4 ms·

Just as a little additional perspective, the recipient agencies may still only query the raw data for foreign intelligence purposes, so it doesn't increase that

by mikecb 10y ago

Just as a little additional perspective, the recipient agencies may still only query the raw data for foreign intelligence purposes, so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further. Additionally, there was a great interview with Susan Hennessy in the Atlantic [1], where she suggested that this policy change has been in draft for nearly a decade, and that finalizing it potentially prevents rolling back the reforms that were made post Snowden for another decade. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/?utm_source=twb https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama...

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
delete [-] "so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further." If a thing spreads it must also increase in at least some dimensions.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Yea, time in this case, not power.
- mikecb 10y ago
  Fair point, I was going for magnitude.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
revelation 10y ago
You make it sound like this casual thing. The only reason intelligence agencies can do all this crazy illegal stuff is because their mission is foreign intelligence, and foreigners aren't covered by US law. This is the legal basis for every intelligence agency in every democratic state, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that their activities are otherwise prima facie illegal under any human rights perspective. So what happens when you stop making the distinction between intelligence agencies and general law enforcement agencies? You get the Gestapo [1], secret police. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo
randcraw 10y ago
But the paragraph from the EFF article that follows the one you allude to was this: " However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security. " That is not "spread further". Given the lack of a warrant and probable cause to initiate the search, prosecution using 'serendipitous evidence' flat out contradicts the 4th amendment.
- willstrafach 10y ago
  That quote is from the NYT article though, not the declassified document. That quote was not good phrasing by NYT, as they did not stress the strong limitations in place.

by mikecb 10y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

delete [-] "so it doesn't increase that power, just spreads it further." If a thing spreads it must also increase in at least some dimensions.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Yea, time in this case, not power.
mikecb 10y ago
Fair point, I was going for magnitude.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

revelation 10y ago

You make it sound like this casual thing. The only reason intelligence agencies can do all this crazy illegal stuff is because their mission is foreign intelligence, and foreigners aren't covered by US law. This is the legal basis for every intelligence agency in every democratic state, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that their activities are otherwise prima facie illegal under any human rights perspective. So what happens when you stop making the distinction between intelligence agencies and general law enforcement agencies? You get the Gestapo [1], secret police. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo

randcraw 10y ago

But the paragraph from the EFF article that follows the one you allude to was this: " However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department,” the Times wrote. So information that was collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in threats to national security. " That is not "spread further". Given the lack of a warrant and probable cause to initiate the search, prosecution using 'serendipitous evidence' flat out contradicts the 4th amendment.

willstrafach 10y ago
That quote is from the NYT article though, not the declassified document. That quote was not good phrasing by NYT, as they did not stress the strong limitations in place.