5 ms·

This just isn't true. You can't, on one hand, claim the NSA has everyone's data, and on the other hand claim Apple has a legitimate case against the FBI -- if

by Laaw 11y ago

This just isn't true. You can't, on one hand, claim the NSA has everyone's data, and on the other hand claim Apple has a legitimate case against the FBI -- if the NSA had that data, they'd share it with the FBI, and Apple would be tilting at windmills. Edit: A lot of speculation and guesses in the replies here. If anyone's got actual evidence that the NSA "has data on everyone" or "wouldn't share their intel with the FBI", please post it. Otherwise, why make the claim? If you all really think the NSA can simply magic their way into an encrypted system, then why even bother? You're flying in the face of every security expert's opinion on the matter. No one with expertise in this area is going to agree that the NSA has data collection ongoing for every person in the US, that's patently absurd. The Snowden leaks showed us what they're capable of, and while it was substantial, it wasn't universal. Not by a long shot, and especially not after so many fixes were made as a result of those leaks.

drdeca 11y ago
Is parallel construction relevant to this?
- anxman 11y ago
  As far as I can tell, parallel construction won't even be necessary in this new model. It's very troubling.
toufka 11y ago
>if the NSA had that data, they'd share it with the FBI No they would not. Different government agencies are tasked with different resources, different objectives, and different guiding laws. What is legal for some agencies is blatantly illegal for others. The NSA has no domestic mission and cannot generally operate on American soil - true of the entire US military [1]. This blurring of those lines is exactly the problem. By permitting the FBI to take on NSA-like capabilities, and giving the NSA FBI-like responsibilities one gives the military a role in monitoring its own citizens, and an adversarial law enforcement agency unlimited espionage powers - very dangerous precedents - digital or otherwise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
- thejefflarson 11y ago
  The FBI most definitely has access to intelligence databases and information: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwind-ig-report.html#document/p608 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwi... A key part of the FBI's mission is "to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats" after all: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs
  - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
    They have limited access to some intelligence databases and information. That doesn't mean that they can just pop random selectors through PRISM for the lulz though - nor does it mean that the FBI and NSA share everything they have on everybody, or at least they don't for now.
    - thejefflarson 11y ago
      I don't think it is in anyway limited: https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/facilitating-an-enhanced-information-sharing-network https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/facilitating-an-enhanced-... As to the point about selectors, if a selector has an even remotely domestic terrorism related component, and is authorized by the FISA court, the FBI can and does see that information. Edit: added qualifier about terrorism
  - mattlutze 11y ago
    NSA is an agency of the Department of Defense. CIA is an independent organization. FBI is counted among the set of US "Intelligence" organizations, but if there's one thing media and memoirs tell us, it's that organization in different Departments have a history of not playing nice. Case in point, all the finger pointing around organizations not sharing information pre 9/11. DOD and DOJ in particular I don't think have such a close buddy-buddy relationship.
    - thejefflarson 11y ago
Absentinsomniac 11y ago
They may not "have everyone's data", but they have data on most Americans in one form or another. Presumably pretty extensive data. You can claim the NSA has data on the majority of people and still recognize the FBI doesn't need to have access to the drives of whatever mobile devices they are able to convince a judge to let them into.
- Laaw 11y ago
  > They may not "have everyone's data", but they have data on most Americans in one form or another Where did you hear that? It's not in anything that's been leaked, and the NSA surely didn't say it, so I'm curious where you got that information. To be fair, I'm assuming you're talking about data collected clandestinely, not stuff like tax information or social security number (obviously the government has that data). If you're just talking about the data that gets generated as part of being a citizen of the US, then yes, the NSA, FBI, IRS, etc. probably does have that information.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > It's not in anything that's been leaked Yes, it has been, though the exact nature of that "data" depends on your interpretation, and "everyone" is obviously only and approximate value. The NSA has even admitted to collecting most telephone records under the "phone metadata program". They also keep a sliding-window capture of data that includes a "full take" of the backbone in some areas. This was still being deployed at the time the leaked documents were written, so the coverage is variable, but we can assume it's only increased. Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd.
    - twoodfin 11y ago
      Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd. You're the NSA, trying to gather information foreign agents in the United States. You have access to some firehose of network packets, some of which may include communication between such agents and their home nations, but most of which is purely domestic. You also lack the technology to pull the needles out of the haystack in real time. Why is it "patently absurd" to retain a window of such data for long enough to identify the communications of interest and discard the rest? Is there an alternative?
tehwebguy 11y ago
They aren't saying they "have everyone's data" but that they have data on everyone's habits. First sentence.
colordrops 11y ago
Where did you get the idea that the NSA has all the data in your phone? They collect a lot of stuff that goes over the wire, but no one thinks they have all data stored on every device.
- Laaw 11y ago
  Folks here do, read the other comments. They think the NSA could give the FBI the data, but just won't.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    some data grabbed from wherever they could hack data flows != every single bit out of phone memory
cheetos 11y ago
Incredulity doesn't pass as evidence around here.
bmelton 11y ago
Another point to consider: Even if the NSA had relevant data to the San Bernardino shooters, and even if the NSA was happy to share that information, that still does not guarantee that the FBI would not move forward with the request to conscript Apple into doing their bidding. Prosecutors with agendas wait long and patiently for a case with the appropriate circumstances to make a request. If a prosecutor was waiting for a way in which to make sure that Apple wasn't able to eliminate the possibility of making requests that the government couldn't get access to, they would likely have to wait a long time for a better set of circumstances to make their case against. In this case - the victims are unsympathetic, and dead - the victims are unambiguously terrorists - the victims themselves do not own the phone - there's no concern of having to get things done secretly (e.g., there's no imminent attack that the government has to keep under wraps) A prosecutor who wants the All Writs Act to have the power they think it does would not allow this case to go unused, even if there was no material need for them to win the case.

by Laaw 11y ago

drdeca 11y ago

Is parallel construction relevant to this?

anxman 11y ago
As far as I can tell, parallel construction won't even be necessary in this new model. It's very troubling.

toufka 11y ago

>if the NSA had that data, they'd share it with the FBI No they would not. Different government agencies are tasked with different resources, different objectives, and different guiding laws. What is legal for some agencies is blatantly illegal for others. The NSA has no domestic mission and cannot generally operate on American soil - true of the entire US military [1]. This blurring of those lines is exactly the problem. By permitting the FBI to take on NSA-like capabilities, and giving the NSA FBI-like responsibilities one gives the military a role in monitoring its own citizens, and an adversarial law enforcement agency unlimited espionage powers - very dangerous precedents - digital or otherwise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

thejefflarson 11y ago
The FBI most definitely has access to intelligence databases and information: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwind-ig-report.html#document/p608 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/25/us/25stellarwi... A key part of the FBI's mission is "to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats" after all: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs
- cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
  They have limited access to some intelligence databases and information. That doesn't mean that they can just pop random selectors through PRISM for the lulz though - nor does it mean that the FBI and NSA share everything they have on everybody, or at least they don't for now.
  - thejefflarson 11y ago
    I don't think it is in anyway limited: https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/facilitating-an-enhanced-information-sharing-network https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/facilitating-an-enhanced-... As to the point about selectors, if a selector has an even remotely domestic terrorism related component, and is authorized by the FISA court, the FBI can and does see that information. Edit: added qualifier about terrorism
- mattlutze 11y ago
  NSA is an agency of the Department of Defense. CIA is an independent organization. FBI is counted among the set of US "Intelligence" organizations, but if there's one thing media and memoirs tell us, it's that organization in different Departments have a history of not playing nice. Case in point, all the finger pointing around organizations not sharing information pre 9/11. DOD and DOJ in particular I don't think have such a close buddy-buddy relationship.
  - thejefflarson 11y ago

Absentinsomniac 11y ago

They may not "have everyone's data", but they have data on most Americans in one form or another. Presumably pretty extensive data. You can claim the NSA has data on the majority of people and still recognize the FBI doesn't need to have access to the drives of whatever mobile devices they are able to convince a judge to let them into.

Laaw 11y ago
> They may not "have everyone's data", but they have data on most Americans in one form or another Where did you hear that? It's not in anything that's been leaked, and the NSA surely didn't say it, so I'm curious where you got that information. To be fair, I'm assuming you're talking about data collected clandestinely, not stuff like tax information or social security number (obviously the government has that data). If you're just talking about the data that gets generated as part of being a citizen of the US, then yes, the NSA, FBI, IRS, etc. probably does have that information.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > It's not in anything that's been leaked Yes, it has been, though the exact nature of that "data" depends on your interpretation, and "everyone" is obviously only and approximate value. The NSA has even admitted to collecting most telephone records under the "phone metadata program". They also keep a sliding-window capture of data that includes a "full take" of the backbone in some areas. This was still being deployed at the time the leaked documents were written, so the coverage is variable, but we can assume it's only increased. Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd.
  - twoodfin 11y ago
    Note that this is covered by one of the NSA's "creative reinterpretations"; they pretend that the data isn't "captured" until someone actually looks the data up in XKEYSCORE. This is patently absurd. You're the NSA, trying to gather information foreign agents in the United States. You have access to some firehose of network packets, some of which may include communication between such agents and their home nations, but most of which is purely domestic. You also lack the technology to pull the needles out of the haystack in real time. Why is it "patently absurd" to retain a window of such data for long enough to identify the communications of interest and discard the rest? Is there an alternative?

tehwebguy 11y ago

They aren't saying they "have everyone's data" but that they have data on everyone's habits. First sentence.

colordrops 11y ago

Where did you get the idea that the NSA has all the data in your phone? They collect a lot of stuff that goes over the wire, but no one thinks they have all data stored on every device.

Laaw 11y ago
Folks here do, read the other comments. They think the NSA could give the FBI the data, but just won't.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  some data grabbed from wherever they could hack data flows != every single bit out of phone memory

cheetos 11y ago

Incredulity doesn't pass as evidence around here.

bmelton 11y ago

Another point to consider: Even if the NSA had relevant data to the San Bernardino shooters, and even if the NSA was happy to share that information, that still does not guarantee that the FBI would not move forward with the request to conscript Apple into doing their bidding. Prosecutors with agendas wait long and patiently for a case with the appropriate circumstances to make a request. If a prosecutor was waiting for a way in which to make sure that Apple wasn't able to eliminate the possibility of making requests that the government couldn't get access to, they would likely have to wait a long time for a better set of circumstances to make their case against. In this case - the victims are unsympathetic, and dead - the victims are unambiguously terrorists - the victims themselves do not own the phone - there's no concern of having to get things done secretly (e.g., there's no imminent attack that the government has to keep under wraps) A prosecutor who wants the All Writs Act to have the power they think it does would not allow this case to go unused, even if there was no material need for them to win the case.