4 ms·

FISA Content requests: July to December 2015 21000–21499. Note - FISA requests includes all personal information, NSL does not. And sure - this particular order

FISA Content requests: July to December 2015 21000–21499. Note - FISA requests includes all personal information, NSL does not. And sure - this particular order is about foreigners' data, but they might require citizens' data in future. Also is data privacy only a US citizen's right? Googlers claimed to have strong views when non-citizen googlers were being treated unfairly on immigration. But no statement when non-citizens' privacy is being snatched away.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
FISA is for non-Americans' data, and you were talking about Americans previously. You can't write an executive order that says you can get access to something you previously needed a warrant for without a warrant.
- surferbayarea 10y ago
  sure - that was not the intention. Fixed. I care deeply about user data privacy and how we have traded privacy(and user experience) for free software. Maybe recent events will change the trade-offs.
- surferbayarea 10y ago
  Seems it does include US citizens. Per "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... : "and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism)."
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    You can look at the definition here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801. Suspicion of espionage or terrorism isn't enough to be considered an agent of a foreign power. A US citizen must be known to have aided a foreign power in espionage or sabotage and done so knowingly.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > You can't write an executive order that says you can get access to something you previously needed a warrant for without a warrant. Well, you can. If the US AG thinks it's illegal, you can fire her. If it's argued in court, you've got a floating SCOTUS appointment ready to make. (The distinction between "can they do that?" and "can they legally do that?" is normally pedantic but at a time when CBP are reported to be ignoring court orders ( http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enforce-trumps-travel-ban-aclu/ http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf... ), this is becoming increasingly important)

lern_too_spel 10y ago

FISA is for non-Americans' data, and you were talking about Americans previously. You can't write an executive order that says you can get access to something you previously needed a warrant for without a warrant.

surferbayarea 10y ago
sure - that was not the intention. Fixed. I care deeply about user data privacy and how we have traded privacy(and user experience) for free software. Maybe recent events will change the trade-offs.
surferbayarea 10y ago
Seems it does include US citizens. Per "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla... : "and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism)."
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  You can look at the definition here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801. Suspicion of espionage or terrorism isn't enough to be considered an agent of a foreign power. A US citizen must be known to have aided a foreign power in espionage or sabotage and done so knowingly.
pjc50 10y ago
> You can't write an executive order that says you can get access to something you previously needed a warrant for without a warrant. Well, you can. If the US AG thinks it's illegal, you can fire her. If it's argued in court, you've got a floating SCOTUS appointment ready to make. (The distinction between "can they do that?" and "can they legally do that?" is normally pedantic but at a time when CBP are reported to be ignoring court orders ( http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enforce-trumps-travel-ban-aclu/ http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/customs-agents-ignore-judge-enf... ), this is becoming increasingly important)