4 ms·

No. Collection, unlike retention, of US Persons' data is governed via court decisions, not NSA policy. If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection in

No. 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 9y ago
So, 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 9y ago
  Not 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
  - c517402 9y ago
    Maybe I should have ended with a smiley, because I don't feeel tardy^H^H^H^H^H angry. I was just trying to point out that there is a way that "retroactive collection" can take place that isn't "judicially approved." I do think the US could use some legislative work on privacy. I'm glad there are FISA courts issuing search warrants, but don't think national security letters should actually be a thing.
    - andreyf 9y ago
      Yeah, and cops can murder people. The solution isn't to take away their guns. Good call re: NSL. I don't quite understand why investigators need NSL instead of a court order. Avenues for abuse seem relatively clear with no obvious ways to recourse or even know when it occurs!
infogulch 9y ago
This seems like such an obvious violation of the fourth amendment to me. > no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything and keep it as long as they "promise" to not review it until they do get a warrant. Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment to you? There are so many laws that it's unknowable to be sure that you're not violating one at any moment, and in fact it's been estimated that you break three federal laws every day [1]. With the amount of information the NSA stores it's likely they could legally put away any citizen in the country. This gives them absolute power, since all they have to do is invent a story about how they legally "collected" the information, aka Parallel Construction [2]. Now lets add in arbitrary, secret laws (which completely undermine the purpose of laws and democratic/representative government, btw) and their necessary secret trials. This turns the "unknowable" in the previous paragraph from "practically true because it's untenable" to "literally true" because you're not allowed to know it. This means on top of all of the above, there can be no oversight or public accountability of the actions of the government against citizens. This is a mindbogglingly omnipotent combination: Retroactive "Collection" + every citizen could be tried as a felon + Parallel Construction + no accountability. I don't understand how this wouldn't concern you. [1]: https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- andreyf 9y ago
  No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare. Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-public data sources. Parents, do it too. If you're upset about it you're a child. "Arbitrary, secret laws"? What a load of nonsense. Congress passes and debates every federal law in public (albeit sometimes a bit quickly). You mean secret interpretations of laws by FISA? Yeah, not exactly news and relatively public and subject to review by elected lawmakers. How, exactly, do you suggest counterintel should work, sans secret courts? It doesn't concern me because this combination stems from ignorance and an overactive imagination that wants to see evil where there is no evidence of evil. I imagine the systems you mention has avenues for abuse and also checks to make sure they are not abused. We should absolutely be vigilant for signs of abuse and talk about them. Given the concrete issues facing our society right now, abuse by lawless investigators colluding with a court appointed by SCOTUS to... do what, exactly?

c517402 9y ago

So, 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 9y ago
Not 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
- c517402 9y ago
  Maybe I should have ended with a smiley, because I don't feeel tardy^H^H^H^H^H angry. I was just trying to point out that there is a way that "retroactive collection" can take place that isn't "judicially approved." I do think the US could use some legislative work on privacy. I'm glad there are FISA courts issuing search warrants, but don't think national security letters should actually be a thing.
  - andreyf 9y ago
    Yeah, and cops can murder people. The solution isn't to take away their guns. Good call re: NSL. I don't quite understand why investigators need NSL instead of a court order. Avenues for abuse seem relatively clear with no obvious ways to recourse or even know when it occurs!

infogulch 9y ago

This seems like such an obvious violation of the fourth amendment to me. > no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything and keep it as long as they "promise" to not review it until they do get a warrant. Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment to you? There are so many laws that it's unknowable to be sure that you're not violating one at any moment, and in fact it's been estimated that you break three federal laws every day [1]. With the amount of information the NSA stores it's likely they could legally put away any citizen in the country. This gives them absolute power, since all they have to do is invent a story about how they legally "collected" the information, aka Parallel Construction [2]. Now lets add in arbitrary, secret laws (which completely undermine the purpose of laws and democratic/representative government, btw) and their necessary secret trials. This turns the "unknowable" in the previous paragraph from "practically true because it's untenable" to "literally true" because you're not allowed to know it. This means on top of all of the above, there can be no oversight or public accountability of the actions of the government against citizens. This is a mindbogglingly omnipotent combination: Retroactive "Collection" + every citizen could be tried as a felon + Parallel Construction + no accountability. I don't understand how this wouldn't concern you. [1]: https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man https://mises.org/library/decriminalize-average-man [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

andreyf 9y ago
No, because they'd be entering my house. If I send an SMS, however, it goes out of my house, you see? Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare. Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-public data sources. Parents, do it too. If you're upset about it you're a child. "Arbitrary, secret laws"? What a load of nonsense. Congress passes and debates every federal law in public (albeit sometimes a bit quickly). You mean secret interpretations of laws by FISA? Yeah, not exactly news and relatively public and subject to review by elected lawmakers. How, exactly, do you suggest counterintel should work, sans secret courts? It doesn't concern me because this combination stems from ignorance and an overactive imagination that wants to see evil where there is no evidence of evil. I imagine the systems you mention has avenues for abuse and also checks to make sure they are not abused. We should absolutely be vigilant for signs of abuse and talk about them. Given the concrete issues facing our society right now, abuse by lawless investigators colluding with a court appointed by SCOTUS to... do what, exactly?