3 ms·

That wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitut

That wasn't the only program. They were also tapping into cell phones and laptop webcams for remote surveillance on targeted subjects, but without any constitutionally required warrant checks in place.

bb88 7y ago
But was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Have you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be illegal.
  - bb88 7y ago
    Last I checked, the courts made the final decision on what's legal and what's not. I haven't seen the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that says that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Maybe you can point it out to me? The point isn't that I disagree with you on what should be legal or illegal, I very much agree with you. The point is, unless something enters a court of law for ajudication, it's very much in the land of the political. And there's a lot of darkness surrounding the FISA court, much of which cannot be challenged. Is it legal? It looks like the courts say it is.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      It was tested in court and found to be illegal: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-phone-spying-program-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-pho...
      - bb88 7y ago
        So that case didn't go to the supreme court, as congress made that action specifically illegal. But in other surveillance cases, the supreme court has dismissed the cases.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  Remotely interfering into a computer normally refusing access to force it to transmit vidoe/data is a blatent violation of the 4th Amendment and illegal, yes. The "Remotely interfering into" part specifically since you're entering into a person's property without a warrant. If the webcam was already transmitting for a Skype call or whatever then you can argue over privacy in transit all you want but first you need the person to knowledgeably consent to starting the transmission.

bb88 7y ago

But was it illegal? And how would you know that such a warrant didn't actually exist in a court, particularly the FISA court? It's possible that with FISA, everything under the so called warrantless wiretap program might be legal -- you just don't have access to prove it is.

garmaine 7y ago
Have you been paying attention? At the time that Snowden made his revelations, no approval was necessary for an NSA analyst to activate a webcam, for example. They literally just had to select from a menu of totally broad reasons on an internal web form documenting the access. They had a congressionally granted exemption from requiring case-by-case FISA approval. This is now all open and acknowledged, and found to be illegal.
- bb88 7y ago
  Last I checked, the courts made the final decision on what's legal and what's not. I haven't seen the 9-0 Supreme Court decision that says that warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Maybe you can point it out to me? The point isn't that I disagree with you on what should be legal or illegal, I very much agree with you. The point is, unless something enters a court of law for ajudication, it's very much in the land of the political. And there's a lot of darkness surrounding the FISA court, much of which cannot be challenged. Is it legal? It looks like the courts say it is.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    It was tested in court and found to be illegal: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-phone-spying-program-ruled-illegal-by-appeals-court-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa/nsas-pho...
    - bb88 7y ago
      So that case didn't go to the supreme court, as congress made that action specifically illegal. But in other surveillance cases, the supreme court has dismissed the cases.
tomatotomato37 7y ago
Remotely interfering into a computer normally refusing access to force it to transmit vidoe/data is a blatent violation of the 4th Amendment and illegal, yes. The "Remotely interfering into" part specifically since you're entering into a person's property without a warrant. If the webcam was already transmitting for a Skype call or whatever then you can argue over privacy in transit all you want but first you need the person to knowledgeably consent to starting the transmission.