9 ms·

How is this not wiretapping without a warrant?

owlbynight 5y ago
Probably had to agree to an EULA that bones your privacy rights as much as every other company's
gruez 5y ago
Probably the same reason why planting a bug in someone's home is illegal, but selling an always a smart speaker (aka always on microphone) to them and getting them to install isn't.
kube-system 5y ago
Because the FBI only needs a warrant to wiretap people in the US. Nobody in the US was arrested as a result of this. The 4th amendment to the US constitution doesn't protect, for instance, Australians in Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-15/no-one-in-america-arrested-in-operation-ironside/100213036 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-15/no-one-in-america-arr... > The AFP made more than 500 arrests but US privacy laws stopped the same from happening there.
- sneak 5y ago
  It's a real bummer that the US doesn't recognize that human rights apply to all human beings.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Literally speaking, the 4th Amendment is just a legal right. Most human rights declarations don't require warrants either, they're mostly much more loosely worded than legal rights documents.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, It specifically says that the natural right will not be violated, how is that a legal right?
      - kube-system 5y ago
        The constitution is a legal document that is formally upheld by the US legal system. Many of the ideas within it were derived from other places, but it, itself, is a codified legal document.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        It is a legal document guaranteeing a natural right. The Bill of Rights doesn't codify much of anything, it lays out certain things further laws can't tread on without extraordinary permission granted.
        kube-system 5y ago
        It guarantees much more than a natural right, and does so with the backing power of a legal institution. For example, the UDHR doesn't even mention the word "warrant", and it doesn't do anything to compel enforcement. The BoR is, by plain definition, a codification of rights. To codify means to make into law, which is what it is: a law, implementing the formal recognition rights... and it does so by making illegal specific abuses.
      - jhgb 5y ago
        It's a legal right because some kind of law (in this case the constitution) gives it to you.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I quoted the Fourth Amendment, it is written in a way to clearly state it is not giving you rights. It is protecting the rights you already have.
  - hacker187 5y ago
    Also a bummer: that a legislative majority of US citizens care more about the rights of unborn than the born. Almost every conservative (and many centrist democrats) US citizen I asked unapologetically supports mass drone strikes. And so we've had thousands. Many strike entire homes, wedding parties, marketplaces, etc. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    The citizens of the world who believe in universal human rights should gather consensus with the world lest they have nothing to do but continue to talk about how much of a bummer things are on a HN forum. Of course, international rights also need international enforcement, since a right without enforcement is just a nice thought. Perhaps we'll also have a world order to enforce these rights.
    - sneak 5y ago
      Fortunately they're not mutually exclusive. Expressing discontent with the status quo is one prong of consensus gathering.
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        Is the vision that after WW3 we'll be in search of a uniting philosophy and government to make sure natural human rights are codified and enforced?
    - oliv__ 5y ago
      Seeing the current state of freedom and rights across the world, I'd much rather have to deal with my own national crooks than a worldwide organization purporting to fight for my rights
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > Of course, international rights also need international enforcement, since a right without enforcement is just a nice thought. Perhaps we'll also have a world order to enforce these rights. Universal human rights have exploded to be adopted by much of the world, without an international government. Rights are not just nice thoughts. Even oppressive governments don't have the resources to control everything everyone does (of course). Just adopting the outlook, just believing you are free will make you free to a great extent.
  - veddox 5y ago
    You have to distinguish between human rights and citizens‘ rights.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Perhaps, but the predominant rhetoric and narrative is that human rights are the topic of concern, not citizen rights. It's difficult to make the case that only citizens deserve rights without sliding into questionable ideologies.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        Citizens are groups of humans who decide on different subsets of rights. E.g. humans in Germany are not allowed to be educated while young outside of the buildings of the state.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Sure, but that doesn't change the basic point - you can't use an argument for human rights to confer citizen-only rights. If you're the US government, and you're justifying your power by saying that you respect human rights, and then you do a bait-and-switch and provide citizen's rights but not human rights, you just lied. That being said, strictly speaking I disagree, citizens do not have full authority on rights and neither are all rights conferred to classes of citizens.
  - fouric 5y ago
    This is inflammatory, insubstantial, and I'm pretty sure it violates the HN guidelines.
nonameiguess 5y ago
They had a warrant: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20799201-operation-trojan-shield-court-record https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20799201-operation-t...
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  No, they didn't. That document literally discusses that they only wiretap overseas messages, likely because they couldn't legally wiretap US messages (though it should be noted that the Australian police did have a warrant for the wiretaps in their jurisdiction).
EMM_386 5y ago
The US helped their Five Eyes partner Australia target Australians. I'm sure Australia is helping find US citizens the same way. It's a run-around on the laws of each country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

Probably had to agree to an EULA that bones your privacy rights as much as every other company's

Probably the same reason why planting a bug in someone's home is illegal, but selling an always a smart speaker (aka always on microphone) to them and getting them to install isn't.

kube-system 5y ago

Because the FBI only needs a warrant to wiretap people in the US. Nobody in the US was arrested as a result of this. The 4th amendment to the US constitution doesn't protect, for instance, Australians in Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-15/no-one-in-america-arrested-in-operation-ironside/100213036 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-15/no-one-in-america-arr... > The AFP made more than 500 arrests but US privacy laws stopped the same from happening there.

sneak 5y ago
It's a real bummer that the US doesn't recognize that human rights apply to all human beings.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Literally speaking, the 4th Amendment is just a legal right. Most human rights declarations don't require warrants either, they're mostly much more loosely worded than legal rights documents.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, It specifically says that the natural right will not be violated, how is that a legal right?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      The constitution is a legal document that is formally upheld by the US legal system. Many of the ideas within it were derived from other places, but it, itself, is a codified legal document.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        It is a legal document guaranteeing a natural right. The Bill of Rights doesn't codify much of anything, it lays out certain things further laws can't tread on without extraordinary permission granted.
        kube-system 5y ago
        It guarantees much more than a natural right, and does so with the backing power of a legal institution. For example, the UDHR doesn't even mention the word "warrant", and it doesn't do anything to compel enforcement. The BoR is, by plain definition, a codification of rights. To codify means to make into law, which is what it is: a law, implementing the formal recognition rights... and it does so by making illegal specific abuses.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      It's a legal right because some kind of law (in this case the constitution) gives it to you.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I quoted the Fourth Amendment, it is written in a way to clearly state it is not giving you rights. It is protecting the rights you already have.
- hacker187 5y ago
  Also a bummer: that a legislative majority of US citizens care more about the rights of unborn than the born. Almost every conservative (and many centrist democrats) US citizen I asked unapologetically supports mass drone strikes. And so we've had thousands. Many strike entire homes, wedding parties, marketplaces, etc. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- threatofrain 5y ago
  The citizens of the world who believe in universal human rights should gather consensus with the world lest they have nothing to do but continue to talk about how much of a bummer things are on a HN forum. Of course, international rights also need international enforcement, since a right without enforcement is just a nice thought. Perhaps we'll also have a world order to enforce these rights.
  - sneak 5y ago
    Fortunately they're not mutually exclusive. Expressing discontent with the status quo is one prong of consensus gathering.
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      Is the vision that after WW3 we'll be in search of a uniting philosophy and government to make sure natural human rights are codified and enforced?
  - oliv__ 5y ago
    Seeing the current state of freedom and rights across the world, I'd much rather have to deal with my own national crooks than a worldwide organization purporting to fight for my rights
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Of course, international rights also need international enforcement, since a right without enforcement is just a nice thought. Perhaps we'll also have a world order to enforce these rights. Universal human rights have exploded to be adopted by much of the world, without an international government. Rights are not just nice thoughts. Even oppressive governments don't have the resources to control everything everyone does (of course). Just adopting the outlook, just believing you are free will make you free to a great extent.
- veddox 5y ago
  You have to distinguish between human rights and citizens‘ rights.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Perhaps, but the predominant rhetoric and narrative is that human rights are the topic of concern, not citizen rights. It's difficult to make the case that only citizens deserve rights without sliding into questionable ideologies.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Citizens are groups of humans who decide on different subsets of rights. E.g. humans in Germany are not allowed to be educated while young outside of the buildings of the state.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        Sure, but that doesn't change the basic point - you can't use an argument for human rights to confer citizen-only rights. If you're the US government, and you're justifying your power by saying that you respect human rights, and then you do a bait-and-switch and provide citizen's rights but not human rights, you just lied. That being said, strictly speaking I disagree, citizens do not have full authority on rights and neither are all rights conferred to classes of citizens.
- fouric 5y ago
  This is inflammatory, insubstantial, and I'm pretty sure it violates the HN guidelines.

nonameiguess 5y ago

They had a warrant: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20799201-operation-trojan-shield-court-record https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20799201-operation-t...

Denvercoder9 5y ago
No, they didn't. That document literally discusses that they only wiretap overseas messages, likely because they couldn't legally wiretap US messages (though it should be noted that the Australian police did have a warrant for the wiretaps in their jurisdiction).

EMM_386 5y ago

The US helped their Five Eyes partner Australia target Australians. I'm sure Australia is helping find US citizens the same way. It's a run-around on the laws of each country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes