3 ms·

> I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. It's surprising because the government doesn't exactly talk about it a lot. Thus, most peopl

> I renew my question of why this is surprising or objectionable. It's surprising because the government doesn't exactly talk about it a lot. Thus, most people who don't follow security issues don't hear about it very often. It's not like the government advertises these activities with billboards and TV spots. The reason they don't is because this broad interpretation of their responsibilities makes them look pretty bad without having a long discussion with a lot of context. As it is, people might just ask them to stop reading their emails. So, if the people doing it don't talk about it, why would you be surprised that other people don't know it's happening? It sounds like you're saying "I'm surprised that not everybody pays careful attention to the specific domains I pay attention to", but remember that it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

jeffbee 3y ago
This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. Maryland). Having a warrant makes the activities described in the article completely legitimate. It is the definition of "due process".
- nulbyte 3y ago
  It may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population. Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    That isn't the discussion that HN seems to be having though. The idea that a court cannot order a search is an extreme, fringe position.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  > It is envelope metadata (to/from). Right, but! That's what the conversation would be about, without a long discussion and a lot of context. That's why we don't have the conversation: it's too hard, and people would just say "stop listening to my phone calls, you government perverts". And because we don't have that conversation, it's a surprise when things like this come up.
tastyfreeze 3y ago
It shouldn't be surprising to anybody that has been paying even a small amount of attention to the results of Snowden releases. They might not talk about it but one agency or another has been consuming all digital traffic since at least the late 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29?wprov...

jeffbee 3y ago

This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. Maryland). Having a warrant makes the activities described in the article completely legitimate. It is the definition of "due process".

nulbyte 3y ago
It may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population. Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  That isn't the discussion that HN seems to be having though. The idea that a court cannot order a search is an extreme, fringe position.
karaterobot 3y ago
> It is envelope metadata (to/from). Right, but! That's what the conversation would be about, without a long discussion and a lot of context. That's why we don't have the conversation: it's too hard, and people would just say "stop listening to my phone calls, you government perverts". And because we don't have that conversation, it's a surprise when things like this come up.

tastyfreeze 3y ago

It shouldn't be surprising to anybody that has been paying even a small amount of attention to the results of Snowden releases. They might not talk about it but one agency or another has been consuming all digital traffic since at least the late 90s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_%28software%29?wprov...