3 ms·

US intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request. This is both a problem for indiv

US intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request. This is both a problem for individual civil liberties and for non-US businesses, as the US intelligence system does conduct commercial espionage.

nickff 6y ago
>" US intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request." My understanding was that intelligence agencies were required to get a so-called "FISA warrant" to compel the production of information. [1] Am I missing something? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...
- addicted 6y ago
  Essentially the EU court ruled that the FISA safeguards are not sufficient.
  - nickff 6y ago
    I would agree that the so-called "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)" is really more of a board than a court, but that doesn't mean that US companies are simply providing information upon request. I view the FISC as a symptom of the ever-growing regulatory state, but that is a (somewhat) separate matter.
- Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
  > Am I missing something Yeah: Stellar Wind, muscular, prism and skynet Basically the national surveillance agency wants APIs with all communication networks, so they can request anything, arguing their automated big data mining will only request data they are allowed to request, by law or warrant. The data providing business should not look into the details what they request, because that would endanger national security. The FISA courts have a history of signing very broad warrants like "all data related to who talks to whom necessary for national security" And the agency has argued in the past that they can copy anything anyway because only if a human officially looks at the data in an investigation, a warrant is needed. As long as it is only fully automated machines running big data analysis on it, and no one is looking, such rules do not apply. And the FISA court pretty much signs any "look into it" order if the machine says "i found something, someone should look into this". The worst of the worst is that skynet thing: it creates lists of people that are to be targeted by automated flying killer robots. I know this sounds ridiculous. That is the reason why they picked that name.

nickff 6y ago

>" US intelligence agencies don't need warrants to get data regarding non-US persons. Such data must be handed over upon request." My understanding was that intelligence agencies were required to get a so-called "FISA warrant" to compel the production of information. [1] Am I missing something? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

addicted 6y ago
Essentially the EU court ruled that the FISA safeguards are not sufficient.
- nickff 6y ago
  I would agree that the so-called "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)" is really more of a board than a court, but that doesn't mean that US companies are simply providing information upon request. I view the FISC as a symptom of the ever-growing regulatory state, but that is a (somewhat) separate matter.
Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
> Am I missing something Yeah: Stellar Wind, muscular, prism and skynet Basically the national surveillance agency wants APIs with all communication networks, so they can request anything, arguing their automated big data mining will only request data they are allowed to request, by law or warrant. The data providing business should not look into the details what they request, because that would endanger national security. The FISA courts have a history of signing very broad warrants like "all data related to who talks to whom necessary for national security" And the agency has argued in the past that they can copy anything anyway because only if a human officially looks at the data in an investigation, a warrant is needed. As long as it is only fully automated machines running big data analysis on it, and no one is looking, such rules do not apply. And the FISA court pretty much signs any "look into it" order if the machine says "i found something, someone should look into this". The worst of the worst is that skynet thing: it creates lists of people that are to be targeted by automated flying killer robots. I know this sounds ridiculous. That is the reason why they picked that name.