5 ms·

> The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike. That's not entirely correct, despite your emphatic all caps assertion

> The fourth amendment is still a thing, and it protects non-citizens and citizens alike. That's not entirely correct, despite your emphatic all caps assertions. Under under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008[1], they can wait for a non-US person to depart the US, then use the full powers of the NSA to access the harvested communications under the username(s) collected at the border. The level of "cause" needed for FISA warrant is very thin, and only 0.3% of FISA warrants are rejected[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) [3] https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request/ https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2013/06/fisa-court...

ajross 7y ago
So first, FISA warrants aren't remotely relevant to the policy at hand of wanting routine social media identifiers. Second: FISA is one court, the government can't commit mass surveillance along the lines of a social credit system using FISA warrants even if it wanted to. You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper? Once again, you and the other aggrieved posters in this subthread want to turn this particular issue into a proxy for warrantless surveillance, or border searches, or immigration abuses. And it's not. It's a requirement to get your facebook ID. Not every policy is the end of the world, and if you want the uninformed masses to take your (and my!) civil liberties worries seriously, you need to present arguments that make sense and aren't irrelevant digressions.
- salawat 7y ago
  So, you've viewed the FISA warranting process? You can say for sure that their process exists as one sheet per person/username? These documents are not available for public audit, so I find the faith you demonstrate to be questionable. You know for a fact that there is no concentrated effort to slurp up as much information as possible to provide a political/intelligence bargaining chip with other state's intelligence services? You are right about one thing ; it isn't as bad as the PRC's social credit system: yet. However, it is there as a foundation for one, and even what we have was considered unprecedented and the stuff of crackpots before evidence of the existence of these types of systems was made bare before all by Snowden. Also, the 4th Amendment you insist provides so much protection? It doesn't apply under current case law. As soon as you share your information with a third party, 4th Amendment stops applying as there is no expectation of privacy; except in the few and far between carveouts of medical records or legal communique with an attorney. I don't personally buy that reasoning (Third Party Doctrine) but the courts do; act accordingly.
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  >FISA warrants aren't remotely relevant to the policy at hand of wanting routine social media identifiers. Uh, how so? It provides a known good selector for future surveillance. It’s probably the reason it’s on the form and the privacy implications are definitely relevant to the discussion. >You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper? They do bulk orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/ve...

ajross 7y ago

So first, FISA warrants aren't remotely relevant to the policy at hand of wanting routine social media identifiers. Second: FISA is one court, the government can't commit mass surveillance along the lines of a social credit system using FISA warrants even if it wanted to. You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper? Once again, you and the other aggrieved posters in this subthread want to turn this particular issue into a proxy for warrantless surveillance, or border searches, or immigration abuses. And it's not. It's a requirement to get your facebook ID. Not every policy is the end of the world, and if you want the uninformed masses to take your (and my!) civil liberties worries seriously, you need to present arguments that make sense and aren't irrelevant digressions.

salawat 7y ago
So, you've viewed the FISA warranting process? You can say for sure that their process exists as one sheet per person/username? These documents are not available for public audit, so I find the faith you demonstrate to be questionable. You know for a fact that there is no concentrated effort to slurp up as much information as possible to provide a political/intelligence bargaining chip with other state's intelligence services? You are right about one thing ; it isn't as bad as the PRC's social credit system: yet. However, it is there as a foundation for one, and even what we have was considered unprecedented and the stuff of crackpots before evidence of the existence of these types of systems was made bare before all by Snowden. Also, the 4th Amendment you insist provides so much protection? It doesn't apply under current case law. As soon as you share your information with a third party, 4th Amendment stops applying as there is no expectation of privacy; except in the few and far between carveouts of medical records or legal communique with an attorney. I don't personally buy that reasoning (Third Party Doctrine) but the courts do; act accordingly.
dontbenebby 7y ago
>FISA warrants aren't remotely relevant to the policy at hand of wanting routine social media identifiers. Uh, how so? It provides a known good selector for future surveillance. It’s probably the reason it’s on the form and the privacy implications are definitely relevant to the discussion. >You literally think those three (I think it's three) judges are going to pen hundreds of millions of signatures on physical pieces of paper? They do bulk orders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/ve...