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

DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 114 posts

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#11

Post by inigyou »

edot wrote: post #7
lovich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also requires a judge who is willing to interpret the rule the way you want. Law doesn’t execute deterministically like code does.

No that’s the whole point of this article. In this case, the private companies being summonsed are acting as both judges and data holders being summonsed. This doesn’t go to a judge to approve. So in this case, the point they’re making is most private companies just roll over at the sight of a summons, so the law absolutely executes deterministically (ok, not truly deterministic, but you’re relying on the judgement o…

Keeping it secret isn't part of that law. And they don't have to turn over anything not relevant to the payment of duties and taxes.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#12

Post by edot »

skybrian wrote: post #10

Apparently in this case, T-Mobile caved and Google didn't: > The DHS also sought and obtained six months of phone records for Fort from T-Mobile, which included records for more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified the government was seeking the records until mid-July, when government lawyers produced them to her lawyers. Fort’s lawyers wrote in a filing this week they were “stunned” to see the…

[flagged]

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#13

Post by noir_lord »

edot wrote: post #12
skybrian wrote: post #10

Apparently in this case, T-Mobile caved and Google didn't: > The DHS also sought and obtained six months of phone records for Fort from T-Mobile, which included records for more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified the government was seeking the records until mid-July, when government lawyers produced them to her lawyers. Fort’s lawyers wrote in a filing this week they were “stunned” to see the…

[flagged]

An extremely cosy relationship between large corporations and a government.

I've seen this somewhere before and I can't quite put my finger on where I saw it.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#14

Post by [deleted] »

edot wrote: post #12
skybrian wrote: post #10

Apparently in this case, T-Mobile caved and Google didn't: > The DHS also sought and obtained six months of phone records for Fort from T-Mobile, which included records for more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified the government was seeking the records until mid-July, when government lawyers produced them to her lawyers. Fort’s lawyers wrote in a filing this week they were “stunned” to see the…

[flagged]

[deleted]

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#15

Post by xoa »

edot wrote: post #12
skybrian wrote: post #10

Apparently in this case, T-Mobile caved and Google didn't: > The DHS also sought and obtained six months of phone records for Fort from T-Mobile, which included records for more than 10,000 calls and text messages. Fort was not notified the government was seeking the records until mid-July, when government lawyers produced them to her lawyers. Fort’s lawyers wrote in a filing this week they were “stunned” to see the…

[flagged]

>Since when were private companies part of the Judicial Branch?

What part of GP's quote from the article gets you to "private companies are part of the judicial branch"? The judicial branch wasn't involved there, only the executive. All of us, private individuals or organizations, have the right to challenge any requests by the executive branch (and by the same token, unless forbidden by law we can also just voluntarily go along with its requests). The judicial branch can then rule on who is right. If the executive wants to force it then it can go to the judicial branch up front and get an actual for real warrant. If it wants to bypass judicial review, then it doesn't have the same legal force either.

Here, it asked T-Mobile and Google for a bunch of stuff on a journalist. T-Mobile said sure. Google said no, come back with a warrant.

>I don’t remember that part of the Constitution.

Might want to reread if it's been awhile for you.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#17

Post by edot »

xoa wrote: post #15
edot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Since when were private companies part of the Judicial Branch? What part of GP's quote from the article gets you to "private companies are part of the judicial branch"? The judicial branch wasn't involved there, only the executive. All of us, private individuals or organizations, have the right to challenge any requests by the executive branch (and by the same token, unless forbidden by law we can also just volunta…

I get what you're saying, but "the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal" just sounds like something a judge should do, no?

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#18

Post by lovich »

edot wrote: post #7
lovich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also requires a judge who is willing to interpret the rule the way you want. Law doesn’t execute deterministically like code does.

No that’s the whole point of this article. In this case, the private companies being summonsed are acting as both judges and data holders being summonsed. This doesn’t go to a judge to approve. So in this case, the point they’re making is most private companies just roll over at the sight of a summons, so the law absolutely executes deterministically (ok, not truly deterministic, but you’re relying on the judgement o…

So that also requires all judges who a case could be brought to about this, declaring that they don’t have jurisdiction. It’s still a choice made by the judges.

Granted someone does have to actually file a suit

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#19

Post by hackyhacky »

softwaredoug wrote: post #8

> In several cases, the DHS has withdrawn a 1509 summons after it was challenged in court and before a judge could rule on its legality. That may be a deliberate strategy to avoid having a judge rule on the legality of the summons. They have a toy, they’re increasingly abusing it, then trying to dodge from it being taken away. The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it.…

> The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it.

You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply, while there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons. Especially given the current administration's proven record of taking retaliation against anyone who stands in their way.

If you want companies to behave in the interest of the general public, you need to create an incentive structure that supports that.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#20

Post by PretzelPirate »

edot wrote: post #17
xoa wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since when were private companies part of the Judicial Branch? What part of GP's quote from the article gets you to "private companies are part of the judicial branch"? The judicial branch wasn't involved there, only the executive. All of us, private individuals or organizations, have the right to challenge any requests by the executive branch (and by the same token, unless forbidden by law we can also just volunta…

I get what you're saying, but "the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal" just sounds like something a judge should do, no?

Company legal departments should absolutely review requests and make sure they're legal before handing over data.

If they suspect the request isn't legal, they can refuse it, and then it can be escalated to a judge.

Are you suggesting that every request should go through a judge before it gets sent to a company? That would be great, but even then, different judges interpret laws differently, so a company will still do a legal review before deciding whether or not to comply.

Post reply on HN