5 ms·

The issue is that it’s the NSA, they’re not supposed to be investigate US citizens. They are supposed to be foreign signals intelligence. I’d fully expect the

by rblatz 3y ago

The issue is that it’s the NSA, they’re not supposed to be investigate US citizens. They are supposed to be foreign signals intelligence. I’d fully expect the FBI or CIA to do this. I’m not even sure it’s wrong for them to do that. At least no more wrong than anyone else that buys it in order to advertise you.

BurningFrog 3y ago
That the NSA spies on Americans on a massive scale was revealed by Snowden in 2013. There is no excuse to be surprised by it in 2024.
snarkyturtle 3y ago
What does "foreign" even mean in the internet? It's not like there are clear lines between plots of land. Everything is everywhere.
austin-cheney 3y ago
That’s not completely correct. The CIA has the least reason to access this data as they are only charted for intelligence collection outside the US. The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. The NSA is chartered to collect data on communications entering and leaving the US. Decades ago that was completely unambiguous but less so now. Their collection of data on Americans is not illegal depending upon what they do with it. That was the most revealing part of the Snowden releases: insider threats misusing NSA data collected on Americans for personal use.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    Good faith discovery requires that the receiving party was ignorant of the malicious behavior of the collecting party, thus suggesting the receiving party formed a warrant in good faith. A good defense attorney would get that tossed. The primary legal theory to bypass an improper collection is inevitable discovery which does not apply here.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      The Snowden leaks came out on 2013, it has been known since then that data collected in this manner is used against US citizens in the manner I described in the above comment despite your assertions to the contrary.
      - austin-cheney 3y ago
        It’s time for a check on reading. * Your prior comment never described any malicious depth of data collection. * I never said anything to the contrary. * Data collected upon individuals is not the same as data collected against individuals as the later provides intent.
- hiatus 3y ago
  > The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. This is just plain false. It is a long-held idea in American jurisprudence that information given to law enforcement by third parties can be used so long as that information was not collected under the direction of the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
  - austin-cheney 3y ago
    In this case the information is not provided to the government. It is purchased. The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      > The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI. Why would buying information you have no right to privacy for require a warrant? Police do not need warrants for generally publicly available information, and if anyone can buy this information why not police? Similar to how police do not require a warrant when they ask a phone company for records and the company just gives it to them without question. If police ask you to search your house, you could let them or you could tell them to come back with a warrant but if you let them they can use what they find.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        We need to change the legal premise that entities have the right to give up data they've collected on people without the express informed consent of those people, no matter who those entities want to give that data to.
        edgyquant 3y ago
        People are consenting to this, that’s the issue. We need to change data privacy laws in general, the government buying it isn’t the real problem here it’s that it is for sale at all.

by rblatz 3y ago

BurningFrog 3y ago

That the NSA spies on Americans on a massive scale was revealed by Snowden in 2013. There is no excuse to be surprised by it in 2024.

snarkyturtle 3y ago

What does "foreign" even mean in the internet? It's not like there are clear lines between plots of land. Everything is everywhere.

austin-cheney 3y ago

That’s not completely correct. The CIA has the least reason to access this data as they are only charted for intelligence collection outside the US. The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. The NSA is chartered to collect data on communications entering and leaving the US. Decades ago that was completely unambiguous but less so now. Their collection of data on Americans is not illegal depending upon what they do with it. That was the most revealing part of the Snowden releases: insider threats misusing NSA data collected on Americans for personal use.

willcipriano 3y ago
> The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  Good faith discovery requires that the receiving party was ignorant of the malicious behavior of the collecting party, thus suggesting the receiving party formed a warrant in good faith. A good defense attorney would get that tossed. The primary legal theory to bypass an improper collection is inevitable discovery which does not apply here.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    The Snowden leaks came out on 2013, it has been known since then that data collected in this manner is used against US citizens in the manner I described in the above comment despite your assertions to the contrary.
    - austin-cheney 3y ago
      It’s time for a check on reading. * Your prior comment never described any malicious depth of data collection. * I never said anything to the contrary. * Data collected upon individuals is not the same as data collected against individuals as the later provides intent.
hiatus 3y ago
> The FBI is law enforcement so they cannot touch or view any of that data without a warrant else they could invalid all manners of data collection in many open cases. This is just plain false. It is a long-held idea in American jurisprudence that information given to law enforcement by third parties can be used so long as that information was not collected under the direction of the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- austin-cheney 3y ago
  In this case the information is not provided to the government. It is purchased. The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    > The distinction is the difference between an unexpected gift versus an overt act, and thus a search warrant would apply in the context of the FBI. Why would buying information you have no right to privacy for require a warrant? Police do not need warrants for generally publicly available information, and if anyone can buy this information why not police? Similar to how police do not require a warrant when they ask a phone company for records and the company just gives it to them without question. If police ask you to search your house, you could let them or you could tell them to come back with a warrant but if you let them they can use what they find.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      We need to change the legal premise that entities have the right to give up data they've collected on people without the express informed consent of those people, no matter who those entities want to give that data to.
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        People are consenting to this, that’s the issue. We need to change data privacy laws in general, the government buying it isn’t the real problem here it’s that it is for sale at all.