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

NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 104 posts

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#31

Post by 127361 »

mu53 wrote: post #26
legitster wrote: post #8

I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…

I think this gets down to a fundamental problem with tech that society is ignoring like a pink elephant in the room. Society fundamentally changed with the introduction of computers. Things have become possible that were never possible before. This is obvious if you consider the tech of 1900, 1950, and today. The elephant in the room is that the more complete the dataset the more dangerous it is. Its like gunpowder.…

There's the chilling effect, people not wanting to protest or organize against government overreach for fear of being put on a watch list. This allows the state to enact more draconian laws with less push back from the general public.

It's like a vicious circle that feeds itself, the more surveillance the government permits, the less the public are able to complain or fight back against it. Thus leading to even worse surveillance.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#32

Post by jauntywundrkind »

mu53 wrote: post #26
legitster wrote: post #8

I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…

I think this gets down to a fundamental problem with tech that society is ignoring like a pink elephant in the room. Society fundamentally changed with the introduction of computers. Things have become possible that were never possible before. This is obvious if you consider the tech of 1900, 1950, and today. The elephant in the room is that the more complete the dataset the more dangerous it is. Its like gunpowder.…

We can talk about the datasets, but the elephant in the room - to me - is that the world is deeply deeply intermediated.

Our lived experiences are filled with countless powers preying upon us humans. They want to stay middlemen, they want to keep us using their convenient systems, they want their hand in every pot, and they use networks to vend their position to as many other would industrialists as they can.

That's them, what about us? We humans have lost direct and authentic connection to the world around us. We lack orientation & cannot make sense & decide & understand (and that alone may be a ghastly threat to democracy). We don't have visible economies around us anymore.

There's such a deeply Dark Forest scenario playing out, as companies invisibly consume & process society. It's so asymmetric, so hard to even grasp how thoroughly & tightly the corporate surveillance winds itself around us. Are the datasets generated terrifying? Sure, yeah. But the result is not the only horror here. The potential power of what is gathered is only one form of damage that the de-huamnizing/intermediating of humanity strikes against us with.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#33

Post by caseysoftware »

This BS is allowed by "Third Party Doctrine" which means that once you give information to a third party, you no longer have a legitimate "expectation of privacy" so therefore you don't have one.

For example, if I want to pay you $100:

- I can give you $100 directly in cash. We can limit that knowledge to two people, therefore it could remain private.

- If I pay you via check, credit card or Paypal, now I've involved a third party and the government can collect any information they want. It's up to that third party to choose not to share it.

Check out the book "Habeas Data" if you want to understand the US rules - and how we got there - https://amzn.to/311a0yl

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#34

Post by lmm »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #14
nerdile wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be legal for a person or company to buy this publicly offered information but illegal for the government?

The government is bound by the fourth amendment. Regardless, if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal. (For example because it's increasingly impractical to live without a smart phone and cell tower connections, or avoid iTags.)

> The government is bound by the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment is a restriction on the government's ability to search or seize - things that a regular private entity is not permitted to do at all, that represent an enormously abusable power. I don't see how buying public information fits into that.

> if people cannot have privacy because companies can coerce and buy so much information about them, then that too is a violation that should be illegal.

Perhaps. But looking to ban the government from buying that information on the open market is putting the cart before the horse. If the problem is our private information being sold, let's look for a fix for that that would protect us from large companies or wealthy individuals with a grudge, rather than focusing narrowly on the government.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#36

Post by bawolff »

It seems like the problem is that the information is for sale at all.

I generally think warrants should be needed when police (or i guess spies) do something that an ordinary citizen wouldn't be allowed to do. If the info is available for purchase by anyone, then i don't think warrants should be needed.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#37

Post by thfuran »

caseysoftware wrote: post #33

This BS is allowed by "Third Party Doctrine" which means that once you give information to a third party, you no longer have a legitimate "expectation of privacy" so therefore you don't have one. For example, if I want to pay you $100: - I can give you $100 directly in cash. We can limit that knowledge to two people, therefore it could remain private. - If I pay you via check, credit card or Paypal, now I've involved…

The third party doctrine is eminently unfit for the modern era.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#39

Post by jjtheblunt »

legitster wrote: post #8

I'm trying to think through this from a legal perspective. If I'm going from store-to-store around town, my understanding is that police are allowed to watch me and even go into the businesses and ask questions or pull security footage without a warrant. The information they gather is circumstantial and probably would not hold up in court, but they can use it as grounds to get a warrant. Let's imagine a different cas…

You're talking about police, but the NSA has a charter and in that charter is supposed to (for SIGINT : signals intelligence, i.e., gathering) be doing signals gathering outside the US on at least one end of conversations.

Perhaps something changed over the last 20 years. But perhaps the rule still applies (or is supposed to apply) and that's the implied misbehavior.

Re: NSA Buys Americans' Internet Data Without Warrants, Unclassified Letter Says

#40

Post by swells34 »

MarkMarine wrote: post #20
happytiger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should consider reading the article.

Really truly hate agreeing with brookings, but they are right here. I find it interesting where the line between freedom and acceptable government intervention seems to be for many people. There must be an aspect of “what do I have to worry about” that doesn’t kick in until people explicitly see what they have to worry about looming.

It's the classic "I have nothing to hide" argument. Which immediately breaks down when you realize that, with enough information about someone, you can implicate them in something illegal. A case can be built against them, a narrative spun, and an innocent person spending their lives locked up. This happens constantly in the US judicial system, though I believe it is often unintentional, just human bias doing it's thing.
Post reply on HN