7 ms·
We 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: "E
by jancsika 10y ago
We 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" because I don't have time to track down and read the relevant article. But the upshot is-- their definition is idiosyncratic and misleading for a piece that has a general audience like this one.
- nostromo 10y agoThe Times really did a crap job of explaining that. The headline is so unequivocal but a close reading of the article implies the opposite is true.
- hengheng 10y agoIndeed, congratulations on their great PR work.
- nyolfen 10y agotheir 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 https://youtu.be/r9-3K3rkPRE
- jancsika 10y agoAnd we have no idea if their idiosyncratic definition has changed since then.
- logn 10y agoAh 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.
- elevenfist 10y agoWell, 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.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoEureka! We make a class-action lawsuit, charging the government $X billion for violating our copyrights because of NSA surveillance!
- pyre 10y agoThe government can exempt themselves from IP laws. For example, the government has exempted itself and defence contractors for violating patents (to build top secret devices) in the past.
- rietta 10y agoYeah, not going to happen because of "the national security interest of the United States". A related concept is a contract contrary to public policy.
- rhizome 10y agoAlas! Sovereign immunity means you can't sue the government without their permission.
- xmj 10y agoWhere are you going to sue the government... in a government court?
- DoofusOfDeath 10y agoOnly in a revolution, I suspect. And revolutions are not to be undertaken lightly.
- elevenfist 10y agoThis isn't really a secret interpretation, I and a lot of people I knew noticed the same thing over a decade ago by reading the privacy policies of tech companies. Reading the data requires a warrant. Recording the data doesn't.
- jwtadvice 10y agoThe important aspect for the NSA's interpretation is that algorithms can look at and process the data and create metadata or synopsis information from it. Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection". Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records. Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.
- andreyf 10y agoAnd what will you need to show to obtain said rubber stamp? This is not secret, either: Search for "how FISA works" here: http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IC-book-finalasof12JUNE.pdf http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files...
- killjoywashere 10y agoCuriously, a fair amount of genetic research is done this way: the genetic info is PHI, but the covered entity holds the data and the computer capacity. The researcher just pushes an algorithm to the cluster and gets aggregate results back.
- 10y ago
- infogulch 10y agoSo all it would take is for them to change their policy at any point in the future, even only for a few minutes, and instantly "collect" all current and historical emails from Americans.
- andreyf 10y agoNo. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OKs the suspect's communications being reviewed.
- c517402 10y agoSo, they archive the data and promise not to collect it (look at it) unless they have a national security letter signed by a judge^H^H^H^H^H drinking buddy from the office.
- andreyf 10y agoNot only do they "promise" but they realize they'd be violating the legal boundaries placed on their organization if they do. Arguing they shouldn't have the capability for this is like arguing the army shouldn't be allowed to have tanks because then they have the capacity to perform a military coup. No judge has ever signed an NSL. That's precisely the distinction between a "regular" judicial subpoena and an administrative subpoena [1]. Subpoenas have nothing to do with NSA interception, and everything to do with ordering businesses to produce evidence or individuals to testify pertaining to a crime. The case law setting the "expectation of privacy" test is from the 70s, and the electronic wiretapping laws from the 80's. The only recent development is that SCOTUS decided people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their cell phone connects to cell towers because that's obviously how they work [2]. You don't need a law degree nor security clearance to understand this. Stop finding reasons to justify your anger and start getting informed. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- mtgx 10y agoWhy 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 particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- btilly 10y agoIf you still have the thing, it clearly hasn't been seized. Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
- justinclift 10y agoThat draws an interesting counterpoint: the RIAA's long standing attempt to have copying of non-physical things be perceived as theft.
- bitexploder 10y agoIt is right out of a comedian sketch. Then govt massively penalizes citizens for doing a thing. Turn around with a straight face and tell you, in the name of National Security, that it is okay for them to do it.
- tastythrowaway2 10y agoScumbag Uncle Sam
- guscost 10y agoAh, the old "Schrodinger Defense".
- bobwaycott 10y agoSo they're taking a rather quantum take on this as a superposition of states that are unknown until measurement occurs and they collapse the wave function into being "collected". Cool.
- colordrops 10y agoIt'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.
- mirimir 10y agoRight. 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.
- rl3 10y agoAccording to Russ Tice, the NSA has been conducting full-take domestic content collection on everyone. In other words, not only metadata but full recordings and content of anything they can feasibly store—phone calls, text messages, internet conversations, video chat. Collecting on Americans in such a manner satisfies legal requirements because the very definition of collection has been twisted to effectively mean accessing intercepted content present in storage. The term metadata in particular was intentionally bandied about as a means of distracting from the fact NSA is getting everything. The metadata programs killed by congress amounted to little more than a dog and pony show, sacrificing deprecated programs for political ends. Personally I think it was a brilliant damage control measure. Snowden arguably didn't help matters either, constantly using the term himself. The content he leaked was largely from JWICS, which wouldn't contain documents outlining the gory details of full-take domestic surveillance. Those likely are heavily compartmented, and reside on much more secure networks.
- mirimir 10y agoYes, the NSA does do that. And they probably consider it to be their job, no matter what the damn civilians say.
- 10y ago
- late2part 10y agoNot wittingly idiosyncratic, though, right?
- tastythrowaway2 10y agothis deserves more upvotes
- engx 10y agoGeneral Hayden was recently on Sam Harris' podcast and he briefly explained the 'retroactive collection' concept- https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/privacy-and-security https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/privacy-and-security I'd say his arguments appear clear and convincing, even to a skeptic like myself. I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening. To be clear, I don't believe Hayden, he is likely lying about aspects of it, these systems will inevitably be used in the future for regular law enforcement purposes and the previous abuses by NSA staff is understated. Plus, it is unequivocally illegal and a violation of natural rights. And just a bad idea which will lead to a dangerous future.
- HappyTypist 10y agoAny transcripts / summaries?
- jancsika 10y ago> I wonder what can be done to counter his seemingly perfect narrative so Americans can be rightfully concerned about what's happening. I think that a) redefining common terms to mean idiosyncratic things and b) using the idiosyncratic terms in public to imply their original common meaning is enough to trigger a warning to the layperson against putting too much stock in a particular speaker's narrative. I can say from experience that people tend to perk up when you give them such a warning. Also, Sam Harris isn't particularly well-versed in the issues surrounding wide-net surveillance. Add Bruce Schneier or Dan Bernstein to the discussion and that "seemingly perfect narrative" will start to look very different.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoThe NSA doesn't define "collect." It defines "acquisition" of data, and their definition matches the definition you or I would use. https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/minimization_procedures_used_by_nsa_in_connection_with_fisa_sect_702.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/minimization_procedures_us... There were some conspiracy theories about the NSA's definition of "collect" around when the first Snowden documents were published, but those were never substantiated in the documents, while the normal definition was confirmed in Snowden's documents (above).
- koenigdavidmj 10y agoThis isn't the only time something silly like that is in law. In New York, a loaded gun is any gun that you possess at the same time as ammunition suitable for it.
- jellicle 10y agoThe 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.)
- nebabyte 10y agoGood call. This is the country for which loopholes exist that basically allow any processed food product to claim being 'made with 100% chicken' [though not 100% of this product is that '100% chicken'] or 'Made with [a company called] 'Real'['s] cheese" or whatnot... > 100% grated parmesan cheese. It's 100% grated. And there is parmesan cheese in it. Just not 100% cheese. etc etc (via reddit this morning). Can't really trust words that are picked to imply conclusions that are not legally being declared rigorously (and audited by some lawyer of an independent entity).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]