5 ms·

National Security Letters basically turn any private database into a tool of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter?wprov=sfla1 https

National Security Letters basically turn any private database into a tool of the state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter?wprov... I'm not saying the US is as bad as China, but I roll my eyes when people talk about China forcing its companies to serve the interests of the state. Our government does it all the time and it doesn't require a warrant.

divbzero 6y ago
People are right to criticize China for it and just as right to criticize the US for similar faults. We should behave better and encourage others to do the same.
- antocv 6y ago
  Disagree, we should encourage China, Russia, Israel, and any other capable state to spy on us. Disolve the monopoly, let it be a game for many to play. One single power is much more dangerous for everybody than a plurality.
  - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
    I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm thankful to live in a country that allows you to say it.
eloisius 6y ago
Absolutely. The only thing that frustrates me about these topics is that only discussions about one of them tends to Get pummeled with whataboutism. We should condemn authoritarianism wherever it exists and not let authoritarianism elsewhere be a justification for authoritarianism anywhere.
koheripbal 6y ago
This is a "both sides"/whataboutism argument. China is absolutely worse than the US in this regard. Chinese military intelligence actually conducts offensive espionage on behalf of Chinese companies to steal IP from western companies. The US has a court system that reviews National Security Letters, and can accept challenges to them, and while that court is secret, it's still bound by rules that are established by elected congressional officials. ...and perhaps most importantly, they are still somewhat rare. Chinese companies on the other hand are required to cooperate on all requests, even international subsidiaries of any Chinese companies. No "letters" or court orders - you either do it or the CEO goes to jail, no trial, no judicial review. It might seem like the results are similar, but having judicial and congressional oversight makes a world of difference in tempering how/when it can be used and, more importantly, rolling it back when it's no longer necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v... It's a night and day comparison.
- vmception 6y ago
  replying “Whataboutism” is just a reductive way to defend “hypocrisy” in a geopolitical context. which is worse? Not being aware of the similarity and replying “whataboutism”, or being aware of the similarity just gaslighting and deflecting with whoever pointed out the hypocrisy? most of these observations are very valid just because you coincidentally respect the due process that reaches a result, doesn’t mean that it is a functionally different or better. its only indoctrination and pure happenstance to whatever you were exposed to first.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yup. Whataboutism is only fallacious if you use it to claim moral superiority. Whataboutism is not fallacious if you're trying to draw an equivalent between two actors.
    - newen 6y ago
      How is whataboutism even fallacious. You can be logically consistent and still do whataboutism. It's more like a distraction to an argument being made. There nothing that inherently makes it fallacious.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        I can understand that argument, but some people do essentially use whataboutism as a tu quoque to completely dismiss an argument and treat it as obsolete. Obviously this is very rarely the case.
  - tdeck 6y ago
    It's hypocrisy when X criticizes Y for doing something that X also does. It's not hypocrisy for a third party to criticize party X for doing something they're not doing, even if they fail to bring up a criticism of Y in the same breath.
- volgo 6y ago
  Sorry I think you've drank the koolaid. There's no judicial oversight when it comes to national security. They'll always be able to find judges that are sympathetic to the FBI/CIA's cause
hammock 6y ago
While that's not wrong, NSLs are a relatively surgical tool in comparison to voluntarily- and involuntarily-added backdoors
- thephyber 6y ago
  > NSLs are a relatively surgical tool Citation needed. While I suspect you are right, I've never seen an example of one and we don't have any proof that this is how they are used in practice. The same could have been said about FISA warrants, but both civil libertarians and Trump allies have been critical in how FISA warrants have been used in practice despite the way they were described as few and targeted by those "watchers" who were "watching themselves".
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    >I've never seen an example of one Here's most of one, served to Microsoft in 2014 & released in 2017 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/NationalSecurity--Jan%2021,%202014_hyperlink_from_FAQ_03282017.pdf?version=6d863e77-0865-72e9-7945-ce88dc49ae0e https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/NationalSecurity--J...
mNovak 6y ago
Wondering how effective NSL's would be as a phishing technique for e.g. China.. Given the secrecy and non-disclosure aspects, it's generally harder for companies to know what 'looks right'.
- perennate 6y ago
  Per [1] it seems national security letters are generally served in person by e.g. an FBI agent. So I don't think phishing by foreign governments is likely, unless the foreign government sends spies dressed as U.S. FBI/NSA/CIA agents to visit the company in person. [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/testimony-aclu-client-and-national-security-letter-recipient-george-christian-hearing-senate https://www.aclu.org/other/testimony-aclu-client-and-nationa...
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > unless the foreign government sends spies dressed as U.S. FBI/NSA/CIA agents to visit the company in person. I don't think that main US adversaries ever shied away from much more direct means to infiltrate the US government.
perennate 6y ago
In this case, per the order [1] referenced in the article, this is a normal writ, and does not seem to have anything to do with national security or national security letters. It is also very specific, asking for records on one person for a period of six months, and signed by a district court. I think that, to keep government accountable, these sealed writs should have a clear date when they will be unsealed, and although it seems this one was eventually unsealed I don't see such a date. But I don't find the specificity or nature of this particular court order problematic. Certainly national security letters have been shown to have concerning issues both in specificity and in transparency, but again, none of the orders referenced in the article seem to be national security letters. (EFF has more details on their concerns with NSLs at [2].) [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6989724-All-Writs-Act-Order-on-Sabre-to-Give-Real-Time.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6989724-All-Writs-Ac... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/requiring-judicial-review-every-gag-order-simple-way-have-our-backs-apple-does https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/requiring-judicial-rev...
runarberg 6y ago
A state where the government always servers corporate interests becomes indistinguishable—in all functional matter—from a state where all corporations are state controlled.

divbzero 6y ago

People are right to criticize China for it and just as right to criticize the US for similar faults. We should behave better and encourage others to do the same.

antocv 6y ago
Disagree, we should encourage China, Russia, Israel, and any other capable state to spy on us. Disolve the monopoly, let it be a game for many to play. One single power is much more dangerous for everybody than a plurality.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  I disagree with what you're saying, but I'm thankful to live in a country that allows you to say it.

eloisius 6y ago

Absolutely. The only thing that frustrates me about these topics is that only discussions about one of them tends to Get pummeled with whataboutism. We should condemn authoritarianism wherever it exists and not let authoritarianism elsewhere be a justification for authoritarianism anywhere.

koheripbal 6y ago

This is a "both sides"/whataboutism argument. China is absolutely worse than the US in this regard. Chinese military intelligence actually conducts offensive espionage on behalf of Chinese companies to steal IP from western companies. The US has a court system that reviews National Security Letters, and can accept challenges to them, and while that court is secret, it's still bound by rules that are established by elected congressional officials. ...and perhaps most importantly, they are still somewhat rare. Chinese companies on the other hand are required to cooperate on all requests, even international subsidiaries of any Chinese companies. No "letters" or court orders - you either do it or the CEO goes to jail, no trial, no judicial review. It might seem like the results are similar, but having judicial and congressional oversight makes a world of difference in tempering how/when it can be used and, more importantly, rolling it back when it's no longer necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v._Ashcroft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Doe_v... It's a night and day comparison.

vmception 6y ago
replying “Whataboutism” is just a reductive way to defend “hypocrisy” in a geopolitical context. which is worse? Not being aware of the similarity and replying “whataboutism”, or being aware of the similarity just gaslighting and deflecting with whoever pointed out the hypocrisy? most of these observations are very valid just because you coincidentally respect the due process that reaches a result, doesn’t mean that it is a functionally different or better. its only indoctrination and pure happenstance to whatever you were exposed to first.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Yup. Whataboutism is only fallacious if you use it to claim moral superiority. Whataboutism is not fallacious if you're trying to draw an equivalent between two actors.
  - newen 6y ago
    How is whataboutism even fallacious. You can be logically consistent and still do whataboutism. It's more like a distraction to an argument being made. There nothing that inherently makes it fallacious.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I can understand that argument, but some people do essentially use whataboutism as a tu quoque to completely dismiss an argument and treat it as obsolete. Obviously this is very rarely the case.
- tdeck 6y ago
  It's hypocrisy when X criticizes Y for doing something that X also does. It's not hypocrisy for a third party to criticize party X for doing something they're not doing, even if they fail to bring up a criticism of Y in the same breath.
volgo 6y ago
Sorry I think you've drank the koolaid. There's no judicial oversight when it comes to national security. They'll always be able to find judges that are sympathetic to the FBI/CIA's cause

hammock 6y ago

While that's not wrong, NSLs are a relatively surgical tool in comparison to voluntarily- and involuntarily-added backdoors

thephyber 6y ago
> NSLs are a relatively surgical tool Citation needed. While I suspect you are right, I've never seen an example of one and we don't have any proof that this is how they are used in practice. The same could have been said about FISA warrants, but both civil libertarians and Trump allies have been critical in how FISA warrants have been used in practice despite the way they were described as few and targeted by those "watchers" who were "watching themselves".
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  >I've never seen an example of one Here's most of one, served to Microsoft in 2014 & released in 2017 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/NationalSecurity--Jan%2021,%202014_hyperlink_from_FAQ_03282017.pdf?version=6d863e77-0865-72e9-7945-ce88dc49ae0e https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/CMSFiles/NationalSecurity--J...

mNovak 6y ago

Wondering how effective NSL's would be as a phishing technique for e.g. China.. Given the secrecy and non-disclosure aspects, it's generally harder for companies to know what 'looks right'.

perennate 6y ago
Per [1] it seems national security letters are generally served in person by e.g. an FBI agent. So I don't think phishing by foreign governments is likely, unless the foreign government sends spies dressed as U.S. FBI/NSA/CIA agents to visit the company in person. [1] https://www.aclu.org/other/testimony-aclu-client-and-national-security-letter-recipient-george-christian-hearing-senate https://www.aclu.org/other/testimony-aclu-client-and-nationa...
- baybal2 6y ago
  > unless the foreign government sends spies dressed as U.S. FBI/NSA/CIA agents to visit the company in person. I don't think that main US adversaries ever shied away from much more direct means to infiltrate the US government.

perennate 6y ago

In this case, per the order [1] referenced in the article, this is a normal writ, and does not seem to have anything to do with national security or national security letters. It is also very specific, asking for records on one person for a period of six months, and signed by a district court. I think that, to keep government accountable, these sealed writs should have a clear date when they will be unsealed, and although it seems this one was eventually unsealed I don't see such a date. But I don't find the specificity or nature of this particular court order problematic. Certainly national security letters have been shown to have concerning issues both in specificity and in transparency, but again, none of the orders referenced in the article seem to be national security letters. (EFF has more details on their concerns with NSLs at [2].) [1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6989724-All-Writs-Act-Order-on-Sabre-to-Give-Real-Time.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6989724-All-Writs-Ac... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/requiring-judicial-review-every-gag-order-simple-way-have-our-backs-apple-does https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/requiring-judicial-rev...

runarberg 6y ago

A state where the government always servers corporate interests becomes indistinguishable—in all functional matter—from a state where all corporations are state controlled.