7 ms·

No warrant, no problem: How the government can still get your digital data

45 points by denzil_correa 14y ago

b6 14y ago
William Binney has been saying that the FBI has access to the NSA databases created from the data it collects from telecom companies.
inetsee 14y ago
I think that one of the most important arguments for using encryption everywhere that you reasonably can (emails, files stored online, etc) is that the government can no longer look at your stuff without your knowing about it. The authorities can still ask a court to order you to give up your encryption keys, but at least you will know that you are being investigated, and will have the opportunity to ask a court to tell the authorities "No".
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
Missing from the list: cross-border "information sharing." If your data lives in "the cloud" (and possibly another country), a mutual exchange of information on each nations' person of interest need not violate any local laws. I don't have any statistics at hand for this one, but hey, if it works for torture why not data?
- mtgx 14y ago
  Indeed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556674/patriot-act-can-obtain-data-in-europe-researchers-say http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556674/patriot-act-can...
- yesbabyyes 14y ago
  Yeah, in fact ECHELON grew out of the UKUSA Agreement [1]. Pretty clever, actually; if we can't spy on our citizens, and you can't spy on yours, let's switch! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
sukuriant 14y ago
The only thing on this list I'm surprised about is that recent emails are more protected than old ones. I don't really understand the difference there
TheCondor 14y ago
How about a law that requires notification from the company if your data is given to anybody for any reason? I'd include potential security breaches in this. This stuff isn't one-way, there have been corporations which have volunteered information and just handed it over when asked. As I understand these laws, they cover when the Feds can force the release of information and they presume that the companies all don't want to release it. I think that is generally true, especially for your larger companies, but not always a truth. The user should be notified of all releases of information to any party unless a FISA type warrant is presented.
acabal 14y ago
Perhaps the most worrying thing regarding email monitoring is that not only is it likely that the NSA is simply intercepting and archiving for later a lot of email traffic, but also that even if you "delete" an email from a host like Google or Yahoo, it's probably not actually "deleted". Even if it is 100% fully deleted, you probably still have a copy of at least a fragment of the email thread in your sent mail folder--and the recipients kept multiple copies too. Just like the digital cat is out of the bag for media companies trying to stop their movies and music from being copied by everyone under the sun, so are our email communications able to be copied, archived, and distributed with almost shocking ease.
- vy8vWJlco 14y ago
  Which is why (IMHO) privacy must trump non-personal information monopolies: because we simply can't have both. The right to pursue a living is meaningless without the right to live. The all-or-nothing nature of communication, as you note, is palpable and it is pressing us to preserve those monopolies and give up our rights to privacy and physical safety in order to go on doing business as usual. However well-intentioned, copyright and other "disembodied" (state-owned, or corporate-owned, etc) idea-monopolies have become arguments against privacy and basic physical rights... So, what will it be: today's copyright (or national security, and so on), or tomorrow's freedom-of-thought? Do you prefer group-rights or individual rights? If groups, the information flows too fast to permit independent though. If you prefer individuality, the speed of communication is obviating the need for groups and corporations and proxy-voting and governments that like to do things for us. There's still a way to go mind you, but I bet this is what a fetus feels like when it's cells are multiplying and eventually one mind emerges (or things don't cooperate, and one doesn't), all while the autonomic systems emerge enslaved to their rhythms, all the way down to the cells that are just trying to take the bus back to the lungs for a little fresh air on their breaks... Wait, what was I saying? Oh yeah, so who's ready for the hive-mind?
darkarmani 14y ago
This is clearly a case of boiling a frog. This is pretty shocking, but these services are so convenient and most of us having been abused by law enforcement that it doesn't seem like a big deal. Perception is reality, so it's really hard to see enough people getting angry about this to change it. The fact that google stores emails for so long should make one pause and think about encryption. I wonder if storing your drafts in your inbox, would make them harder to be found? Or do they grab everything and then later determine what is inadmissible? Maybe gmail needs to let you upload an asymmetrical encryption key that they store all emails with after they do their spam filtering and targeting marketing? You could only read your email with the corresponding private key.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

45 points by denzil_correa 14y ago

b6 14y ago

William Binney has been saying that the FBI has access to the NSA databases created from the data it collects from telecom companies.

inetsee 14y ago

I think that one of the most important arguments for using encryption everywhere that you reasonably can (emails, files stored online, etc) is that the government can no longer look at your stuff without your knowing about it. The authorities can still ask a court to order you to give up your encryption keys, but at least you will know that you are being investigated, and will have the opportunity to ask a court to tell the authorities "No".

vy8vWJlco 14y ago

Missing from the list: cross-border "information sharing." If your data lives in "the cloud" (and possibly another country), a mutual exchange of information on each nations' person of interest need not violate any local laws. I don't have any statistics at hand for this one, but hey, if it works for torture why not data?

mtgx 14y ago
Indeed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556674/patriot-act-can-obtain-data-in-europe-researchers-say http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556674/patriot-act-can...
yesbabyyes 14y ago
Yeah, in fact ECHELON grew out of the UKUSA Agreement [1]. Pretty clever, actually; if we can't spy on our citizens, and you can't spy on yours, let's switch! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

sukuriant 14y ago

The only thing on this list I'm surprised about is that recent emails are more protected than old ones. I don't really understand the difference there

TheCondor 14y ago

How about a law that requires notification from the company if your data is given to anybody for any reason? I'd include potential security breaches in this. This stuff isn't one-way, there have been corporations which have volunteered information and just handed it over when asked. As I understand these laws, they cover when the Feds can force the release of information and they presume that the companies all don't want to release it. I think that is generally true, especially for your larger companies, but not always a truth. The user should be notified of all releases of information to any party unless a FISA type warrant is presented.

acabal 14y ago

Perhaps the most worrying thing regarding email monitoring is that not only is it likely that the NSA is simply intercepting and archiving for later a lot of email traffic, but also that even if you "delete" an email from a host like Google or Yahoo, it's probably not actually "deleted". Even if it is 100% fully deleted, you probably still have a copy of at least a fragment of the email thread in your sent mail folder--and the recipients kept multiple copies too. Just like the digital cat is out of the bag for media companies trying to stop their movies and music from being copied by everyone under the sun, so are our email communications able to be copied, archived, and distributed with almost shocking ease.

vy8vWJlco 14y ago
Which is why (IMHO) privacy must trump non-personal information monopolies: because we simply can't have both. The right to pursue a living is meaningless without the right to live. The all-or-nothing nature of communication, as you note, is palpable and it is pressing us to preserve those monopolies and give up our rights to privacy and physical safety in order to go on doing business as usual. However well-intentioned, copyright and other "disembodied" (state-owned, or corporate-owned, etc) idea-monopolies have become arguments against privacy and basic physical rights... So, what will it be: today's copyright (or national security, and so on), or tomorrow's freedom-of-thought? Do you prefer group-rights or individual rights? If groups, the information flows too fast to permit independent though. If you prefer individuality, the speed of communication is obviating the need for groups and corporations and proxy-voting and governments that like to do things for us. There's still a way to go mind you, but I bet this is what a fetus feels like when it's cells are multiplying and eventually one mind emerges (or things don't cooperate, and one doesn't), all while the autonomic systems emerge enslaved to their rhythms, all the way down to the cells that are just trying to take the bus back to the lungs for a little fresh air on their breaks... Wait, what was I saying? Oh yeah, so who's ready for the hive-mind?

darkarmani 14y ago

This is clearly a case of boiling a frog. This is pretty shocking, but these services are so convenient and most of us having been abused by law enforcement that it doesn't seem like a big deal. Perception is reality, so it's really hard to see enough people getting angry about this to change it. The fact that google stores emails for so long should make one pause and think about encryption. I wonder if storing your drafts in your inbox, would make them harder to be found? Or do they grab everything and then later determine what is inadmissible? Maybe gmail needs to let you upload an asymmetrical encryption key that they store all emails with after they do their spam filtering and targeting marketing? You could only read your email with the corresponding private key.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]