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]

#61

Post by justinschuh » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 1:14 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #53

justinschuh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was amused to see your claim of the FAA "increas[ing]" oversight appearing within a few hours of the Guardian's article on the latest NSA disclosures. It says precisely the opposite: that the FAA "relaxed surveillance restrictions." Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-online-metad... It relied, legally, on "FAA Authority", a reference to the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act that relaxed surveil…

You do realize how the last one of these Greenwald articles from the Guardian played out, right? Another reporter actually had to write a piece walking back every one of the accusations concerning PRISM. And yet, given Greenwald's proven track record of being wrong, you're happy to take him at face value? Perhaps it's time you look inward and consider your own personal biases and motivations here?

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

#62

Post by drivebyacct2 » Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 6:05 AM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #50

btilly wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me channel our resident conservative lawyer, raynier. The 4th only applies to US citizens. Therefore a FISA warrant targeting people outside of the USA who are not believed to be US citizens does not have to meet the standard of the 4th. A National Security Letter targets third parties (your email provider, your library, etc) and fails to search, seize, or directly affect any of you, your house, person, papers or…

Thank you. I wish more of the commentary on this subject was like yours. It's a refreshing to see someone who can disagree with a position but accept that it is still legal if the courts have upheld it.

Do you happen to be paying any attention to any of the top stories right now? Or does your anecdote answer back ALL of them too?

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

#63

Post by declan » Sat, Jun 29, 2013, 12:05 AM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #61

declan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was amused to see your claim of the FAA "increas[ing]" oversight appearing within a few hours of the Guardian's article on the latest NSA disclosures. It says precisely the opposite: that the FAA "relaxed surveillance restrictions." Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/27/nsa-online-metad... It relied, legally, on "FAA Authority", a reference to the 2008 Fisa Amendments Act that relaxed surveil…

You do realize how the last one of these Greenwald articles from the Guardian played out, right? Another reporter actually had to write a piece walking back every one of the accusations concerning PRISM. And yet, given Greenwald's proven track record of being wrong, you're happy to take him at face value? Perhaps it's time you look inward and consider your own personal biases and motivations here?

My article was, I believe, the first to rebut those accusations: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...

I just happened to be reading that Greenwald article around the same time I saw your response, but I'm not relying on his analysis: I posted excerpts from both bills. They are similar, not identical, and I wrote about both at the time they were enacted.

I'm going to decline to speculate about personal biases and motivations.