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

No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 229 posts

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#111

Post by saagarjha »

jerpint wrote: post #30
sgift wrote: post #25

> This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to push through the confirmation. So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. At least it shines a bit light on the whole charade. Not that it makes much of a difference for me, si…

This is very likely common practice by many other governments

Doesn't mean we need to accept it here.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#112

Post by salawat »

worewood wrote: post #79

So it's like a canary: the senator has the answer but wants to make it public. If the answer was "no" then he wouldn't be pushing for it, so the answer is obviously yes, they are buying data of american citizens in bulk, warrantlessly

No. The Senator does not have the answer.

They couldn't ask the question if they'd already signed the appropriate contracts on which access to SCI or other classified info is underpinned, If they had, asking the question would amount to a tacit disclosure.

Other Senators who have signed those documents have confirmed as much. Once the IC gets burned by you, even if they don't press charges due to political impossibility, you don't get invited to those parties anymore.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#113

Post by slicktux »

sgift wrote: post #25

> This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to push through the confirmation. So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. At least it shines a bit light on the whole charade. Not that it makes much of a difference for me, si…

Actually it would mean to go against the people…since corporations are people…and I mean that in a jurisprudence way. Being that is the case how could we limit a corporation, as non sentient entity, while still preserving individual liberty??

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#114

Post by ericmay »

yterdy wrote: post #85
ericmay wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights. Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.

[flagged]

> yterdy 1 hour ago | parent | next [–]

"Property rights" are laughable, especially in America. Stolen or conned resources abound, and all that matters is that someone from the state recognizes your ownership over someone else's (however crooked that circumstance may have come about or been perpetuated).

All humans in the world live, have lived, or will live under the exact same circumstances. It’s a good sounding clip but it’s meaningless, rooted in cynicism, and less than useless since it detracts from the ability to make progress.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#115

Post by phpisthebest »

Dalewyn wrote: post #106
nehal3m wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's the case. The first line of the article reads: Is the NSA buying up Americans' location and browsing data? That's what's blocking instatement of a new director, so no, it won't have any effect on the data collected on foreigners.

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on. The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system

The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain.

It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US.

When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose.

Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#116

Post by bane »

phpisthebest wrote: post #115
Dalewyn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on. The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on…

As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#117

Post by Dalewyn »

phpisthebest wrote: post #115
Dalewyn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on. The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on…

You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American.

In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location.

We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#118

Post by mardifoufs »

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #29

Complete nonsense. My uninformed guess is that they aren't buying from some political crony, so the crony's friend in the congress or senate (Ron Wyden probably) is rattling some cages.

Cronyism is when you fight for civil rights? What in the psyop is this argument

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#119

Post by pbronez »

yonaguska wrote: post #31
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #29

Complete nonsense. My uninformed guess is that they aren't buying from some political crony, so the crony's friend in the congress or senate (Ron Wyden probably) is rattling some cages.

Ron Wyden has been pretty consistent in his opposition to overreach of the 4th branch of govt for his entire political career. I don't think he's grifting. I'm usually very pessimistic about this stuff.

We are fortunate to have Wyden.

Re: No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

#120

Post by roamerz »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #47
master-lincoln wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes you think so?

The United States is this limited government, with strict limits on what it's allowed to do. Yeah, I know. It hasn't worked out that way. But do you think other governments, starting with fewer restraints, are doing less than the US? Or more? I could see saying that the US is doing it in higher volume, because it's got more money to spend on government excess.

>Yeah, I know. It hasn’t worked out that way.

This is where the writers of the Constitution missed the boat a little. With all of their smarts they probably could have written something in there to hold accountable those who would have any part in enacting a rule or law the violates the Constitution. Not a simple task at all but a worthwhile addition IMHO.

Post reply on HN