7 ms·

I requested my photographs from the Department of Homeland Security (2015)

107 points by Anon84 5y ago

deregulateMed 5y ago
Is there a way to see what information Apple and Google has given to the US government through PRISM? I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious what boring topics they had to listen to over the years to ensure I'm not a threat.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  PRISM is simply the NSA’s internal designation for data that is sourced from FISA warrants. So, probably not.
- unixhero 5y ago
  They give everything.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Not knowledge, just random thoughts: Could they return "We can not give you that information because it is a matter of national security." (Although that's still a sign that they have info on you that they gathered from Big Tech). Or they could give you pages and pages covered with black rectangles from margin to margin. The scary thing is, they wouldn't have done any manual listening/monitoring, all the data can just be fed into some big data computer[1] and it spits out your "threat index". For a Black Mirror episode plot, the main character hangs out every Friday at a pizza place that Google Maps has mislabeled as a mosque. The "AI" misclassifies his watch on a recent Instagram photo as the Casio F-91W, he gets detained as he tries to reenter the country, with the FBI agents not knowing why he's a baddie other than the fact that the computer flagged him after his threat index jumped over a threshold. [1] e.g. from the NSA whisteblower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread: "Hayden admitted that the analysis technology is the underlying basis of current NSA analysis techniques"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wlesieutre 5y ago
    If they can deny you access to the info because of national security, then "still a sign that they have info" is a solved problem. They "can neither confirm nor deny any the existence of any information matching your request." This is known as the "Glomar response" and dates back to the 1970s. I believe it hinges on "if the information existed it would be classified," otherwise they would be required to provide the info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
- voldacar 5y ago
  Why would there be? You can't expect them to illegally surveil the whole population and then give you an easy procedural way to see what they have on you
- erezsh 5y ago
  > I'm not radical anymore Nice try;)
- Aboh33 5y ago
  As someone who isn't involved in any illegal activity, I would welcome knowing why it feels I am overtly watched and tracked more so than others, especially in real-life.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    How do you know you are being tracked more than others?
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  Unless they're breaking the law, the NSA still needs a warrant to request data if you're an American citizen. If you're the subject of an active investigation, law enforcement and spy agencies alike tend not to tell you that and are under no obligation to disclose anything. If the investigation is closed, then you can request data under a general FOIA request, but you'd have to know there was an investigation about you at some point. If nothing else, you'd find out upon being charged and your attorney would get all the data during discovery. Obviously, a broad sweep program can collect unrelated data, which presumably was part of the concern with PRISM. This has sort of always been the case, i.e. if you put a bug in someone's house, you hear everything said in the house, whether by the subject of your investigation or their kids or a housekeeper or whatever. But whoever is listening is supposed to immediately throw away data as soon as they can determine it isn't needed for their investigation. So theoretically, if they ever collected anything that came from you, and you were never the subject of an investigation that resulted in a warrant to collect on you, the data should have been discarded and could not be given to you. You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law, but if they don't, they're probably not going to tell you.
  - adrr 5y ago
    Do they need a warrant if the company sells the data? Mobile carriers were selling location dats on specific customers to private companies. Banks are selling credit card purchase data.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    > You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law If you believe that they do, I've got a bridge to sell you. Congress is entirely derelict in their duties of holding them accountable, and has been for a very long time.
    - atoav 5y ago
      It is also the wrong question. In practise (as shown by the snowden revalations) the actual question is not if the secret services comply with the law — it is whether the law complies with the secret services. In most nations where illegal practises came to light these illegal practises have been legalized after the fact. The breaches of fundamental laws that happened before have gone unpunished. So to say secret services comply with the law is really a bit rich, given that when they don't law is usually adjusted to fit their behaviour with no punishments for any wrongdoing.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious" That's what the all say... now you're really screwed lol
  - blooalien 5y ago
    That very statement just confirms their suspicions. ;)
xwdv 5y ago
You might not want to do this without good reason, it can get you put on some kind of list.
- Spare_account 5y ago
  I wondered about this, but I didn't know if it would really happen. Do we have any evidence for it?
  - deregulateMed 5y ago
    When a police officer asks "do you know why I pulled you over?" And you answer "I pled the fifth" instead of "no" You did nothing wrong, but their spidy senses go wild. It's like that, but with more government paperwork and database updates.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Exactly. Rational (on the police/government's part), but perverse (in that it punishes exercising your rights by taking them away.)
- dfsegoat 5y ago
  > it can get you put on some kind of list. Could you please elaborate?
  - wruza 5y ago
    GP probably meant that if you collect data, you may as well collect the “they actually wanted to see what we have on them” field.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    The request some info list. lol
- mistrial9 5y ago
  or, exercise your rights or else you will have none?
ClosedPistachio 5y ago
The title is actually, "How I requested my photographs from the Department of Homeland Security" with a byline "You can make a request to see your own document."
- Spare_account 5y ago
  It's also from 2015, which usually merits a mention in the title round here.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    The mods can fix that much more rapidly if you email them, using the footer contact link.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
77pt77 5y ago
What really worries me about this is that anyone can effectively request anyone else's data because there is no identity verification.
- advisedwang 5y ago
  It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a: > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
  - cyberge99 5y ago
    5,000$ USD might be worth it for a paparazzo or other neerdewel.
    - shuntress 5y ago
      I am not a lawyer but I would assume that in a case like that, the court would bring additional penalties equivalent to the profit made using the stolen property.
    - advisedwang 5y ago
      The criminal record is probably more of a threat than the money in such cases. I'm more worried that if there is no way to get caught, people won't care about the criminal penalties no matter how heavy.
    - 77pt77 5y ago
      That's if they are even caught. Since no one verifies anything it's a worst case scenario.
    - 7402 5y ago
      The standard spelling of that last term is 'Ne'er do well'. From https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/neer-do-well.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/neer-do-well.html "The term 'ne'er do well' is of course a contraction of 'never do well'. Ne'er has been used in that shortened form since the 13th century, notably in the North of England and in Scotland. 'Ne'er do well' itself originated in Scotland and an early citation of it in print is found in the Scottish poet and playwright Allan Ramsay's A collection of Scots proverbs, 1737: Some ha'e a hantla fauts [have many faults] , ye are only a ne'er-do-well."
_rmrf 5y ago
What do you think would happen if an european citizen were to request a GDPR data deletion of the US Department of Homeland Security? Is there any chance that they would comply?
- mataug 5y ago
  I doubt GDPR enforceable in the US
  - _rmrf 5y ago
    Of course it is
- dudul 5y ago
  No, they wouldn't comply.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 5y ago
  From GDPR article 2: > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.
  - hedora 5y ago
    How is that relevant to the US’s mass (warrantless) collection of surveillance data?
    - kube-system 5y ago
      My reply was in response to a comment about the DHS.
artificialLimbs 5y ago
>> To request this information yourself, visit FOIAonline Apparently link has been changed since article publication. https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request
- distribot 5y ago
  I don't see DHS as a listed agency--which ones would be the most interesting for an average person?
  - advisedwang 5y ago
    The article recommends CBP, which is listed there. (Perhaps this is because DHS is a department, not an agency?)

107 points by Anon84 5y ago

Is there a way to see what information Apple and Google has given to the US government through PRISM? I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious what boring topics they had to listen to over the years to ensure I'm not a threat.

snowwrestler 5y ago
PRISM is simply the NSA’s internal designation for data that is sourced from FISA warrants. So, probably not.
unixhero 5y ago
They give everything.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Not knowledge, just random thoughts: Could they return "We can not give you that information because it is a matter of national security." (Although that's still a sign that they have info on you that they gathered from Big Tech). Or they could give you pages and pages covered with black rectangles from margin to margin. The scary thing is, they wouldn't have done any manual listening/monitoring, all the data can just be fed into some big data computer[1] and it spits out your "threat index". For a Black Mirror episode plot, the main character hangs out every Friday at a pizza place that Google Maps has mislabeled as a mosque. The "AI" misclassifies his watch on a recent Instagram photo as the Casio F-91W, he gets detained as he tries to reenter the country, with the FBI agents not knowing why he's a baddie other than the fact that the computer flagged him after his threat index jumped over a threshold. [1] e.g. from the NSA whisteblower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread: "Hayden admitted that the analysis technology is the underlying basis of current NSA analysis techniques"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  If they can deny you access to the info because of national security, then "still a sign that they have info" is a solved problem. They "can neither confirm nor deny any the existence of any information matching your request." This is known as the "Glomar response" and dates back to the 1970s. I believe it hinges on "if the information existed it would be classified," otherwise they would be required to provide the info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
voldacar 5y ago
Why would there be? You can't expect them to illegally surveil the whole population and then give you an easy procedural way to see what they have on you
erezsh 5y ago
> I'm not radical anymore Nice try;)
Aboh33 5y ago
As someone who isn't involved in any illegal activity, I would welcome knowing why it feels I am overtly watched and tracked more so than others, especially in real-life.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  How do you know you are being tracked more than others?
nonameiguess 5y ago
Unless they're breaking the law, the NSA still needs a warrant to request data if you're an American citizen. If you're the subject of an active investigation, law enforcement and spy agencies alike tend not to tell you that and are under no obligation to disclose anything. If the investigation is closed, then you can request data under a general FOIA request, but you'd have to know there was an investigation about you at some point. If nothing else, you'd find out upon being charged and your attorney would get all the data during discovery. Obviously, a broad sweep program can collect unrelated data, which presumably was part of the concern with PRISM. This has sort of always been the case, i.e. if you put a bug in someone's house, you hear everything said in the house, whether by the subject of your investigation or their kids or a housekeeper or whatever. But whoever is listening is supposed to immediately throw away data as soon as they can determine it isn't needed for their investigation. So theoretically, if they ever collected anything that came from you, and you were never the subject of an investigation that resulted in a warrant to collect on you, the data should have been discarded and could not be given to you. You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law, but if they don't, they're probably not going to tell you.
- adrr 5y ago
  Do they need a warrant if the company sells the data? Mobile carriers were selling location dats on specific customers to private companies. Banks are selling credit card purchase data.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  > You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law If you believe that they do, I've got a bridge to sell you. Congress is entirely derelict in their duties of holding them accountable, and has been for a very long time.
  - atoav 5y ago
    It is also the wrong question. In practise (as shown by the snowden revalations) the actual question is not if the secret services comply with the law — it is whether the law complies with the secret services. In most nations where illegal practises came to light these illegal practises have been legalized after the fact. The breaches of fundamental laws that happened before have gone unpunished. So to say secret services comply with the law is really a bit rich, given that when they don't law is usually adjusted to fit their behaviour with no punishments for any wrongdoing.
giantg2 5y ago
"I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious" That's what the all say... now you're really screwed lol
- blooalien 5y ago
  That very statement just confirms their suspicions. ;)

xwdv 5y ago

You might not want to do this without good reason, it can get you put on some kind of list.

Spare_account 5y ago
I wondered about this, but I didn't know if it would really happen. Do we have any evidence for it?
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  When a police officer asks "do you know why I pulled you over?" And you answer "I pled the fifth" instead of "no" You did nothing wrong, but their spidy senses go wild. It's like that, but with more government paperwork and database updates.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Exactly. Rational (on the police/government's part), but perverse (in that it punishes exercising your rights by taking them away.)
dfsegoat 5y ago
> it can get you put on some kind of list. Could you please elaborate?
- wruza 5y ago
  GP probably meant that if you collect data, you may as well collect the “they actually wanted to see what we have on them” field.
- xeromal 5y ago
  The request some info list. lol
mistrial9 5y ago
or, exercise your rights or else you will have none?

ClosedPistachio 5y ago

The title is actually, "How I requested my photographs from the Department of Homeland Security" with a byline "You can make a request to see your own document."

Spare_account 5y ago
It's also from 2015, which usually merits a mention in the title round here.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  The mods can fix that much more rapidly if you email them, using the footer contact link.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

77pt77 5y ago

What really worries me about this is that anyone can effectively request anyone else's data because there is no identity verification.

advisedwang 5y ago
It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a: > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.
- cyberge99 5y ago
  5,000$ USD might be worth it for a paparazzo or other neerdewel.
  - shuntress 5y ago
    I am not a lawyer but I would assume that in a case like that, the court would bring additional penalties equivalent to the profit made using the stolen property.
  - advisedwang 5y ago
    The criminal record is probably more of a threat than the money in such cases. I'm more worried that if there is no way to get caught, people won't care about the criminal penalties no matter how heavy.
  - 77pt77 5y ago
    That's if they are even caught. Since no one verifies anything it's a worst case scenario.
  - 7402 5y ago
    The standard spelling of that last term is 'Ne'er do well'. From https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/neer-do-well.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/neer-do-well.html "The term 'ne'er do well' is of course a contraction of 'never do well'. Ne'er has been used in that shortened form since the 13th century, notably in the North of England and in Scotland. 'Ne'er do well' itself originated in Scotland and an early citation of it in print is found in the Scottish poet and playwright Allan Ramsay's A collection of Scots proverbs, 1737: Some ha'e a hantla fauts [have many faults] , ye are only a ne'er-do-well."

_rmrf 5y ago

What do you think would happen if an european citizen were to request a GDPR data deletion of the US Department of Homeland Security? Is there any chance that they would comply?

mataug 5y ago
I doubt GDPR enforceable in the US
- _rmrf 5y ago
  Of course it is
dudul 5y ago
No, they wouldn't comply.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 5y ago
From GDPR article 2: > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.
- hedora 5y ago
  How is that relevant to the US’s mass (warrantless) collection of surveillance data?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    My reply was in response to a comment about the DHS.

artificialLimbs 5y ago

>> To request this information yourself, visit FOIAonline Apparently link has been changed since article publication. https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request

distribot 5y ago
I don't see DHS as a listed agency--which ones would be the most interesting for an average person?
- advisedwang 5y ago
  The article recommends CBP, which is listed there. (Perhaps this is because DHS is a department, not an agency?)