Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#11

Post by justinschuh » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 6:46 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #9

justinschuh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't. Even this ruling clearly notes that the PAA had a one year sunset and expired in 2008.

The PAA does not exist. But similar language appears in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Congress renewed most recently in December. Bipartisan enthusiasm, with approximately three-quarters of senators voting for it after safely defeating the pro-privacy amendments: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR5949 :

I don't see how you could think the PAA and FAA have similar language. The PAA was a pretty ugly bill, and significantly loosened both FISA and USSID 18 restrictions against collection on US persons. Whereas the FAA actually reinstated FISA order requirements and closed the third-party carrier loophole. So, the FAA was an unambiguous win for privacy over the then-expiring PAA, and more importantly it was an improvement over the pre PAA version of FISA.

Before the FAA passed, there were no requirements or oversight governing collection of non US persons communicating over a US carrier. And in fact, existing legal precedent does not treat the carrier as party to the communication, so collection under those circumstances was likely legal. That's exactly the loophole the previous administration exploited to compel third-party compliance in foreign intelligence collection without oversight.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#12

Post by justinschuh » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 6:49 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #8

justinschuh wrote: post #6

The petitioner is redacted, so why does the title presume it to be Yahoo? Did I miss something? Also, PRISM is an acronym for Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management. Could people please stop abusing it as a term for whatever random scary thing they want to believe the NSA is doing?

We learned this month that the company was Yahoo. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru...

Thanks, that's certainly useful context. It's a shame the link is a bare PDF, without that background.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#13

Post by hindsightbias » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #7

Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now. They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant". Do we really care about spec…

> soooo...

For some reason, it's not really been refreshing to see people paying more attention now. I thought maybe it was a holier than thou thing but hitting blogs where we were talking about it back then I see the same thing. People who were outraged then are doing what they were then - trying to read between the lines and figuring out how it really works while still being legally compliant. Try commenting on that, and you're called a sheeple and told how it's all un-constitutional, yada, yada.

I don't mind when my outlying beliefs become hip, but I do get annoyed when they jump the shark.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#14

Post by mayneack » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 6:58 AM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #7

Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now. They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant". Do we really care about spec…

Just because everyone "knew" doesn't make this less useful to be released. Last month if you went on CNN and claimed that the NSA had free reign to access whatever they wanted, you'd be considered a conspiracy theorist. Now you are at least just considered to be aiding the terrorists. This type of thing is also useful for groups like the ACLU filing lawsuits because they need more proof than "everyone knows already"

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#15

Post by waqf » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:04 AM UTC

mayneack wrote: post #14

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #7

Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now. They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant". Do we really care about spec…

Just because everyone "knew" doesn't make this less useful to be released. Last month if you went on CNN and claimed that the NSA had free reign to access whatever they wanted, you'd be considered a conspiracy theorist. Now you are at least just considered to be aiding the terrorists. This type of thing is also useful for groups like the ACLU filing lawsuits because they need more proof than "everyone knows already"

"free rein". It's a metaphor about horses, not kingdoms (though I have heard that the one can be exchanged for the other).

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#16

Post by declan » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:07 AM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #11

declan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PAA does not exist. But similar language appears in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Congress renewed most recently in December. Bipartisan enthusiasm, with approximately three-quarters of senators voting for it after safely defeating the pro-privacy amendments: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR5949 :

I don't see how you could think the PAA and FAA have similar language. The PAA was a pretty ugly bill, and significantly loosened both FISA and USSID 18 restrictions against collection on US persons. Whereas the FAA actually reinstated FISA order requirements and closed the third-party carrier loophole. So, the FAA was an unambiguous win for privacy over the then-expiring PAA, and more importantly it was an improveme…

I didn't think it was controversial to claim that the PAA and FAA have similar language. Here's one section from both bills (Sec. 702 in the FAA and 105B in the PAA) authorizing warrantless surveillance:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927: Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.6304: Notwithstanding any other provision of law... the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States...

I didn't say they were identical, just that they were similar. Though each does use the identical language about limits on targeting "persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States" -- and we found out from last week's leaks how far that language can be stretched.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#17

Post by mehwoot » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:24 AM UTC

Because these are FISA requests for individuals "reasonably suspected to be residing outside the U.S.". Those have never required warrants. Before FISA existed they just did it to whomever they pleased; now it requires a FISA request which is not the same thing as a warrant.

Nowhere in that document does it say anything about not needing a warrant to get information on U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. What it does actually say is

For these reasons, we hold that a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

I.e. a FISA request.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#18

Post by mehwoot » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:26 AM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #7

Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now. They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant". Do we really care about spec…

This document doesn't say that somebody in the U.S. can be targeted without a warrant. It says

For these reasons, we hold that a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

Not the same thing.

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#19

Post by gcb0 » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:32 AM UTC

mehwoot wrote: post #17

Because these are FISA requests for individuals "reasonably suspected to be residing outside the U.S.". Those have never required warrants. Before FISA existed they just did it to whomever they pleased; now it requires a FISA request which is not the same thing as a warrant. Nowhere in that document does it say anything about not needing a warrant to get information on U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. What it does…

Keyword is "reasonably" believed to be located outside...

So, one access to a external server? Visiting overseas?

Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]

#20

Post by justinschuh » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 7:34 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #16

justinschuh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you could think the PAA and FAA have similar language. The PAA was a pretty ugly bill, and significantly loosened both FISA and USSID 18 restrictions against collection on US persons. Whereas the FAA actually reinstated FISA order requirements and closed the third-party carrier loophole. So, the FAA was an unambiguous win for privacy over the then-expiring PAA, and more importantly it was an improveme…

I didn't think it was controversial to claim that the PAA and FAA have similar language. Here's one section from both bills (Sec. 702 in the FAA and 105B in the PAA) authorizing warrantless surveillance: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927 : Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of for…

Claiming the bills have similar language implies that they have similar effect. However, the facts are quite opposite. The PAA significantly reduced oversight and individual protections while the effect of the FAA was to increase both.

Even those passages you're citing are night and day apart. The first authorizes collection against US persons on foreign soil, which flew in the face of 50 years of precedent. Whereas the second is truncated to the point of being almost meaningless, but in context it defines some terms of collection against non US persons outside the US--something legal for all of US history. The only similarities between the two are the responsible parties and the duration, which are basically boilerplate.