5 ms·
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,
by 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 agoDo 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 agoIt 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.
- mnowicki 5y agoI recall hearing that the NSA was able to get permission to collect/access certain data by having private 'hearings', and in one of these private hearings they ruled that these hearings don't need to be disclosed to the public. I'm very fuzzy on the details, but basically the idea is that they can get permission to do things that we think are illegal, and make these things legal. The law is basically just a formality they have to go through to do what they wanted to do in the first place
- tunap 5y agoDerelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable. >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ... the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). Emphasis mine.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoSo if surveillance doesn’t last 72 hours (one and done), does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing a FISA warrant?
- remarkEon 5y agoI’m actually kinda interested if the “surveillance” is retroactive. Meaning, do they have 72 hours to go through everything that’s already out there in the ether about you or is it more “you can only look at active communications for 72 hours and after that you need a court order”.
- pc86 5y ago"72 hours after the beginning of surveillance" is pretty clear cut, isn't it? You need a warrant even if you surveille someone for 30 seconds. You just have the ability to get it after the fact.
- ComputerGuru 5y agoThere is never supposed to be a guarantee that you can get the warrant. So you can show up in court and not bother to make a case and then you’ll not get the warrant but have your data.
- bobsmooth 5y agoYou don't need a warrant if one of your partner countries has already spied on your citizens and will share the data.
- giantg2 5y agoOr just buy the data from companies like ISPs, Google, and Facebook.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago> Unless they're breaking the law http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/