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

Post by lawnchair_larry » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:13 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #5

sampsonjs wrote: post #2

'Yonatan Zunger, the chief architect of Google+, wrote in a Google+ post today that: "I can tell you that the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals -- things like search warrants."' From the court order: "We add, moreover, that there is a high degree of probability that requiring a warrant wound hinder the government's ability to collect…

I think you've misunderstood what you read. Under US law an FAA order carries the same compliance burden as a warrant. And, just like a warrant, the party served can push back on an overly broad or unjustified order. So, there's nothing untrue or even remotely misleading in the statement that "the only way in which Google reveals information about users are when we receive lawful, specific orders about individuals --…

Post by lawnchair_larry » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:21 PM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #27

csoghoian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justin, have you read the recently leaked NSA rules outlining how they define a non-US person for the purpose of FAA surveillance? See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhi... , page 4, paragraph 1. If the NSA does not know whether someone is a US person or a foreigner, the agency assumes that the person is a foreigner. That matters a lot if, for example, you're using Tor. You might also want…

Chris, that's one paragraph absent the surrounding context. Targeting must be validated and verified as outside the US, but beyond that it can be very hard to authoritatively guarantee what the nationality of the parties is. The best I can add is that I've done the job, and I know the cardinal rule is you do not collect on US persons except in the rare case that you have a FISA order. And the people I know still doin…

Post by rafcavallaro » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:40 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #15

mayneack wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Post by mpyne » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:47 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #36

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…

Was the Verizon FISC order that was leaked, requiring daily dumps on all calls even with both endpoints inside the US, targeting individuals reasonably believed to be outside the US?

Post by justinschuh » Thu, Jun 27, 2013, 1:53 PM UTC

csoghoian wrote: post #33

justinschuh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chris, that's one paragraph absent the surrounding context. Targeting must be validated and verified as outside the US, but beyond that it can be very hard to authoritatively guarantee what the nationality of the parties is. The best I can add is that I've done the job, and I know the cardinal rule is you do not collect on US persons except in the rare case that you have a FISA order. And the people I know still doin…

There appears to be a bit of a conflict between the cardinal rule you were taught when you worked at NSA of not collecting information on US persons with the current practices of the NSA. The Section 215 program in which the NSA has been collecting metadata about every domestic telephone call would appear to violate that rule, even if, as we are told, only a couple dozen NSA employees can query the database, and even…