5 ms·

It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizen

It's also worth noting that one of the ways the five eyes get around domestic spying laws is to spy on each other's citizens. So the CIA spy on British citizens the UK government want to spy on, and GCHQ spy on American citizens the US government want to spy on. So this would indirectly allow the US government to spy on US citizens (even more than it already does, anyway)

ekianjo 2y ago
Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?
- nemomarx 2y ago
  one of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight though?
  - 0xCMP 2y ago
    Right, but the point is they went through the motions to attempt to follow the law. They weren't simply saying someone else was doing the work and then doing it themselves. They at least attempt to follow the law internally. Which is not something we knew for certain or not in the public.
    - Nevermark 2y ago
      > They at least attempt to follow the law internally. What you are describing are successful attempts to subvert the law, avoid letting know they are subverting the law, and carefully crafted legal defenses in case they have to fight the real law’s enforcement. That isn’t remotely what trying to follow the law looks like. It shows no respect for what the writers of the laws meant or the law’s purpose. It shows no good faith attempts to firewall legal interpretation from parties interested in stretching the law. Blatant legal corruption used as a standard process. It demonstrates no honest or genuine curiosity for collaborating on legal interpretations with other relevant constituencies. Relevant constituencies for good faith legal interpretation include the law’s writers, the legislatures who passed the law, the courts who are ground truth for interpretation, a wider audience of constitutional experts in the executive branch beyond limited specific lawyers chosen to stretch the law, or citizens.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  I think stuff like Parallel Reconstruction show that they do care about the law. They care about working around it.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    That doesn't mean they care about the law, it just means that they care about maintaining the public perception that they care about the law. They're perfectly happy to keep up the pretense as long as they can still get what they want anyway, even if they have to add a couple extra inconvenient steps to the process. What they won't do is allow the law to stop them from getting what they want.
    - MobiusHorizons 2y ago
      It is still a good thing that they had to spend so many extra resources hiding. It means at least some of the checks and balances were imposing a cost on bad behavior.
- r3trohack3r 2y ago
  Actually my takeaway from the Snowden leaks was that the government tried really hard to stay within the confines of the law, even if they wildly stretched the legal theory to get there. https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/ https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/ Doesn’t justify what they were doing, or make it legal, but it’s an important distinction when trying to reason about government surveillance programs.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court. You just have to have a sound bite that you can vomit up when someone says "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?"
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      > You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court. What? Why? The natural continuation of "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?" is "We're going to sue you to make you stop."
      - r3trohack3r 2y ago
        At least in the context of the presidential surveillance program, the ACLU did sue to make them stop. But the program was classified which made getting evidence of the program's existence a crime. The supreme court ruled that they couldn't make a decision without evidence. Shortly after, Snowden leaked the evidence the supreme court had requested. That leak provided the ACLU the evidence necessary to bring the case back to the supreme court and win, "stopping" the program.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        So... what part of the program stopped?
        2y ago
- kergonath 2y ago
  Didn’t these leaks precisely show that the agencies were effectively above the law? I mean, they tried to make it look like they were abiding by the regulations, but effectively tried every work around they could come up with. Including subcontracting domestic spying to foreign intelligence agencies, using the exact mechanism the parent mentioned? It seems you’re contradicting them by making their point.
  - MobiusHorizons 2y ago
    There is an important distinction between blatant disregard for the law like you would see in authoritarian countries and this trying to twist the letter of the law into allowing something that it wasn’t intended to allow. Both are bad of course, but the latter shows some fear of the checks and balances. Being nefarious is much more expensive if you fear the courts, and have to spend time and effort circumventing it. Trumps recent behavior shows none of this fear of the courts. Even if the courts overturn the executive orders, much of the damage has already been done.
  - tastyfreeze 2y ago
    It show that no matter the scope of the law there are always loopholes.
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
  Correct. The 'law' exists to provide common citizens something to argue on, and a sense of justice, even if not real. A revolting citizenry can be potentially dangerous than a citizenry that is endlessly bickering amongst each other about the 'law'.
jsisto 2y ago
Its data laundering
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Jurisdiction arbitrage
- baranul 2y ago
  True. The data taken can end up anywhere, and where it came from is obscured. Too much circumventing of laws or purposefully violating the privacy and human rights of one's own citizens, even for profit.
throw10920 2y ago
This is a fun theory that I've heard repeatedly, but with no evidence. Is there any indication that this is actually legal and happening? I have friends who work in the space that tell me that it's neither.

ekianjo 2y ago

Why do you think 3 letters agencies care about the law? Ever heard of Snowden leaks?

nemomarx 2y ago
one of the Snowden leaks was exactly about the five eyes countries coordinating in this way to dodge oversight though?
- 0xCMP 2y ago
  Right, but the point is they went through the motions to attempt to follow the law. They weren't simply saying someone else was doing the work and then doing it themselves. They at least attempt to follow the law internally. Which is not something we knew for certain or not in the public.
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    > They at least attempt to follow the law internally. What you are describing are successful attempts to subvert the law, avoid letting know they are subverting the law, and carefully crafted legal defenses in case they have to fight the real law’s enforcement. That isn’t remotely what trying to follow the law looks like. It shows no respect for what the writers of the laws meant or the law’s purpose. It shows no good faith attempts to firewall legal interpretation from parties interested in stretching the law. Blatant legal corruption used as a standard process. It demonstrates no honest or genuine curiosity for collaborating on legal interpretations with other relevant constituencies. Relevant constituencies for good faith legal interpretation include the law’s writers, the legislatures who passed the law, the courts who are ground truth for interpretation, a wider audience of constitutional experts in the executive branch beyond limited specific lawyers chosen to stretch the law, or citizens.
taurknaut 2y ago
I think stuff like Parallel Reconstruction show that they do care about the law. They care about working around it.
- autoexec 2y ago
  That doesn't mean they care about the law, it just means that they care about maintaining the public perception that they care about the law. They're perfectly happy to keep up the pretense as long as they can still get what they want anyway, even if they have to add a couple extra inconvenient steps to the process. What they won't do is allow the law to stop them from getting what they want.
  - MobiusHorizons 2y ago
    It is still a good thing that they had to spend so many extra resources hiding. It means at least some of the checks and balances were imposing a cost on bad behavior.
r3trohack3r 2y ago
Actually my takeaway from the Snowden leaks was that the government tried really hard to stay within the confines of the law, even if they wildly stretched the legal theory to get there. https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/ https://www.blankenship.io/essays/2020-07-13/ Doesn’t justify what they were doing, or make it legal, but it’s an important distinction when trying to reason about government surveillance programs.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court. You just have to have a sound bite that you can vomit up when someone says "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?"
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    > You don't have to have a sound legal theory that will hold up in court. What? Why? The natural continuation of "Wait a minute, isn't that blatantly illegal?" is "We're going to sue you to make you stop."
    - r3trohack3r 2y ago
      At least in the context of the presidential surveillance program, the ACLU did sue to make them stop. But the program was classified which made getting evidence of the program's existence a crime. The supreme court ruled that they couldn't make a decision without evidence. Shortly after, Snowden leaked the evidence the supreme court had requested. That leak provided the ACLU the evidence necessary to bring the case back to the supreme court and win, "stopping" the program.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        So... what part of the program stopped?
        2y ago
kergonath 2y ago
Didn’t these leaks precisely show that the agencies were effectively above the law? I mean, they tried to make it look like they were abiding by the regulations, but effectively tried every work around they could come up with. Including subcontracting domestic spying to foreign intelligence agencies, using the exact mechanism the parent mentioned? It seems you’re contradicting them by making their point.
- MobiusHorizons 2y ago
  There is an important distinction between blatant disregard for the law like you would see in authoritarian countries and this trying to twist the letter of the law into allowing something that it wasn’t intended to allow. Both are bad of course, but the latter shows some fear of the checks and balances. Being nefarious is much more expensive if you fear the courts, and have to spend time and effort circumventing it. Trumps recent behavior shows none of this fear of the courts. Even if the courts overturn the executive orders, much of the damage has already been done.
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  It show that no matter the scope of the law there are always loopholes.
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
Correct. The 'law' exists to provide common citizens something to argue on, and a sense of justice, even if not real. A revolting citizenry can be potentially dangerous than a citizenry that is endlessly bickering amongst each other about the 'law'.

jsisto 2y ago

Its data laundering

throwaway48476 2y ago
Jurisdiction arbitrage
baranul 2y ago
True. The data taken can end up anywhere, and where it came from is obscured. Too much circumventing of laws or purposefully violating the privacy and human rights of one's own citizens, even for profit.

throw10920 2y ago

This is a fun theory that I've heard repeatedly, but with no evidence. Is there any indication that this is actually legal and happening? I have friends who work in the space that tell me that it's neither.