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

41–50 of 114 posts

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

#41

Post by schubidubiduba »

mmooss wrote: post #30
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…

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in o…

The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.

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

#42

Post by buzer »

coldtea wrote: post #37
buzer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Both SCA and 18 U.S.C. §2712 can grant punitive damages and attorney fees. So there might be lawyers who would take it on contingency, and in this kind of case some non-profit could also have interest in litigating the issue.

And as this is something that has already happened there isn't much else the person in question can do. Third parties always have option to just disclose information to whoever asks it, at most you can hold them accountable for it later if it was unlawful. And what accountability exactly means depends on what laws exists. If you want some real accountability for the people/companies involved in these kinds of decisions then get Congress to pass such laws (however impossible it might be).

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

#44

Post by charcircuit »

>There is no judge in the loop. You don’t have that independent authority to scrutinize the demand and to say whether or not it’s legitimate,

The 4th amendment does not require a judge in the loop to decide if a search is unreasonable. This type of thinking leads to adding bureaucracy making law enforcement less efficient. Criminals benefit from having law enforcement's throughput minimized so they will campaign at every turn to make the government less and less efficient and require more and more procedures for an investigation so it all comes to a halt that way as long as they aren't most wanted 1-10 for a year they can get away with what they are doing.

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

#45

Post by loloquwowndueo »

michaelt wrote: post #28
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…

> there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons Ehhh, seems to me a cloud provider that wants to back up my documents, communications, photos, passkeys etc has a very strong business case for ensuring the data is as safe with them as they would be in my own home.

Sweet summer child.

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

#46

Post by smalltorch »

charcircuit wrote: post #44

>There is no judge in the loop. You don’t have that independent authority to scrutinize the demand and to say whether or not it’s legitimate, The 4th amendment does not require a judge in the loop to decide if a search is unreasonable. This type of thinking leads to adding bureaucracy making law enforcement less efficient. Criminals benefit from having law enforcement's throughput minimized so they will campaign at e…

Can you expound on your viewpoint?

It's dicey to say that because warrants are needed in the majority of places to search and individual.

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

#47

Post by charcircuit »

smalltorch wrote: post #46
charcircuit wrote: post #44

>There is no judge in the loop. You don’t have that independent authority to scrutinize the demand and to say whether or not it’s legitimate, The 4th amendment does not require a judge in the loop to decide if a search is unreasonable. This type of thinking leads to adding bureaucracy making law enforcement less efficient. Criminals benefit from having law enforcement's throughput minimized so they will campaign at e…

Can you expound on your viewpoint? It's dicey to say that because warrants are needed in the majority of places to search and individual.

My viewpoint is that we should eventually have AI be assisting in determining if a search is reasonable in the moment. If there is an actual constitutional violation that that happens it can be resolved after the fact. So for simple cases you could get the equivalent of a warrant in under 10 seconds.

By increasing efficiency and decreasing cost it allows for both higher quality, consistent, and wide spread law enforcement. I believe every part of the law enforcement and legal system needs to be systematically reevaluated finding ways to increase efficiency.

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

#48

Post by parineum »

schubidubiduba wrote: post #41
mmooss wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in o…

The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible. Dividing it on the shoulders of many people, making nobody in particular feel responsible for the damages themselves. Gaslighting employees into thinking they are doing the "lesser evil" or something. Just following commans of their boss.

> The system in which those companies exist is explicitly designed though to strip away any humanity or moral qualms as much as possible.

Citation needed.

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

#49

Post by deathanatos »

charcircuit wrote: post #47
smalltorch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expound on your viewpoint? It's dicey to say that because warrants are needed in the majority of places to search and individual.

My viewpoint is that we should eventually have AI be assisting in determining if a search is reasonable in the moment. If there is an actual constitutional violation that that happens it can be resolved after the fact. So for simple cases you could get the equivalent of a warrant in under 10 seconds. By increasing efficiency and decreasing cost it allows for both higher quality, consistent, and wide spread law enforc…

> My viewpoint is that we should eventually have AI be assisting in determining if a search is reasonable in the moment.

That is truly bananas. Whose AI? Trained on what data? We've had numerous studies show how AIs can be biased, and a police dept. is going to choose whatever AI "works best for them" — i.e., keeps most out of their way.

You can see Flock for examples here: despite requiring justification for searches, cops are entering things like "hehehe"[1]; the AI would similarly be given bad or falsified inputs.

> If there is an actual constitutional violation that that happens it can be resolved after the fact.

The entire point of the Constitution is to prevent exactly that. There is no resolution for violating someone's rights; you cannot merely go back in time and unviolate them. The point is to be free from unreasonable searches & seizures.

Your comments read like police have no ability to search without a warrant, which isn't true. If circumstances warrant it, a warrant from a judge is not required, and I'm sure a good number of people would argue that that's already true more often than it ought to be.

Part of the point of having a separate branch of government involved, too, is to prevent the first branch from just deciding "why, of course I'm right. What else would I be?", and to evaluate the facts separately (which the police cannot by definition do).

> I believe every part of the law enforcement and legal system needs to be systematically reevaluated finding ways to increase efficiency.

I'm all for increased efficiency, but AI is not that. "Slop, faster" is not the same "the correct action, while respecting the rights of the citizens, faster".

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-c...

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

#50

Post by deathanatos »

shevy-java wrote: post #22

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

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

They voted for it. The GOP quite clearly spelled out the authoritarian desire well before the election.

Post reply on HN