3 ms·

I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umb

I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.

advisedwang 6y ago
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.
- twicetwice 6y ago
  I'm assuming you're being sarcastic...
- kitotik 6y ago
  Is this sarcasm? Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get?
  - mcny 6y ago
    > Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get? No, the idea is to limit the scope of what requires a warrant.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    Your logic is inverse. The thing at question was an amendment to add additional proof for access to "internet browsing and search history" data, so if the "intelligence community" defines that term as narrowly as possible, (assuming the "USA FREEDOM Act", the bill which was to be amended, is renewed) then the potential future restriction is applied to fewer data points.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  You must be kidding? the only time they are looking only at "meta" data is when they don't have the (mental/physical) capacity to analyze the rest... look at this for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read... (they can read any emails that are older than 6 months without a warrant.... since 1986, if they are stored on a 3rd party server)
  - thephyber 6y ago
    You misunderstand both what your parent's intention was and what is being interpreted in a narrow fashion. The amendment would add a new burden for whitelisted data points. Your parent was saying that the "intelligence community" would likely play legal definition games to retain the most data points which don't have a new higher burden of proof.
zaroth 6y ago
The two categories of information are largely referred to as “content” and “metadata”. The terms are not actually well defined under law when it comes to internet GETS and POSTS. It’s supposed that knowing you went to “amazon.com” would be metadata. Knowing you went to “PornHub.com/v/id=Xyz” (or whatever URL would link to a specific video) would be considered content. Today they are allowed to collect just “metadata” without a warrant. This amendment would have explicitly required a warrant for metadata. McConnell is proposing another amendment which would clarify the distinction that content can not be obtained without a warrant, but basically maintains the status quo, while also exempting specific types of people or entities. IANAL, but reading the McConnell amendment almost makes me think there’s a secret court interpretation of the existing law where they decided they could collect “content” as well without a warrant.

I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.

advisedwang 6y ago

I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.

twicetwice 6y ago
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic...
kitotik 6y ago
Is this sarcasm? Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get?
- mcny 6y ago
  > Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get? No, the idea is to limit the scope of what requires a warrant.
- thephyber 6y ago
  Your logic is inverse. The thing at question was an amendment to add additional proof for access to "internet browsing and search history" data, so if the "intelligence community" defines that term as narrowly as possible, (assuming the "USA FREEDOM Act", the bill which was to be amended, is renewed) then the potential future restriction is applied to fewer data points.
coronadisaster 6y ago
You must be kidding? the only time they are looking only at "meta" data is when they don't have the (mental/physical) capacity to analyze the rest... look at this for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read... (they can read any emails that are older than 6 months without a warrant.... since 1986, if they are stored on a 3rd party server)
- thephyber 6y ago
  You misunderstand both what your parent's intention was and what is being interpreted in a narrow fashion. The amendment would add a new burden for whitelisted data points. Your parent was saying that the "intelligence community" would likely play legal definition games to retain the most data points which don't have a new higher burden of proof.

zaroth 6y ago

The two categories of information are largely referred to as “content” and “metadata”. The terms are not actually well defined under law when it comes to internet GETS and POSTS. It’s supposed that knowing you went to “amazon.com” would be metadata. Knowing you went to “PornHub.com/v/id=Xyz” (or whatever URL would link to a specific video) would be considered content. Today they are allowed to collect just “metadata” without a warrant. This amendment would have explicitly required a warrant for metadata. McConnell is proposing another amendment which would clarify the distinction that content can not be obtained without a warrant, but basically maintains the status quo, while also exempting specific types of people or entities. IANAL, but reading the McConnell amendment almost makes me think there’s a secret court interpretation of the existing law where they decided they could collect “content” as well without a warrant.