4 ms·

Buried in the article is that no arrests were made and that warrants for wiretapping requests were down 25% overall in 2018. However, warentless wiretapping wa

Buried in the article is that no arrests were made and that warrants for wiretapping requests were down 25% overall in 2018. However, warentless wiretapping was up 25%: https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/30/nsa-surveillance-spike/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/30/nsa-surveillance-spike/

lern_too_spel 7y ago
That article is confusing due to the author being confused himself. Warrantless wiretaps can only be ordered for non-US people living outside the United States believed to have national security relevant communications. These people do not have Fourth Amendment protection. The ODI's transparency report (the article's only citation, from which I have obtained every fact in this post) says that indeed went up from 129K targets in 2017 to 165k targets in 2018, but the article never mentions that. Instead, it talks about searching the recorded communications of those targets for communications related to US people who aren't being wiretapped themselves.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> Warrantless wiretaps can only be ordered for non-US people living outside the United States Except in the case of voluntary handovers, situations where the communication provider hands over data without the need of a warrant. A cop can purchase the same location or other data any advertiser can. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/police-get-location-data-without-warrant-end/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/police-get-location-data-witho...
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    That is not a wiretap. A wiretap obtains contents of communications. There is also no evidence that voluntary handovers are increasing.
    - mehrdadn 7y ago
      Confused, can someone explain why this is downvoted?
      - sandworm101 7y ago
        Defining wiretaps as only content is splitting legal hairs. Location data alone can get people convicted. Browsing history (IP address/DNS lookups etc) and connection data (who you texted etc) is arguably also not "content". For the person facing the charges there is little practical difference between a content "wiretap" and non-content non-wiretap.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        Oh I see. I'm kinda torn on this. Content vs. metadata is one thing, and I get where you're coming from, but if I understood your comment correctly, that wasn't quite the only distinction here? You were talking about cell location information, which is independent of calls/texts/other communication -- it's always there by the mere fact of you having cell service. It seems quite legitimate to point out that that's not "wiretapping"?
        wongarsu 7y ago
        > it's always there by the mere fact of you having cell service. The current location is known by necessity. There is no technical reason to keep a history of past locations.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        I didn't say there is a technical reason for keeping a history. I said doing so is not "wiretapping".
        darawk 7y ago
        The word "wiretap" has a specific meaning, though. It does not mean location data. It means content. Nobody uses the word "wiretap" to mean location data.
  - marcoperaza 7y ago
    That article is from before the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter, which was a pretty major change in the law on these issues. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
- the2and7 7y ago
  > non-US people living outside the United States believed to have national security relevant communications. These people do not have Fourth Amendment protection. How come Julian Assange has second amendment protection?
  - nkurz 7y ago
    The US Second Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Are you wondering whether this is interpreted to mean that Assange as an Australian has the right to own weapons in the US? Or did you mean to refer to some other amendment?

lern_too_spel 7y ago

That article is confusing due to the author being confused himself. Warrantless wiretaps can only be ordered for non-US people living outside the United States believed to have national security relevant communications. These people do not have Fourth Amendment protection. The ODI's transparency report (the article's only citation, from which I have obtained every fact in this post) says that indeed went up from 129K targets in 2017 to 165k targets in 2018, but the article never mentions that. Instead, it talks about searching the recorded communications of those targets for communications related to US people who aren't being wiretapped themselves.

sandworm101 7y ago
>> Warrantless wiretaps can only be ordered for non-US people living outside the United States Except in the case of voluntary handovers, situations where the communication provider hands over data without the need of a warrant. A cop can purchase the same location or other data any advertiser can. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/police-get-location-data-without-warrant-end/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/police-get-location-data-witho...
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  That is not a wiretap. A wiretap obtains contents of communications. There is also no evidence that voluntary handovers are increasing.
  - mehrdadn 7y ago
    Confused, can someone explain why this is downvoted?
    - sandworm101 7y ago
      Defining wiretaps as only content is splitting legal hairs. Location data alone can get people convicted. Browsing history (IP address/DNS lookups etc) and connection data (who you texted etc) is arguably also not "content". For the person facing the charges there is little practical difference between a content "wiretap" and non-content non-wiretap.
      - mehrdadn 7y ago
        Oh I see. I'm kinda torn on this. Content vs. metadata is one thing, and I get where you're coming from, but if I understood your comment correctly, that wasn't quite the only distinction here? You were talking about cell location information, which is independent of calls/texts/other communication -- it's always there by the mere fact of you having cell service. It seems quite legitimate to point out that that's not "wiretapping"?
        wongarsu 7y ago
        > it's always there by the mere fact of you having cell service. The current location is known by necessity. There is no technical reason to keep a history of past locations.
        mehrdadn 7y ago
        I didn't say there is a technical reason for keeping a history. I said doing so is not "wiretapping".
      - darawk 7y ago
        The word "wiretap" has a specific meaning, though. It does not mean location data. It means content. Nobody uses the word "wiretap" to mean location data.
- marcoperaza 7y ago
  That article is from before the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter, which was a pretty major change in the law on these issues. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
the2and7 7y ago
> non-US people living outside the United States believed to have national security relevant communications. These people do not have Fourth Amendment protection. How come Julian Assange has second amendment protection?
- nkurz 7y ago
  The US Second Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Are you wondering whether this is interpreted to mean that Assange as an Australian has the right to own weapons in the US? Or did you mean to refer to some other amendment?