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

31–40 of 114 posts

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

#31

Post by 2legit2quit »

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?

> ...but "the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal" just sounds like something a judge should do, no?

This is assuming the first pass is before a judge. They're circumventing this by going straight to the companies, as noted by the following blurbs:

> This time, DHS utilized a different method that didn’t require approval from a judge, only a sign-off from a DHS official.

and

> It also instructed the recipients of the summons to keep it secret.

In most cases, a company's legal team will attempt to validate the legality of a request because, if they just acquiesce, it becomes a legal problem for them to turn over data without that validation of legality - which can have financial repercussions.

In those cases, the government most often will not (and cannot) step in to save them from the financial blowback (i.e.: the government got what it wanted; it's not their problem, now).

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

#32

Post by JumpCrisscross »

some_random wrote: post #29
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Note that the DHS budget ($100bn) is sufficient to provide healthcare to every uninsured child, and about half (EDIT: a third) of what it would cost to provide universal healthcare to every American under 18 at the CMS average rate. At the end of the day this sort of wastefulness eventually attracts attention.

Medicare alone costs $1.21 Trillion, I find that extremely hard to believe.

> Medicare alone costs $1.21 Trillion

To cover 70.5 million seniors [1]. $17k per senior.

“Per person personal health care spending for the 65 and older population was $22,356 in 2020, over 5 times higher than spending per child ($4,217) and almost 2.5 times the spending per working-age person ($9,154)” [2].

80 million under 19 [3] at that rate comes to about $400bn. And most efficiency estimates would take at least a third off that when we eliminate redundant billing processes.

Given 6% of children lack health insurance, we could cover them for about $24bn. Less than Trump’s war in Iran has cost [4].

[1] https://data.cms.gov/summary-statistics-on-beneficiary-enrol...

[2] https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...

[3] https://www.cms.gov/data-research/statistics-trends-and-repo...

[4] https://www.aecf.org/blog/uninsured-children-in-america

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

#34

Post by michaelt »

xoa wrote: post #21
edot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> but "the company reviews each request for data it gets to ensure it is legal" just sounds like something a judge should do, no? No, unless you're arguing that the government should be barred from even making voluntary requests at all? I'm not sure I'd agree with that either though, there's plenty of times where a government request really is just an honest "request" for pure info, like a poll or survey or something…

> No, unless you're arguing that the government should be barred from even making voluntary requests at all?

IMHO the third-party doctrine is an area where legislators ought to be passing laws to broaden constitutional protections, in suitably nuanced way, to keep up with the times. In the modern age, people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.

The idea that fourth amendment protections apply to physical mail, but not to e-mail [1] doesn't really make much sense.

Unfortunately this is the sort of thing change that really needs to come from legislators, and the legislative process isn't very effective at the moment.

[1] except for the 0.1% of people who self-host their own e-mail server in their own home

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

#37

Post by coldtea »

buzer wrote: post #23
hackyhacky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases? From what I understand e.g. Stored Communications Act might allow suing T-Mobile in this case, at least if the individual isn't covered by binding arbitration. And possibly even government under 18 U.S.C. §2712. Of course then it's up to judge to determine if the request was valid or not.

>Wouldn't the affected individual be able to sue the provider at least in some cases?

And lose time and money, which they also likely don't have?

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

#38

Post by noman-land »

inigyou wrote: post #9

Use small platforms where possible. Oh wait, small platforms get sanctioned as terrorist organisations. I've been thinking I need to get my own IP range, but that requires exposing a lot of personal information.

They just removed ownership reporting requirements. Feel free to start an anonymous company and buy an IP block.

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

#39

Post by tialaramex »

LtWorf wrote: post #35
shevy-java wrote: post #22

Welcome to the dictatorship. One has to wonder whether all Trump voters wanted this. I don't think so.

They wanted it, but for someone else.

A key Republican insight, many years ago was that their voters prioritize causing harm to those they dislike. You might naively assume that out of "Kick everybody in the head" and "Kick nobody in the head" the latter would be more popular with voters, but Republicans discovered that their voters absolute will pick "Kick everybody in the head" so long as you emphasise that people they don't like get kicked in the head.

They don't enjoy being kicked in the head, they agree that part is bad, but they experience joy knowing that people they don't like got kicked in the head.

A difficulty is coming up with a way to ensure your wealthiest donors don't get kicked in the head, they annoyingly may not accept that it's a fair price unlike voters - but you can often fiddle around this, we'll find a way. If that donor doesn't even live in the area affected by the policy, for example because he's a War Criminal who lives in a different country entirely, that's not a problem...

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

#40

Post by inigyou »

noman-land wrote: post #38
inigyou wrote: post #9

Use small platforms where possible. Oh wait, small platforms get sanctioned as terrorist organisations. I've been thinking I need to get my own IP range, but that requires exposing a lot of personal information.

They just removed ownership reporting requirements. Feel free to start an anonymous company and buy an IP block.

Hm true but I'm not in the US (and if I was I'd have much bigger problems). Maybe I have to register a company in my country that owns one in the US. But I wouldn't want the US to have power over my IP assignment, that defeats the point. Even if it was a US company registering with RIPE, the US government would have a veto by deleting the company.

There may be other uses for an anonymous US company though.

Post reply on HN