3 ms·

> Most big tech companies very rarely/never let a human review private customer data. Therefore I'm fine handing all the data over to big tech companies. This

by sneak 2y ago

> Most big tech companies very rarely/never let a human review private customer data. Therefore I'm fine handing all the data over to big tech companies. This isn't true. Google and Apple and others turn over user data to human analysts at NSA and FBI and others without search warrants all of the time, on hundreds of thousands of user accounts per year. To be fine handing all the data over to big tech companies, you have to be fine handing all of the data over to US federal cops and intelligence services, too, because that's what giving the data (in non-e2ee form) to big tech means.

martyvis 2y ago
Actually I have heard the exact opposite of what you are stating is true. Both Google and Apple fight very hard to avoid handing data to authorities. They don't want to be seen as some sort of easy conduit to government surveillance or shill. How does that benefit their reputation? I know of one case where Google spent millions on lawyers fighting government wanting access to an activist's email. Their FAQ here makes their policy pretty clear. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-handle-government-requests-for-user-information https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961...
- sneak 2y ago
  Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. (Mind you; this includes device location histories due to geoip logs, unique identifiers, iMessage histories, photos, documents, everything.) The cases they are allowed to tell you about aren’t in this category. They aren’t even allowed to say exactly how many of the secret warrantless orders they received, or exactly how many users were affectee, only 500-count ranges. For just Apple, for just January 2023 to June 2023 (six months): National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Table for National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 40,500 - 40,999 National Security - FISA Content Requests Table displaying National Security - FISA Content Requests Requests Received 500 - 999 Users/Accounts 50,500 - 50,999 National Security Letter Requests Table for National Security Letter Requests data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 1,000 - 1,499 National Security Letters where Non-disclosure Order Lifted 0 I encourage you to read it for yourself: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
  - imchillyb 2y ago
    > ...no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs)... These are not equivalents, nor are they similar. FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court / NSL = National Security Letter. If a person is the target of the FISA system, there most certainly is probable cause. National Security Letter is a gag order, given by the intelligence community, in order to protect national security. Again, if you or your organization receives one of these, there most certainly is probable cause. These systems may be detestable, but there's no need to make things up.
    - sneak 2y ago
      There is no probable cause required for FISA orders. They are routinely used illegally against americans. This has been well documented in the press following the Snowden disclosures. It’s called FAA702 or PRISM.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) NSLs are administrative subpoenas accompanied with gag orders, not warrants, and correspondingly do not have a probable cause requirement; unlike warrants (and like other subpoenas), they are subject to precompliance challenge (and the associated gag order is challengable separately.)
    - fsckboy 2y ago
      FISA warrants do not have the check and balance safeguards that other warrants have, and the system for getting FISA warrants has been extensively and egregiously abused >they are subject to precompliance challenge and it's weird you go to the trouble to mention this but slough over the problems with FISA warrants. You are not arguing honestly here.

by sneak 2y ago

martyvis 2y ago

Actually I have heard the exact opposite of what you are stating is true. Both Google and Apple fight very hard to avoid handing data to authorities. They don't want to be seen as some sort of easy conduit to government surveillance or shill. How does that benefit their reputation? I know of one case where Google spent millions on lawyers fighting government wanting access to an activist's email. Their FAQ here makes their policy pretty clear. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-handle-government-requests-for-user-information https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961...

sneak 2y ago
Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. (Mind you; this includes device location histories due to geoip logs, unique identifiers, iMessage histories, photos, documents, everything.) The cases they are allowed to tell you about aren’t in this category. They aren’t even allowed to say exactly how many of the secret warrantless orders they received, or exactly how many users were affectee, only 500-count ranges. For just Apple, for just January 2023 to June 2023 (six months): National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Table for National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 40,500 - 40,999 National Security - FISA Content Requests Table displaying National Security - FISA Content Requests Requests Received 500 - 999 Users/Accounts 50,500 - 50,999 National Security Letter Requests Table for National Security Letter Requests data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 1,000 - 1,499 National Security Letters where Non-disclosure Order Lifted 0 I encourage you to read it for yourself: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
- imchillyb 2y ago
  > ...no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs)... These are not equivalents, nor are they similar. FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court / NSL = National Security Letter. If a person is the target of the FISA system, there most certainly is probable cause. National Security Letter is a gag order, given by the intelligence community, in order to protect national security. Again, if you or your organization receives one of these, there most certainly is probable cause. These systems may be detestable, but there's no need to make things up.
  - sneak 2y ago
    There is no probable cause required for FISA orders. They are routinely used illegally against americans. This has been well documented in the press following the Snowden disclosures. It’s called FAA702 or PRISM.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) NSLs are administrative subpoenas accompanied with gag orders, not warrants, and correspondingly do not have a probable cause requirement; unlike warrants (and like other subpoenas), they are subject to precompliance challenge (and the associated gag order is challengable separately.)
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    FISA warrants do not have the check and balance safeguards that other warrants have, and the system for getting FISA warrants has been extensively and egregiously abused >they are subject to precompliance challenge and it's weird you go to the trouble to mention this but slough over the problems with FISA warrants. You are not arguing honestly here.