party notification systems (such as UnifiedPush) would have practically no negative effect on battery life Not to mention that people might prefer to use some more battery in exchange for more privacy
It certainly had an impact when Apple and Google shipped platform notifications because each of those systems kept the radio active. It’s possible that a better interface could be developed but it wouldn’t help privacy unless the implementers were in different legal jurisdictions: the same government which can subpoena or NSL Apple or Google could’ve asked e.g. Urban Airship for the same details. There’s also a chall…
Before the platform notifications every single app kept their own connections open; allowing (completely) third part notification platforms would have a small or non-existent impact
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
Not sure why down voted. Even the quoted article states: > Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without “reasonable suspicion” of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a “hunch”). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or “probable cause” (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way would ignoring a viable SIGINT source be incompetent? Just thinking about only my push notifications yesterday and they revealed that I am clearly a developer or technologist (push notifications from Git/AWS/etc), who got a haircut (time and location were revealed in the message, but I'm sure government-level agencies could have tracked which SportClips location the appointment belonged to), that I am int…
> Just thinking about only my push notifications yesterday See, the gist in the letter is this sentence: "As with all of the other information these companies store for or about their users, because Apple and Google deliver push notification data, they can be secretly compelled by governments to hand over this information." Do you really think that a foreign government is interested in push notifications when issuing…
More information means more ways to hone in on whatever allegation you're trying to prove. If it's investigative, then it gives more of a picture of what's happening.
I used to imagine EZPass data as innocuous, but now it's used routinely in criminal trials to show that a defendant was at a given place at a given time. Divorce attorneys also request it, as it can be used to illustrate patterns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds. I see you have not read the Patriot Act, an Orwellian double-speak of a title if there ever was one.
Is it really that hard for the government to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist? Is there any data on how often they're surveilling people without warrants vs with warrants? This seems like important info to know.
Unifiedpush to save the day! And an XMPP server with Conversations can be the basis for it: Https://unifiedpush.org/users/distributors/conversations/
Would be great to see an example of notification metadata that can supposedly link it to real users. Seems like this is what is being implied: Given: - users with notifications enabled - have X app installed - targeted user(s) reside in USA - targeted users(s) following “foo” on X app When: - issue FISA warrant for all smartphone users that received notifications in regards to “foo” user Then: - able to pull all Appl…
Why bother with this whole process when you can get everything + store & index it yourself? Who knows? Maybe you want to retroactively look at shit peopke received and decide on new crimes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
But since PRISM was exposed ~10 years ago, they have had to resort to using FISA court to scrape data
\s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech in the US. Especially when you consider the wording of the Apple communication saying that they can talk about it openly now that it's public knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? The feels.
It's more than that, IMHO. I think companies publishing whatever they can is a good thing. We would be worse off if they took the attitude of if we can't publish everything we might as well publish nothing .
But this is also a great reminder that there's a bunch of things they can't publish -- so "transparency reports" are of extremely limited value. Their greatest value is encouraging people to have a false sense of security.