4 ms·
> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too s
by davidw 5y ago
> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people
There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.
- surge 5y agoSub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago> Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?
- lazide 5y agoOldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]
- dane-pgp 5y agoThe obvious counter-argument, unfortunately, is that the government has a clear idea of which requests the FISA court would reject, and therefore never bothers making such requests. That would mean the court is correctly preventing executive overreach and there's nothing to worry about.
- lazide 5y agoEven agents randomly screwing up would produce higher reject rates - 99%+ approval rates practically means no one is even looking no?
- d4mi3n 5y agoThis is only true if the companies you're asking for data refuse to provide it _without_ a subpoena. Many companies (let's us AT&T as an example) will provide law enforcement whatever data they ask for without requiring a subpoena.
- tadfisher 5y agoBad example: regulate telecommunications companies are required by statute to provide certain information on request. A better example is Amazon with their law enforcement partnerships through Ring.
- ethbr0 5y agoI assume parent was probably referring more to the subpoena- / warrant- less "creative" solutions that have been discovered, than the typical exhaustion process.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoI'm not arguing about the subpoena, I'm arguing against the idea that encrypted solutions are bad. If you have a subpoena to open a safe, and you realize that you have no tools that are strong enough to open that safe, you don't suddenly blame safes. You don't tell banks they should stop using safes. You don't ask them to create weaker safes robbers can break into. You try another route. A subpoena is fair. Asking signal to preemptively not encrypt the data in case we need it later is not.
- davidw 5y agoazinman2 didn't say that there should not be encryption, just that there's a cost, and I think that's a fair statement. Sometimes, 'other methods' are not viable and you're not going to be able to stop the bad guys.
- lazide 5y agoHave you heard about parallel construction [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction] and AT&T’s room 641a? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A] Those are the tip of the iceberg. If there is an automated way to get this data, the agencies will do it, and then retroactively generate the paperwork to make it look ok in court if they feel it’s worth their time. If structurally there is no privacy except some friction with generating paperwork, then we already have solid evidence here in the US in modern times that you defacto have no privacy.