Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
1–10 of 63 posts
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#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 time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake." Cough
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#3The Protect America Act still exists? Why isn't there more discussion about it?
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#4The Protect America Act still exists? Why isn't there more discussion about it?
No it doesn't. Even this ruling clearly notes that the PAA had a one year sunset and expired in 2008.
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#5'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 -- things like search warrants."
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#6The petitioner is redacted, so why does the title presume it to be Yahoo? Did I miss something?
Also, PRISM is an acronym for Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management. Could people please stop abusing it as a term for whatever random scary thing they want to believe the NSA is doing?
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#7Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now.
They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant".
Do we really care about specific instances of uses of PRISM? I mean, in an honest way I'm curious :: is there really any benefit if we could definitely prove that PRISM was used without a warrant? Is it worse than any of the other things that have been disclosed or leaked since originally finding out about PRISM?
I don't think so, but I was screaming bloody murder about NSLs in 2006, soooo......
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#8The petitioner is redacted, so why does the title presume it to be Yahoo? Did I miss something? Also, PRISM is an acronym for Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management. Could people please stop abusing it as a term for whatever random scary thing they want to believe the NSA is doing?
We learned this month that the company was Yahoo. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru...
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#9The Protect America Act still exists? Why isn't there more discussion about it?
No it doesn't. Even this ruling clearly notes that the PAA had a one year sunset and expired in 2008.
The PAA does not exist. But similar language appears in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Congress renewed most recently in December. Bipartisan enthusiasm, with approximately three-quarters of senators voting for it after safely defeating the pro-privacy amendments:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR5949:
Re: Court Order told Yahoo that Prism does not require a warrant [pdf]
#10Wait, are there actually people in the US who still assume that there someone has to get a warrant to investigate them under the auspices of terrorism or National Security? I assumed this was a more or less accepted fact by now. They take everything they want off the wire anyway; the best case scenario is that they have FISA rubber stamp warrants for the times where they "need a warrant". Do we really care about spec…
The use of FISA "warrants" (misnomer, really) is highly questionable as is, especially when they're just rubber-stamped anyway, but if we can prove that most of the time they don't even bother to use those "warrants", then we can at least take steps to sue them over it and try to declare it unconstitutional, and hopefully get Congress to not only repeal many of the current laws allowing them to do with this their secret interpretations of those laws, but also create other laws that put a lot of restrictions and oversight in place.