29 ms·
What happens when the Secret Service uses a NSL on you
- exhilaration 14y agoWorth reading for this: Around January, upon logging into the Google account, Google showed a strange NOTICE message asking me to accept the terms of usage of my account. This was odd, because in a decade of being a Google user, I had never seen this. I am told that this is Google's way of "telling you without telling you" that you have been served an NSL. Google, by law, is not allowed to tell you about the NSL, but they definitely are within their right to ask you to accept their TOS upon login. This is the "tell" that everyone here should be aware of. If you see this, you are likely being monitored.
- jrajav 14y agoIt's possible that they will remove that "tell" now that it's been publicized.
- wilfra 14y agoUnlikely since their goal in doing it is to notify people without breaking the law. If ever there were an example of G not being Evil, this is it. Hats off to them for how hard they work to keep the man away from our data.
- felixmar 14y agoAnd with Apple it is the opposite: if you don't at least once a month have to accept their terms your iPhone is likely being monitored.
- zampano 14y agoyikes, I can't remember the last time I saw a TOS on my iPhone, can anyone else confirm that this happens?
- codegeek 14y agoHappens everytime I try to install a new app from appstore. It is a nightmare I tell you.
- revscat 14y agoIt typically happens when on iOS updates: after the device restarts you get the TOS screen and the 'Accept' button.
- melvinmt 14y agoI think he's being sarcastic.
- jws 14y agoFor desktop users I think every iTunes upgrade includes a mandatory TOS allegiance vow.
- dleibovic 14y agocan't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Do you have a source?
- pondababa 14y agoThat said, I wouldn't take the lack of a notice like that as a sign that I'm not being monitored.
- rooshdi 14y agoYea, we're all being monitored either way, just some more closely than others.
- mhurron 14y agoAren't you going to have to re-accept the ToS every time Google changes it?
- logn 14y agoHa, I just had to re-accept TOS for an AppEngine site I have. I noticed the TOS haven't changed since December 2012 and I've logged in numerous times since then. I hope they enjoy perusing my 200 rows of a database and weep with me over my failure of a website.
- rachelbythebay 14y agoGoogle is weird about that kind of stuff, inside and out. Google asked all of us who had been around longer than a certain amount of time to re-sign our NDAs because "they lost them" or they "didn't get signed your first day of work" or something like that. I asked to see a copy of the old version so I could diff it (visually, ugh) to see what I was supposedly agreeing to in the new one. They provided the old version all right... not AN old version, THE old version. As in, the actual (scanned) copy I signed my first day of work... and it had my signature on it, right next to the date, just as I remembered it. I found out much later they pulled this on a whole bunch of people.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- iooi 14y agoWhat was the diff if you don't mind me asking?
- rachelbythebay 14y agoI think part of it was something like "if you access corp from a device, you have just tainted it and we can dig around on it at any time, including when you quit", which I mechanically translated to "never read my mail, Buzz, or anything else from home unless I'm on the company laptop or the Nexus One which they gave me and is fundamentally tainted anyway". This could have affected my personal iPhone, Linux box(es) at home, and anything else which might have accessed google.com/a/google.com/... resources. So, I basically stopped checking mail unless I was at work. I also think they tried to make it retroactive to the day I started work, but I'd like to see that fly in a court of law. Retroactively tainting my machines? Good luck with that.
- jrochkind1 14y agoSo... you didn't then say "Okay, so why did you want me to sign a new one again?"
- danso 14y agoSS confirmed over the phone that they monitored my Google account, after I told them I knew they were. At first, they would not tell me they did and denied it. The agent actually said "Google should not have told you that" Getting followed by a federal agency is no fun, but it's funny how they manage to muck things up once in awhile. Kind of like how the FBI, when tracking Aaron Swartz, tried in vain to locate him in Chicago: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/fbifile http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/fbifile
- jerf 14y agoWe're All Just Folk. There's no force making them any more competent than anybody else.
- unclebucknasty 14y agoYeah, kind of makes all this even scarier. Too much power for supremely fallible human beings.
- pc86 14y agoSome of us just have seemingly unlimited manpower, budget and the auspices of the federal government.
- scarmig 14y agoAnd guns. You're leaving out guns. Of course, since it's just regular ole folks doing things, sometimes mistakes happen. What, are you complaining? Do you hate the police/military/people who keep us safe? Socialist!
- PaulHoule 14y agoThat's how the feds do business. I was amused by the entrapment bit. They always try that. I think of this poor black guy who got recruited into a fake islamic jihad gang and how they gave him a fake bomb and rented a synagogue for him to leave it in and he got jumped by 50 cops on the way out the door, yelling "Allah Akbar" On some level I feel bad for him, but you've got to be a dope to fall for that.
- spodek 14y ago"I was amused by the entrapment bit... you've got to be a dope to fall for that." Or you can be poor or indebted or having some weakness they know how to exploit. Everyone has buttons someone can push, especially if they have access to your online data.
- MichaelGG 14y agoIf someone emails you on an identifiable account, asking you to commit a felony, you should always say no, regardless of financial state. If you're going to do illegal stuff for a living, you should, at a minimum, have another identity. It is funny how many people will email you though. I wrote a tiny, babycakes cracking tutorial, just to demonstrate how reversing most "protection" that average devs do is pretty easy. Even years later, I get emails from people begging me to crack stuff for them. I always tell them off. But sometimes they're persistent and come up with stories as to why they really need help and here's the DLL.
- adolph 14y agoEven the most intelligent and informed citizen (including lawyers and judges, for that matter) cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies. http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.asp...
- flyinRyan 14y ago>On some level I feel bad for him, but you've got to be a dope to fall for that. I was with you until here. This is victim blaming. You don't "deserve" it even if you're a dope. Entrapment is illegal for a reason.
- anonfunction 14y agoA national security letter (NSL) is a demand letter, which differs from a subpoena. It can be used by US government agencies, mainly the FBI, when investigating matters related to national security.
- verelo 14y agoJust wanted to say thanks for defining this! I hate it when people use a term but don't define it and then talk about it like everyone else knows.
- rdtsc 14y agoWhat if you don't comply though and let the user know?
- anonfunction 14y agoHonestly, I have no idea. The only reason I provided the definition was because I had never heard the term NSL before. May this wikipedia page bring the answer that you seek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
- shawn-butler 14y agoCompliance with the gag order of NSL was originally voluntary. It became compulsory in the mid 1980s as I recall. "[A court] may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after the issuance of the order or after such future date as the court may specify."
- losethos 14y agoGod claimed deep water horizon. Who the FUCK ARE YOU! Fucken crashed a helicopter into MI6. Run! ---- God says... exists tide scarcely treasures chastenedst condemns tcosa10a master's hundred wasted justify cared water-brooks receives abated court Congo watchings rais'd Robert deafness steered perverse preserved opened knocked fledged bestowed who_are_you_to_judge 90 world no blissful temple fictions drawn hallow Senegal -anger preacher torments human possessest relation wishful_thinking deep-seated damages thing PRINT sort unfailingly Edward surprises cup resumed Tajikistan flashing seeing injurious fable a_screw_loose amazing liar sounded EVEN Redemption interior acknowledged enforcement Humble atheist justice you_never_know superfluously Luxury Peru belongs over contacting lied captain lowering art folk false-named fruitfully due None contritions mountain discover array reputed convert come_and_get_me patience Afterwards piece sated BRB Rhetoric well-ordering loss storing
- bsimpson 14y agoFirst Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Can someone please show me the asterisk that says "unless done to protect national security"?
- dangrossman 14y agoIt doesn't, which is why the confidentiality clause of NSLs was ruled unconstitutional. That's the case this article is talking about from the first sentence.
- crusso 14y agoIf there were any justice in our system, lawmakers who put that confidentiality clause in there could be sued for dereliction of duty and/or negligence. The same goes for Bush for not vetoing it and thus breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution. It's one thing for lawmakers to get tripped up on finer points of Constitutional law with which the Supreme Court disagrees with. It's quite another to just play this "catch me if you can" game trying to push the limits of what is possible while ignoring the Bill of Rights.
- mindslight 14y agoThe runtime has been thoroughly compromised. Use in new software is not recommended.
- tikhonj 14y agoThat's a bit of a red herring because virtually everyone (including the courts) agrees there should be some limits to free speech: copyright, trademarks, fraud, consumer protection, libel/slander, obscenity and more that I'm forgetting. So the real question (whether NSLs should be allowed) is quite a bit more nuanced. I don't think they should, but not really on the basis of free speech.
- 14y ago
- verelo 14y agoSo for the dumb people like me, what is a NSL? A quick google define doesn't really help much (https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+NSL https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+NSL) National Soccer League?
- princess3000 14y agoNational Security Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
- tomjen3 14y agoA dirty, dirty attempt to route around due process, freedom of speech and the fourth amendment. They were one of the (many) things bush used the 9/11 as an excuse to push through congress.
- MichaelGG 14y agoPlease keep the politics off HN. NSLs were around before 9/11. And there's nothing to suggest that any other US President would have a different response. (I agree with your underlying sentiment, but it isn't constructive.)
- cynwoody 14y agoThe acronym expansion is to be found right in TFA's title. Sometimes going right to Google isn't the fastest way.
- Fizzadar 14y agoI'm glad I live in the UK/Europe where privacy (certainly of physical post and my local network, plus the various services I use around Europe). Shame my Gmail is firmly under the US authorities. It makes me sad to see the authorities of countries like the US using entrapment and other dodgy tactics to catch criminals. The US is soon to become like 1984 with drones monitoring people in cities, huge cloud computers monitoring all internet traffic, and feds running lawless tapping everyone's phones.
- melvinmt 14y agoI'm sorry but you live in the UK (aka the CCTV country) you say and think your privacy is protected more than in the States? Think again.
- StavrosK 14y agoIt says something about the US that that's true, doesn't it...
- youngerdryas 14y agoIt's beyond privacy, you can do time for a tweet!
- wyager 14y agoClaiming the UK has better individual privacy than the US is blatantly false. There are a lot of things I like about the UK, but privacy is not one of them. Some examples: The UK has no equivalent to the Fifth Amendment. In the UK, it is a crime not to give up your encryption keys to the police when requested. The punishment for keeping secret keys secret is two years in prison if you are suspected of most crimes, and five years in prison if you are suspected of "heinous" crimes. The UK also does not have something like the 4th amendment, which means that things like the Terrorism Act 2000 pass without challenge. Admittedly, the USA has been just as bad in this regard (with such things as the PATRIOT act), but I suppose some of the blame has to go towards the public attitude immediately following 9/11. In the landmark United States case Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, the SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that there was an implicit right to privacy in the United States constitution, backed by Constitutional Amendments 1,3,4,5,9, and 14. This right to privacy has not yet been used to protect internet privacy, but considering that the internet as we know it has been around for only 20 or so years, this is not exactly surprising. SCOTUS judges have a history of voting for a right to privacy despite their own personal beliefs, as demonstrated in Griswold v. CT, Bowers v. Hardwick, Roe v. Wade, etc. so this should hold up when it comes to internet privacy as well. And then, of course, there's the UK's history of egregious privacy rights violations, including widespread state-sponsored video surveillance, suspicion-less stop-and-searches, extensive usage of web-filtering system, and even deep packet inspection of and tampering with content transferred over HTTP. So the funny thing is that the UK already has extensive monitoring of people in cities, huge cloud computers monitoring their traffic, and extensive wiretapping. What you're describing as a terrible future for the US is already a reality in the UK.
- AJ007 14y agoThe same agency that raided a role playing game publisher because they thought a fictional game was some elaborate criminal conspiracy.. I think there are going to be a lot of sadly amusing and moronic stories to come.
- clinth 14y agoThe company is Steve Jackson Games, their telling of it is here: http://www.sjgames.com/SS/ http://www.sjgames.com/SS/
- ds206 14y agoThey also made a card game based on the raid: "Hacker is the Computer Crime Card Game. It was inspired by the 1990 Secret Service raid on SJ Games." http://www.sjgames.com/ourgames/card.html http://www.sjgames.com/ourgames/card.html (very last game) I have a friend that has this, although I haven't played it.
- ballard 14y agoIngress is all fun and games until someone gets hurt by police.
- donniezazen 14y agono digital information is protected from snooping unless it is stored in your home and encrypted. So, you shouldn't be using online backups like Crashplan?
- RexRollman 14y agoOnline backups can be risky if you are not encrypting them, at least for sensitive information.
- donniezazen 14y agoThey are encrypted but I remember reading somewhere that you lose your rights after data has been stored (not accessed) on a server for over 180 days.
- RexRollman 14y agoIf I understand things correctly, what changes is that only a subpoena is all that is required after 18 months, where before that a search warrant is needed. But there have been some efforts to change this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/finally-feds-say-cops-access-to-your-e-mail-shouldnt-be-time-dependant/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/finally-feds-say-... Of course, if your files are encrypted, they probably won't be able to access them regardless.
- mouseroot 14y agothat email sounds like die hard 4.
- reginaldo 14y agoI'm not an american, but I'm a spare-time security researcher, hoping to make a career out of this in the future. The last few cases reported here on HN give me the impression that if you stumble upon a vulnerability (which, by the looks of it, seems similar to the one involved in the AT&T case), it's best to keep it to yourself. You have nothing to win by reporting it, and possibly a lot to lose if you do.
- saym 14y agoI think a good solution would be a generally accepted security flaw reward contract. If most corporations with an online presence adopted some uniform agreement, we'd have a standardized method of report and reward.
- reginaldo 14y agoIt would be nice if they did so, but I don't think companies should be obligated to pay for bug reports from researchers that have no association whatsoever with them. Those that pay seem to get more reports, both in numbers and in quality, at least that's what Google says. Also, I think that a consumer should have the right to speak up when personal data is at risk, but that's a whole other story. In this case, I'm more worried about the "lots to lose" part than about the "nothing to win" one. For some reason I'm even fine with doing charity work for the benefit of billion-dollar corporations from time to time [1]. But not if there's the risk of them coming after me in the future... [1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/cc308589.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/cc308589.aspx
- wyager 14y agoOr you can sell it. There are a number of middlemen who purchase vulnerabilities (in ways that protect the seller) and re-sell them to security firms.
- beedogs 14y agoThis probably would work well until you sold one to an FBI agent.
- septerr 14y agoan NSL Apologize for irrelevancy of the comment. Someone needed to let squeed know.
- phormat 14y agoAnyone else get their fb account hacked after opening this article?
- aeon10 14y agoNo.. should I be worried? What exactly happened to your account and are you certain it had something to do with the article? (that website)
- phormat 14y agoI dont have any evidence it was from opening this site. But three hours after I opened it, my fb account was comprimised. Login was from an ip in montana I believe. Cant figure out why I'd be targeted or who was doing that. Changed my privacy settings anyways to use two-factor Auth. Also happy that fb knew to block access after the rogue login.
- unclebucknasty 14y agoThe big question is if our government is supposed to be "of, by, and for the people", then how did it manage to become this separate entity--with a life and agenda of its own--that has now turned against "the people"? We all (myself included) talk about the government in the third person. Yet, it is supposed to be our representative and our voice. It is supposed to be "us". So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc?
- dreamdu5t 14y ago> So, why are we so powerless to stop things like this, the Aaron Swartz tragedy, PATRIOT Act, etc? Personally, I think it's because we buy into the idea that an individual should be given the authority to "rule" people by fiat in the first place.
- unclebucknasty 14y agoDo we?
- dreamdu5t 14y agoIn the US, yes. Most people believe that the authority to rule over others based on a vote is legitimate, ethical, and desirable. Personally, I don't think it's legitimate or ethical that some guy I've never met asserts the right to rule over my property because another group of people I've never met got together and voted on it.
- unclebucknasty 14y agoNot sure we're talking about the same thing. In the case you mention, isn't the problem you have with the people who voted? And isn't the issue you take, in general, not with an individual "ruling over you", but with the very notion of majority rule (i.e. that "a group of people you've never met" can vote in ways that affect you/your property/etc.)? Edit: Because I would say that the problem is the opposite: that our government is no longer an expression of the will of "the people". And my question is why isn't it?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- loudin 14y agoNSLs remind me of the "deny and imply" clause in Super Sad True Love Story. It goes something like... "By reading this, you have denied its [some type of government surveillance] existence and implied consent." Very troubling news.
- mariuolo 14y agoRight or wrong, law or no law, do something that remotely disturbs the powers that be and you will be harassed. I'm sure OP knew what he was getting into, unless he actually thought he lived in Wonderland.