9 ms·

This, to me, is the more disturbing part of the article: > In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said i

This, to me, is the more disturbing part of the article: > In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said in a statement. "Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests. What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? IMO such gag orders shouldn't be legal when applied to dragnet surveillance. If you want to gag a company from notifying an individual they're being surveilled (with a warrant), then fine. But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

cultureswitch 3y ago
Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech in the US. Especially when you consider the wording of the Apple communication saying that they can talk about it openly now that it's public knowledge.
- indymike 3y ago
  > Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech I wish it didn't cost a lot of money and years of your life to beat these over-reaches.
- iAMkenough 3y ago
  Given the US has a 4th Amendment-free zone within 100 miles of all national borders in the name of national security, I expect the same justification and level of oversight here. https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
  - forward1 3y ago
    This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
    - lolinder 3y ago
      This article [0] lists several cases of warrantless searches, one of which was in Florida. Apparently that 100 mile radius isn't just from the Canadian border or the Mexican border, it's also 100 miles from any coast, which means that 2/3 of the population lives within that radius. As far as "reasonable suspicion" goes, I'm increasingly unwilling to support the right of law enforcement to independently, without oversight, determine what is "reasonable". [0] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrantless-searches-often-unconstitutional/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrant...
      - forward1 3y ago
        Where is the "warrantless search"? > [CBP officers] demanded proof of citizenship from the passengers > CBP officers boarded a bus in Bangor, Maine None of those are searches, they are temporary detentions with strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry. To wit: > most people have no idea that they can refuse to be searched at a roadblock or bus boarding Ignorance of the law != warrantless searches. Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
        lolinder 3y ago
        > strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one. I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time. Most Americans don't, that's why we still don't have a proper national ID. I consider that to be a warrantless search regardless of what the law currently says. > Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended. I find that most people who pretend to speak for "the Founding Fathers" are extremely ignorant of the actual motivations of these people who lived 200 years ago. I won't pretend to speak for them, but I will note that I strongly suspect that the smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today. Regardless, what they wanted is immaterial—they set up this country for us, and presumably expected us to lead it after their deaths.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  How exactly do you bring suit on this matter? Hey we would like to bring suit because the government says we can't talk about them doing X. Oh no, that would be talking about doing X!!
- alfiedotwtf 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
  - onionisafruit 3y ago
    I don’t think third-party doctrine applies to the gag order, but it is relevant to the surveillance being discussed in this post.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  Free speech: are you saying it is guaranteed for companies?
calvinmorrison 3y ago
perhaps that democracy is not effective when the state organs are unelected bureacrats with guns
- Clubber 3y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That's been a common charge against our vast unelected bureaucracy, most of whom hold qualified immunity. We're trillions of dollars in debt, maybe it's time to peel some of it back a little.
  - gowld 3y ago
    Downvotes are possibly because the unelected bureaucrats with guns are overseen by the elected Executive and Legislature.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      Are they though? How about the FDA getting most of its funding by the companies they are supposed to regulate? It's comforting to just trust that bureaucracies are doing what's good for the country, but also naive. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/e4a7910607c0dd76c40aa61151d154f9/FDA-User-Fee-Issue-Brief.pdf https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/e4a791060... How about the NSA spying on congress? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-bernie-sanders-members-congress https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-ber... How about the ATF making up laws? https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admits-it-lacked-authority-to-issue-legislative-rule-ncla-condemns-the-agencys-attempt-to-ban-bump-stocks-anyway/ https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admits-it-lacked-authority... The only teeth congress has with these bureaucracies is the power of the purse.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > The only teeth congress has with these bureaucracies is the power of the purse. Not true. Congress can make laws defining what those agencies are and are not allowed to do.
sonicanatidae 3y ago
>What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? The feels.
- criddell 3y ago
  It's more than that, IMHO. I think companies publishing whatever they can is a good thing. We would be worse off if they took the attitude of if we can't publish everything we might as well publish nothing.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Publishing whatever they can is a good thing. But this is also a great reminder that there's a bunch of things they can't publish -- so "transparency reports" are of extremely limited value. Their greatest value is encouraging people to have a false sense of security.
  - sonicanatidae 3y ago
    I'm infinitely more cynical about corporations. For me, it's always about what they can do to mitigate any and all possible blame, regardless of circumstance, context, and the world itself. Always.
AshamedCaptain 3y ago
> What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? How many times did those of us who knew all of this to be a farce warned about this?
titzer 3y ago
> But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds. I see you have not read the Patriot Act, an Orwellian double-speak of a title if there ever was one.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  Is it really that hard for the government to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist? Is there any data on how often they're surveilling people without warrants vs with warrants? This seems like important info to know.
  - gleenn 3y ago
    You're missing the point, in this case they don't even need the warrant at all. And yes, it is because you would have to ask a judge for each and every person surveiled and then provide a reason. They wouldn't have any reason for the drag net and would be denied.
  - wredue 3y ago
    Having data on illegal searches would require an insider leaking that information. Nobody has any semblance of a clue how much illegal data sniffing is happening, and it’s even more questionable since the USA and five eyes continues to degrade basic privacy. But won’t someone think of the children!?
- pc86 3y ago
  The first "paper" I ever wrote was an anti-USA PATRIOT Act paper for a scholarship competition in 2003 when I was 17 where I was awarded $1,000. Literally the only thing I remember is what the acronym USA PATRIOT stands for. Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It really is one of the best double-speak bill titles ever.
user3939382 3y ago
If I’m not mistaken they’re called NSLs and the legality of them when challenged are reviewed by a secret court with secret laws that have secret interpretations of words. The whole thing as far as I can tell is an out of control nightmare and our corrupt congress doesn’t give a shit.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  Actually quite a few members of congress do give a shit. Unfortunately they're the same members of congress maligned as MAGA extremists or whatever (in some cases that might be accurate, but it doesn't mean they're wrong about every political position they hold). If you actually take a second to listen to Matt Gaetz, for example, you might be surprised to learn his (rather principled) positions are much closer to those of AOC than to President Orange, at least in some dimensions. He wants to require single-issue bills, and to completely eliminate FISA-702. Ironically, it seems like FISA will be reauthorized as part of an omnibus spending bill...
  - user3939382 3y ago
    I meant Congress as a body doesn’t care, which IMHO is proven by the fact that decade after decade congress as a body does nothing to remedy these problems. Actually the 1984 nightmare just gets worse. Support from members here and there is nice but in reality for the 20 years I’ve been paying attention has resulted in nothing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChrisRR 3y ago
This is why I never believe Apple's "We're super serious about your privacy!" That is until a government asks them to do things behind the scenes.
jwnin 3y ago
This is why warrant canaries can be useful in privacy policies, at least for smaller/startup companies. The apple/google/microsoft/amazon/metas of the world would have had to remove the canary long ago, though.
- gosub100 3y ago
  and they're trivial to DDoS
- forward1 3y ago
  No competent startup or small business would take on such a legal risk. And anyway, a sure conclusion can already be reached on the basis of reasoning about the complete and total lack of warrant canaries anywhere.
  - rsync 3y ago
    Every Monday morning - since 2006: https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

cultureswitch 3y ago

Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech in the US. Especially when you consider the wording of the Apple communication saying that they can talk about it openly now that it's public knowledge.

indymike 3y ago
> Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech I wish it didn't cost a lot of money and years of your life to beat these over-reaches.
iAMkenough 3y ago
Given the US has a 4th Amendment-free zone within 100 miles of all national borders in the name of national security, I expect the same justification and level of oversight here. https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
- forward1 3y ago
  This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
  - lolinder 3y ago
    This article [0] lists several cases of warrantless searches, one of which was in Florida. Apparently that 100 mile radius isn't just from the Canadian border or the Mexican border, it's also 100 miles from any coast, which means that 2/3 of the population lives within that radius. As far as "reasonable suspicion" goes, I'm increasingly unwilling to support the right of law enforcement to independently, without oversight, determine what is "reasonable". [0] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrantless-searches-often-unconstitutional/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/border-patrol-warrant...
    - forward1 3y ago
      Where is the "warrantless search"? > [CBP officers] demanded proof of citizenship from the passengers > CBP officers boarded a bus in Bangor, Maine None of those are searches, they are temporary detentions with strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry. To wit: > most people have no idea that they can refuse to be searched at a roadblock or bus boarding Ignorance of the law != warrantless searches. Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        > strong legal basis and case law going back to Terry I frankly don't care what's legal or not at this point. The surveillance and police state has gotten out of control, and needs to be rolled back. If we constantly just accept past precedent as dictating our future, our rights will be chipped away one by one. I don't want to live in a society where I can be stopped and asked for identification by law enforcement at any time. Most Americans don't, that's why we still don't have a proper national ID. I consider that to be a warrantless search regardless of what the law currently says. > Arm yourself with knowledge, just as the Founding Fathers intended. I find that most people who pretend to speak for "the Founding Fathers" are extremely ignorant of the actual motivations of these people who lived 200 years ago. I won't pretend to speak for them, but I will note that I strongly suspect that the smugglers and tax evaders who signed the Declaration of Independence would probably not be in favor of the ever-growing police state we have today. Regardless, what they wanted is immaterial—they set up this country for us, and presumably expected us to lead it after their deaths.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
How exactly do you bring suit on this matter? Hey we would like to bring suit because the government says we can't talk about them doing X. Oh no, that would be talking about doing X!!
alfiedotwtf 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- onionisafruit 3y ago
  I don’t think third-party doctrine applies to the gag order, but it is relevant to the surveillance being discussed in this post.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
Free speech: are you saying it is guaranteed for companies?

calvinmorrison 3y ago

perhaps that democracy is not effective when the state organs are unelected bureacrats with guns

Clubber 3y ago
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That's been a common charge against our vast unelected bureaucracy, most of whom hold qualified immunity. We're trillions of dollars in debt, maybe it's time to peel some of it back a little.
- gowld 3y ago
  Downvotes are possibly because the unelected bureaucrats with guns are overseen by the elected Executive and Legislature.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Are they though? How about the FDA getting most of its funding by the companies they are supposed to regulate? It's comforting to just trust that bureaucracies are doing what's good for the country, but also naive. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/e4a7910607c0dd76c40aa61151d154f9/FDA-User-Fee-Issue-Brief.pdf https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/e4a791060... How about the NSA spying on congress? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-bernie-sanders-members-congress https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/04/nsa-spying-ber... How about the ATF making up laws? https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admits-it-lacked-authority-to-issue-legislative-rule-ncla-condemns-the-agencys-attempt-to-ban-bump-stocks-anyway/ https://nclalegal.org/2019/09/atf-admits-it-lacked-authority... The only teeth congress has with these bureaucracies is the power of the purse.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > The only teeth congress has with these bureaucracies is the power of the purse. Not true. Congress can make laws defining what those agencies are and are not allowed to do.

sonicanatidae 3y ago

>What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? The feels.

criddell 3y ago
It's more than that, IMHO. I think companies publishing whatever they can is a good thing. We would be worse off if they took the attitude of if we can't publish everything we might as well publish nothing.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Publishing whatever they can is a good thing. But this is also a great reminder that there's a bunch of things they can't publish -- so "transparency reports" are of extremely limited value. Their greatest value is encouraging people to have a false sense of security.
- sonicanatidae 3y ago
  I'm infinitely more cynical about corporations. For me, it's always about what they can do to mitigate any and all possible blame, regardless of circumstance, context, and the world itself. Always.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

> What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance? How many times did those of us who knew all of this to be a farce warned about this?

titzer 3y ago

> But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds. I see you have not read the Patriot Act, an Orwellian double-speak of a title if there ever was one.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Is it really that hard for the government to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist? Is there any data on how often they're surveilling people without warrants vs with warrants? This seems like important info to know.
- gleenn 3y ago
  You're missing the point, in this case they don't even need the warrant at all. And yes, it is because you would have to ask a judge for each and every person surveiled and then provide a reason. They wouldn't have any reason for the drag net and would be denied.
- wredue 3y ago
  Having data on illegal searches would require an insider leaking that information. Nobody has any semblance of a clue how much illegal data sniffing is happening, and it’s even more questionable since the USA and five eyes continues to degrade basic privacy. But won’t someone think of the children!?
pc86 3y ago
The first "paper" I ever wrote was an anti-USA PATRIOT Act paper for a scholarship competition in 2003 when I was 17 where I was awarded $1,000. Literally the only thing I remember is what the acronym USA PATRIOT stands for. Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. It really is one of the best double-speak bill titles ever.

user3939382 3y ago

If I’m not mistaken they’re called NSLs and the legality of them when challenged are reviewed by a secret court with secret laws that have secret interpretations of words. The whole thing as far as I can tell is an out of control nightmare and our corrupt congress doesn’t give a shit.

chatmasta 3y ago
Actually quite a few members of congress do give a shit. Unfortunately they're the same members of congress maligned as MAGA extremists or whatever (in some cases that might be accurate, but it doesn't mean they're wrong about every political position they hold). If you actually take a second to listen to Matt Gaetz, for example, you might be surprised to learn his (rather principled) positions are much closer to those of AOC than to President Orange, at least in some dimensions. He wants to require single-issue bills, and to completely eliminate FISA-702. Ironically, it seems like FISA will be reauthorized as part of an omnibus spending bill...
- user3939382 3y ago
  I meant Congress as a body doesn’t care, which IMHO is proven by the fact that decade after decade congress as a body does nothing to remedy these problems. Actually the 1984 nightmare just gets worse. Support from members here and there is nice but in reality for the 20 years I’ve been paying attention has resulted in nothing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChrisRR 3y ago

This is why I never believe Apple's "We're super serious about your privacy!" That is until a government asks them to do things behind the scenes.

jwnin 3y ago

This is why warrant canaries can be useful in privacy policies, at least for smaller/startup companies. The apple/google/microsoft/amazon/metas of the world would have had to remove the canary long ago, though.

gosub100 3y ago
and they're trivial to DDoS
forward1 3y ago
No competent startup or small business would take on such a legal risk. And anyway, a sure conclusion can already be reached on the basis of reasoning about the complete and total lack of warrant canaries anywhere.
- rsync 3y ago
  Every Monday morning - since 2006: https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt