4 ms·

> I assume that when the FBI sends a request to a tech company about a user, they probably also contact lots of other tech companies too about the same user...

> I assume that when the FBI sends a request to a tech company about a user, they probably also contact lots of other tech companies too about the same user... You assume a lot. I know it’s fun to pontificate about dragnet surveillance, but in general when issuing / granting a warrant there has to be some kind of specific target and scope. In this case it’s likely the FBI knew the Sci-Hub founder was using iCloud email and so they could get a warrant for that specific account for a specific time range.

hassancf 5y ago
Would they take a chance and miss a juicy account at Google/Facebook etc? I don’t think so. Therefore it’s likely they issued requests but Google/Facebook etc were less “inclined” to talk about these things.
- foobiekr 5y ago
  This is the correct take. When have they ever?
  - gowld 5y ago
    No, it's absolutely false. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24/federal-agencies-subpoena-google-personal-information https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24... > In Google’s case, the company typically lets users know which agency is seeking their information.
Enginerrrd 5y ago
I'm not sure that's true for non-US citizens.
hluska 5y ago
Two things: 1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. 2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you assume a lot”) and then miss the most important fact in a scenario.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Regarding: The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. False. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws. "There's no dispute at the absolute core," said Andrew Kent, a constitutional scholar at Fordham Law. "If somebody is picked up by police they the have same Miranda and due process rights in all contexts except immigration law." https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
    Ok, then: the US constitution only applies on US soil.
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      Also false. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-individual-rights-stop-at-the-u-s-border/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-in... (Please try ... at least a little harder, people.)
      - gowld 5y ago
        You're being misleadingly pedantic. This article is about people who are US citizens abroad, or foreigners who came to USA or who are under the jurisdiction (imprisonment) of territory controlled by the USA government. Non-resident non-citizen non-present people violating US national security (rightly or wrongly, that's per the government's judgment) don't have Constitutional rights.

hassancf 5y ago

Would they take a chance and miss a juicy account at Google/Facebook etc? I don’t think so. Therefore it’s likely they issued requests but Google/Facebook etc were less “inclined” to talk about these things.

foobiekr 5y ago
This is the correct take. When have they ever?
- gowld 5y ago
  No, it's absolutely false. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24/federal-agencies-subpoena-google-personal-information https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-24... > In Google’s case, the company typically lets users know which agency is seeking their information.

Enginerrrd 5y ago

I'm not sure that's true for non-US citizens.

hluska 5y ago

Two things: 1.) The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. 2.) It’s hilarious when someone starts a reply with egotistical language (like “you assume a lot”) and then miss the most important fact in a scenario.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Regarding: The US Constitution only applies to American citizens. False. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws. "There's no dispute at the absolute core," said Andrew Kent, a constitutional scholar at Fordham Law. "If somebody is picked up by police they the have same Miranda and due process rights in all contexts except immigration law." https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-the-constitution-protect-non-citizens-judges-say-yes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2017/01/30/does-th...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  Ok, then: the US constitution only applies on US soil.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Also false. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-individual-rights-stop-at-the-u-s-border/ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-do-in... (Please try ... at least a little harder, people.)
    - gowld 5y ago
      You're being misleadingly pedantic. This article is about people who are US citizens abroad, or foreigners who came to USA or who are under the jurisdiction (imprisonment) of territory controlled by the USA government. Non-resident non-citizen non-present people violating US national security (rightly or wrongly, that's per the government's judgment) don't have Constitutional rights.