9 ms·

Hypothetically, a terrorist group could use private DMs on Twitter to coordinate an attack. If the US captured a low-level terrorist that didn’t know all the d

by parsimo2010 7y ago

Hypothetically, a terrorist group could use private DMs on Twitter to coordinate an attack. If the US captured a low-level terrorist that didn’t know all the details of a plan but knew that the remaining details had been sent to other Twitter users, it would be a legitimate national security request if the government asked Twitter for copies of a user’s private DMs. The hypothetical situation above would be an invasion of someone’s privacy, and any smart terrorist group should be using a message service that is end-to-end encrypted (I’m not sure if Twitter DMs are), but let’s acknowledge that there is at least a plausible national security reason for the US government to request things from Twitter. These requests can be abused, but any social network that has a private messaging feature could be used to coordinate national security threats. Edit for clarification: If the US government made one request to stop a terrorist plot that they had some specific knowledge of, that would be okay in my eyes. If the US government requested access to every Twitter user’s DMs to scan for possible threats, that’s not okay. It seems like Twitter is trying to disclose the number of requests so we can see for ourselves.

sneak 7y ago
I cannot envision any terrorist attack that poses an existential threat to the United States. Fighting terrorism is not a national security matter. Even the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world (not counting the atomic bombings of Japan, which were terroristic by definition but generally excluded from that classification as being carried out during a declared war by a with-a-return-address nation) was at least an order of magnitude off from posing a threat to the national security of the US. "National security" is one of those thought-ending phrases that's thrown about to make people stop thinking critically about the matter. Terrorism is extremely bad, but it's not an existential risk, by its very definition. > let’s acknowledge that there is at least a plausible national security reason for the US government to request things from Twitter There is already a system that permits the government, investigating crimes, to compel information disclosure from a provider. It's called a search warrant, and requires a (very cursory, heh) review by a judge. The government is asking not only for the power to skip that step (they've already taken that - that ship has sailed), but to prevent people from disclosing just how many times that's happened. "National security" is not an umbrella term that means "bad things happening to USians", although I'm sure that the people using it in this instance as a cover story for widespread, illegal, extrajudicial espionage activity by the government would prefer that you think of it that way. Remember: every legitimate NSL could have been a warrant. There's already a legal framework for how to investigate and prevent crimes, including mass murder. Additionally, anyone who's ever read a US federal warrant for anything involving sequences of bytes or information technology of any kind knows that the burden is already hilariously bad/low, and that they're very close to being rubber-stamp already. I personally have never seen a federal warrant (they're written under penalty of perjury) that didn't have naked factual errors in it, and I've only seen the ones that got approved/signed by a judge. There's a 100%, easily falsifiable, perjury rate in them in my experience. AFAIK none of the federal agents who have signed these sworn statements have ever faced any negative repercussions whatsoever for the falsehoods contained therein. So, that hilariously low/token bar to a search warrant is what they're skipping in these cases. NSLs and related FISA warrants are extremely suspect. It makes sense that they would want to hide and obfuscate their use and existence. They're basically carte blanche for the government to inspect any communications they want - no justification required. The only reason they'd use them in place of a search warrant is because they are illegitimate. This is absolutely not about terrorism, or threats. There's already a functioning-for-them (albeit broken in the legal checks-and-balances sense) system for that in the form of search and seizure warrants; they're trying to confuse you with the terrorism card. This is a cover-up for an illegal power grab, nothing more.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mLuby 7y ago
  Well put. Furthermore the damage from terrorist attacks is primarily self-inflicted; the cost of political, economic, and military overreactions far exceeds loss of property and life. Truly, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
- ppod 7y ago
  The law doesn't say existential though, it says grave and imminent. I would focus on 'imminent' in this case - the case has been going on for six years.
- parsimo2010 7y ago
  National security threats don’t have to be existential to be legitimate threats. Threats to American lives can be national security threats, even if they don’t threaten to kill 300 million people. ISIS could never threaten the existence of the USA, but they have killed several innocent people, and it should be the government’s responsibility to prevent attacks. The government should practice restraint with how they do this, but there are tons of scenarios where the government should take action before something rises to the level of an existential threat. Someone walking into your home when you aren’t home and stealing your things isn’t an existential threat to you, but I’ll bet you at least lock your doors when you go out. The flu isn’t an existential threat to most people, but many people get a flu shot every year. Just like individuals take reasonable actions to protect themselves from non-existential threats, the US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from non-existential threats as well.
  - fanatic2pope 7y ago
    What you are describing is much more properly labeled "crime". The idea that terrorism is so much worse, somehow, is exactly the same kind of argument that has lead the USA to having the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That is absolutely nothing to be proud of.
  - 7y ago
mLuby 7y ago
I thought a clear signal of something lacking E2E encryption is if a web browser can display messages without a client-only password. That is, if the company can render your messages in plaintext server-side, they can read them server-side and do anything with the plaintext. Now I realize the client-side password could be saved and retrieved in the browser for ease of use, but I don't think that's going on.
kerkeslager 7y ago
> If the US government made one request to stop a terrorist plot that they had some specific knowledge of, that would be okay in my eyes. How can we tell that they just didn't straight up lie about whether the one request was to stop a terrorist plot, and not to gather intel on political foes or ex girlfriends? With no oversight and no one allowed to advocate for the rights of the individuals under surveillance, I am still not okay with one request to which they claim is stop a terrorist plot that they claim to have specific knowledge of, because there's no checks and balances to prevent them from simply lying.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  A NSL doesn’t allow the government to ask for the contents of a DM. They would need a warrant for that, providing some checks and balances.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Right because the judicial branch is free of corruption and doesn’t just rubber stamp warrants.
  - sneak 7y ago
    These statements are both false.
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      You are wrong, go read the EFF FAQ: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/ https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/ NSL are only for "metadata" not user content. Govt can get a list of the calls you made, but not what your said. They can get IP addresses, but not the email body. I don't support NSLs (4th amendment + unconstitutional gag order), but a lot of the opposition is based in hysterical ignorance. If you are going to get worked up about it, do yourself a favor and at least understand what they are. Can the FBI obtain content—like e-mails or the content of phone calls—with an NSL? Not legally. While each type of NSL allows the FBI to obtain a different type of information, that information is limited to records—such as “subscriber information and toll billing records information” from telephone companies.
ngold 7y ago
The same could be said for mailing a letter. So why does all this not get treated as mail? Under the same laws and procedures?

sneak 7y ago

I cannot envision any terrorist attack that poses an existential threat to the United States. Fighting terrorism is not a national security matter. Even the largest terrorist attack in the history of the world (not counting the atomic bombings of Japan, which were terroristic by definition but generally excluded from that classification as being carried out during a declared war by a with-a-return-address nation) was at least an order of magnitude off from posing a threat to the national security of the US. "National security" is one of those thought-ending phrases that's thrown about to make people stop thinking critically about the matter. Terrorism is extremely bad, but it's not an existential risk, by its very definition. > let’s acknowledge that there is at least a plausible national security reason for the US government to request things from Twitter There is already a system that permits the government, investigating crimes, to compel information disclosure from a provider. It's called a search warrant, and requires a (very cursory, heh) review by a judge. The government is asking not only for the power to skip that step (they've already taken that - that ship has sailed), but to prevent people from disclosing just how many times that's happened. "National security" is not an umbrella term that means "bad things happening to USians", although I'm sure that the people using it in this instance as a cover story for widespread, illegal, extrajudicial espionage activity by the government would prefer that you think of it that way. Remember: every legitimate NSL could have been a warrant. There's already a legal framework for how to investigate and prevent crimes, including mass murder. Additionally, anyone who's ever read a US federal warrant for anything involving sequences of bytes or information technology of any kind knows that the burden is already hilariously bad/low, and that they're very close to being rubber-stamp already. I personally have never seen a federal warrant (they're written under penalty of perjury) that didn't have naked factual errors in it, and I've only seen the ones that got approved/signed by a judge. There's a 100%, easily falsifiable, perjury rate in them in my experience. AFAIK none of the federal agents who have signed these sworn statements have ever faced any negative repercussions whatsoever for the falsehoods contained therein. So, that hilariously low/token bar to a search warrant is what they're skipping in these cases. NSLs and related FISA warrants are extremely suspect. It makes sense that they would want to hide and obfuscate their use and existence. They're basically carte blanche for the government to inspect any communications they want - no justification required. The only reason they'd use them in place of a search warrant is because they are illegitimate. This is absolutely not about terrorism, or threats. There's already a functioning-for-them (albeit broken in the legal checks-and-balances sense) system for that in the form of search and seizure warrants; they're trying to confuse you with the terrorism card. This is a cover-up for an illegal power grab, nothing more.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mLuby 7y ago
Well put. Furthermore the damage from terrorist attacks is primarily self-inflicted; the cost of political, economic, and military overreactions far exceeds loss of property and life. Truly, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
ppod 7y ago
The law doesn't say existential though, it says grave and imminent. I would focus on 'imminent' in this case - the case has been going on for six years.
parsimo2010 7y ago
National security threats don’t have to be existential to be legitimate threats. Threats to American lives can be national security threats, even if they don’t threaten to kill 300 million people. ISIS could never threaten the existence of the USA, but they have killed several innocent people, and it should be the government’s responsibility to prevent attacks. The government should practice restraint with how they do this, but there are tons of scenarios where the government should take action before something rises to the level of an existential threat. Someone walking into your home when you aren’t home and stealing your things isn’t an existential threat to you, but I’ll bet you at least lock your doors when you go out. The flu isn’t an existential threat to most people, but many people get a flu shot every year. Just like individuals take reasonable actions to protect themselves from non-existential threats, the US government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from non-existential threats as well.
- fanatic2pope 7y ago
  What you are describing is much more properly labeled "crime". The idea that terrorism is so much worse, somehow, is exactly the same kind of argument that has lead the USA to having the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That is absolutely nothing to be proud of.
- 7y ago

mLuby 7y ago

I thought a clear signal of something lacking E2E encryption is if a web browser can display messages without a client-only password. That is, if the company can render your messages in plaintext server-side, they can read them server-side and do anything with the plaintext. Now I realize the client-side password could be saved and retrieved in the browser for ease of use, but I don't think that's going on.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> If the US government made one request to stop a terrorist plot that they had some specific knowledge of, that would be okay in my eyes. How can we tell that they just didn't straight up lie about whether the one request was to stop a terrorist plot, and not to gather intel on political foes or ex girlfriends? With no oversight and no one allowed to advocate for the rights of the individuals under surveillance, I am still not okay with one request to which they claim is stop a terrorist plot that they claim to have specific knowledge of, because there's no checks and balances to prevent them from simply lying.

WillPostForFood 7y ago
A NSL doesn’t allow the government to ask for the contents of a DM. They would need a warrant for that, providing some checks and balances.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Right because the judicial branch is free of corruption and doesn’t just rubber stamp warrants.
- sneak 7y ago
  These statements are both false.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    You are wrong, go read the EFF FAQ: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/ https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/ NSL are only for "metadata" not user content. Govt can get a list of the calls you made, but not what your said. They can get IP addresses, but not the email body. I don't support NSLs (4th amendment + unconstitutional gag order), but a lot of the opposition is based in hysterical ignorance. If you are going to get worked up about it, do yourself a favor and at least understand what they are. Can the FBI obtain content—like e-mails or the content of phone calls—with an NSL? Not legally. While each type of NSL allows the FBI to obtain a different type of information, that information is limited to records—such as “subscriber information and toll billing records information” from telephone companies.

ngold 7y ago

The same could be said for mailing a letter. So why does all this not get treated as mail? Under the same laws and procedures?