How would we even know? No one can even go down in there. Congressional oversight is done by them coming up to Congress and saying "Nope, we're not breaking any laws. Not wittingly."
N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
71–80 of 132 posts
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#72Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#73Only 4% of humans live in America. The other 96% deserve human rights, too.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#74Err, the same emails that only a few years back they claimed they weren't 'collecting' anyway?[0] Totally believable. Yeah, totally — and I'm the King of England.
[0] https://www.wired.com/2013/06/phew-it-was-just-metadata-not-...
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#75Sure they did.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#76We can't sensibly discuss this story here unless we know which definition of "collect" is being used in the story. Normal definition: collect. For example: "Even collected all the data going to and from Bob's house by putting a splitter on the cable." NSA's definition: not that, as cited in various stories sourced by the Snowden leaks from the Guardian. I won't attempt to define exactly how the NSA defines "collect"…
It's not only a matter of definitions. It's also a matter of belief. The head of the NSA has lied directly to congress about data collection activities. We have absolutely no reason to believe they will have actually stopped collecting data even if they say so.
Right. It's prudent to assume that the NSA intercepts all Internet traffic, and stores as much as they can, for as long as they can, focusing on what seems most important. Everything is retained for a few days. Then they triage, based on names, addresses, keywords, and so on. Metadata and encrypted stuff, they reportedly retain indefinitely.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#77We can't sensibly discuss this story here unless we know which definition of "collect" is being used in the story. Normal definition: collect. For example: "Even collected all the data going to and from Bob's house by putting a splitter on the cable." NSA's definition: not that, as cited in various stories sourced by the Snowden leaks from the Guardian. I won't attempt to define exactly how the NSA defines "collect"…
The NSA calls getting the data "interception". It calls LOOKING AT THE DATA BY A HUMAN WHO IS AN NSA EMPLOYEE "collection". It considers there to be no limits whatsoever on "interception" and permanent storage of communications data. It considers there to be some minor legal limits on "collection".
We can assume the NSA will continue to intercept approximately 100% of the world's communications, and store them in Utah, and "collect" them when legally feasible or desirable.
This story is, at best, a trivial change in NSA operations, and more likely, zero change in NSA operations. (The NSA is permitted to lie to you or the press about its operations.)
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#78> For technical reasons, the agency ended up collecting messages sent and received domestically as a byproduct of such surveillance, the officials said. Yeah, sure. Maybe don't do mass surveillance then? > The agency then proposed putting the bundled messages in a special repository to which analysts, searching through intercepts to write intelligence reports, would generally not have access. The court permitted that…
> I wonder what really prompted the NSA to stop this collection.
Rogue analyst finding damaging emails from some relevant politician? I.e. let's look at this Saudi Aramco chain mail because maybe extremist ties, but find email of Mr. Politician asking for donations bundled within the chain?
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
their definition (via secret interpretation of USSID 18, according to Bill Binney[1]) is roughly that it's only collected if they actually go back and look at it at some point down the line. your web browsing history (or whatever) sitting on a hard drive in utah doesn't fall under this definition until they look at it. [1] https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE
Why are judges only focusing on the "search" part of the Fourth Amendment and not on the "seizure" part as well? That kind of action should count as a seizure, no? > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularl…
If you still have the thing, it clearly hasn't been seized.
Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
Re: N.S.A Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah so that lends credence to my rationale for scraping websites. Until I actually look at the scraped data no scraping has taken place so no terms of use have been violated. When I look at the scraped data the terms of use come into effect but now I'm personally present so no robotic scraping has taken place.
Well, scraping has taken place, so you've violated a eula and potentially committed theft. But you haven't violated copyright, as long as you do not distribute the data either, (through any means) pretty sure that's fair "use." Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.
Is it illegal?,
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping
The answer from Pablo Hoffman talks and provides some links regarding web scraping and US cases.