4 ms·

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

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!

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!