3 ms·

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when you have a massive database built through illegal domestic spying...

qup 3y ago
...everything looks like a web frontend!
lern_too_spel 3y ago
The database consists of communications of foreign targets, and its legality isn't in dispute. What's illegal is to search that database for terms related to Americans in criminal investigations not related to national security without a warrant. https://archive.is/jgWUt https://archive.is/jgWUt
- kyboren 3y ago
  That's not accurate. FBI/NSA interpret FAA 702 to acquire "one end foreign" communications, i.e. the communications of Americans with other parties abroad. There are millions of American citizens who reside abroad, and many thousands more at any given time are vacationing abroad. Those citizens' rights are being systematically trampled. Further, Room 641A and then the Snowden revelations showed that actually FBI/NSA get a mirrored port or just split the beam directly on domestic Internet fiber runs. Submarine fibers are obviously all tapped, too (sorry, Hawaii). Supposedly they apply "minimization" filters on that full-take, but considering their incentives I doubt they try very hard. I suppose it depends on what you mean by the legality of a database definitely containing fruits of Constitutional violations being "in dispute". Clearly FAA 702 is itself "in dispute" right now, with re-authorization not such a rubber stamp this time. And SCOTUS has punted on lawsuits against NSA surveillance with standing BS, so they've never actually ruled on the merits. Certainly many people, myself included, have long disputed the legality of FAA 702 and of retaining or processing communications acquired under its authority. Anyway how can you say the legality isn't in dispute when the government has a secret interpretation of the law that they refuse to allow anyone to see? How can we dispute what we don't know about? "I will continue to urge the DNI to inform the public about how the government and the FISA Court are interpreting the law. There is important, secret information about how the government has interpreted Section 702 that Congress and the American people need to see before the law is renewed." - Sen. Ron Wyden, May 19 2023.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > FBI/NSA interpret FAA 702 to acquire "one end foreign" communications, i.e. the communications of Americans with other parties abroad. There are millions of American citizens who reside abroad, and many thousands more at any given time are vacationing abroad. Those citizens' rights are being systematically trampled. That's not accurate. They can only request the data of non-Americans living outside the US. If you are a US citizen, they cannot request your data without a court order. If you are not a US citizen but living in the US, they need a court order as well. Also, it's Section 702 of FISA. The Federal Aviation Administration has nothing to do with it. > Supposedly they apply "minimization" filters on that full-take, but considering their incentives I doubt they try very hard. More inaccuracies here. It's not full-take. The documents Klein released clearly showed a Narus filtering device here, which Snowden's documents showed is used to collect the communications of targeted foreigners outside the US whose data passes through the US. In this era of https everywhere, it is exceedingly unlikely that this source is still useful. > Anyway how can you say the legality isn't in dispute when the government has a secret interpretation of the law that they refuse to allow anyone to see? Snowden leaked the interpretations. These interpretations (aside from phone metadata) have not been challenged.
    - kyboren 3y ago
      That's not accurate. They "acquire" it all, then "collect" it later from their databases upon request. So-called "incidental collection" is totally fair game for exploitation, defrauding courts, and perverting the course of justice. For US citizens abroad, any filtering is obviously insufficient, as they couldn't generally know your foreign phone number or residential IP address belong to a US citizen. That doesn't even get into the government's claimed authorities under EO12333, or exactly what "communication facilities" they have obtained secret bulk collection FISA warrants for (likely VPNs, US Tor exits, etc.), or data received about US persons from collaborating foreign intelligence agencies. I wasn't referring to the Federal Aviation Administration, and you'd know that if you were seriously engaged with this issue. It's not Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), it's Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). It's also important to note the distinction between the seizure of communications, which happens at massive scale without individualized suspicion, and the search of those communications when they "request" it, as you put it. The Constitution prohibits both unreasonable searches and seizures. Considering Sen. Wyden has long sat on the SSCI, I assume his warning yesterday was about a new, different secret interpretation than the few court documents that were made public by Snowden et al. a decade ago.

qup 3y ago

...everything looks like a web frontend!

lern_too_spel 3y ago

The database consists of communications of foreign targets, and its legality isn't in dispute. What's illegal is to search that database for terms related to Americans in criminal investigations not related to national security without a warrant. https://archive.is/jgWUt https://archive.is/jgWUt

kyboren 3y ago
That's not accurate. FBI/NSA interpret FAA 702 to acquire "one end foreign" communications, i.e. the communications of Americans with other parties abroad. There are millions of American citizens who reside abroad, and many thousands more at any given time are vacationing abroad. Those citizens' rights are being systematically trampled. Further, Room 641A and then the Snowden revelations showed that actually FBI/NSA get a mirrored port or just split the beam directly on domestic Internet fiber runs. Submarine fibers are obviously all tapped, too (sorry, Hawaii). Supposedly they apply "minimization" filters on that full-take, but considering their incentives I doubt they try very hard. I suppose it depends on what you mean by the legality of a database definitely containing fruits of Constitutional violations being "in dispute". Clearly FAA 702 is itself "in dispute" right now, with re-authorization not such a rubber stamp this time. And SCOTUS has punted on lawsuits against NSA surveillance with standing BS, so they've never actually ruled on the merits. Certainly many people, myself included, have long disputed the legality of FAA 702 and of retaining or processing communications acquired under its authority. Anyway how can you say the legality isn't in dispute when the government has a secret interpretation of the law that they refuse to allow anyone to see? How can we dispute what we don't know about? "I will continue to urge the DNI to inform the public about how the government and the FISA Court are interpreting the law. There is important, secret information about how the government has interpreted Section 702 that Congress and the American people need to see before the law is renewed." - Sen. Ron Wyden, May 19 2023.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  > FBI/NSA interpret FAA 702 to acquire "one end foreign" communications, i.e. the communications of Americans with other parties abroad. There are millions of American citizens who reside abroad, and many thousands more at any given time are vacationing abroad. Those citizens' rights are being systematically trampled. That's not accurate. They can only request the data of non-Americans living outside the US. If you are a US citizen, they cannot request your data without a court order. If you are not a US citizen but living in the US, they need a court order as well. Also, it's Section 702 of FISA. The Federal Aviation Administration has nothing to do with it. > Supposedly they apply "minimization" filters on that full-take, but considering their incentives I doubt they try very hard. More inaccuracies here. It's not full-take. The documents Klein released clearly showed a Narus filtering device here, which Snowden's documents showed is used to collect the communications of targeted foreigners outside the US whose data passes through the US. In this era of https everywhere, it is exceedingly unlikely that this source is still useful. > Anyway how can you say the legality isn't in dispute when the government has a secret interpretation of the law that they refuse to allow anyone to see? Snowden leaked the interpretations. These interpretations (aside from phone metadata) have not been challenged.
  - kyboren 3y ago
    That's not accurate. They "acquire" it all, then "collect" it later from their databases upon request. So-called "incidental collection" is totally fair game for exploitation, defrauding courts, and perverting the course of justice. For US citizens abroad, any filtering is obviously insufficient, as they couldn't generally know your foreign phone number or residential IP address belong to a US citizen. That doesn't even get into the government's claimed authorities under EO12333, or exactly what "communication facilities" they have obtained secret bulk collection FISA warrants for (likely VPNs, US Tor exits, etc.), or data received about US persons from collaborating foreign intelligence agencies. I wasn't referring to the Federal Aviation Administration, and you'd know that if you were seriously engaged with this issue. It's not Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), it's Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). It's also important to note the distinction between the seizure of communications, which happens at massive scale without individualized suspicion, and the search of those communications when they "request" it, as you put it. The Constitution prohibits both unreasonable searches and seizures. Considering Sen. Wyden has long sat on the SSCI, I assume his warning yesterday was about a new, different secret interpretation than the few court documents that were made public by Snowden et al. a decade ago.