4 ms·

People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret authorit

People don't "broadcast" their information. They send it using point-to-point protocols to companies or people. The government is using special, secret authority to compel intermediaries or stewards of the information to turn it over en masse. If the government was just browsing Facebook or doing Google searches, nobody would complain. But they are using government powers to get the information, which means that it is a search.

jevinskie 13y ago
Precisely. Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. I did not broadcast this information, the NSA obtained it by using state powers to secure a secret, unrestricted (in the most literal sense) warrant.
- wwweston 13y ago
  > Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. That's what we suppose, anyway. Of course, we don't know whether or not rayiner has acquaintances who work for your carrier who have access to it, or perhaps law enforcement who have access to a portal that the carrier voluntarily provides. And we don't know if the carrier has freely entered into any private agreements to sell call data to others... which they might be free to do even in the face of aggressive bans on law enforcement or national security organizations ever even breathing at carriers.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The 4th amendment protects your personal information, not just information that isn't public. That's a big difference. I might not be able to obtain your call metadata, but hundreds of people at Verizon have access to it. Indeed, its not even you data. They generated it. Do you ever think the framers contemplated you being able to invoke the 4th to protect other people's letters about you?
nathan_long 13y ago
Excellent point. A thought experiment: the Founding Fathers specified that individuals' "papers" must be safe from casual government search. They did not say that by handing a sealed letter to a postman, I'm implicitly making it public. If someone had invented a machine to see through envelopes and read letters, they would not have approved of its warrant-less use. Why should email or phone calls be different? Technically, the communication leaves my control. Technically, there are ways to snoop on it. But the law concerns itself not with what is possible, but what is permissible. A machine that could see through envelopes wouldn't make letters a "broadcast" medium; only the intention of the sender to make something public could do that. Snooping on phone calls and emails without a warrant specifying which people's communications should be investigated and why is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Something not being private doesn't mean its has to be public. It just means it has to be disclosed beyond your sphere of personal privacy. Actually, the 4th doesn't protect sealed letters you hand to just anyone, only USPS carriers. And not what's written on the outside (metadata). Also, in this hypothetical you didn't write the "paper" in question. A CDR isn't your data. Its verizon's data about you. So take away the special status of the USPS, and add in the fact that its verizon's tracking data for you, and its more like the government hitting up your local steamboat company for a list of all the shipments you sent through them. And I think that would not have required a warrant in 1810.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    I think you have a good point when it comes to metadata. But I'm not at all convinced that's all they're monitoring. Snowden is quoted as saying: >> “I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail,” he added. http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-nsa-leaker-appears-a-patriot-not-a-traitor/ http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-... The IRS reportedly thinks it has the authority to read the contents of emails, not just metadata: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/new-documents-suggest-irs-reads-emails-without-warrant http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-sec... The NSA reportedly has fiber cable taps at AT&T: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619
rayiner 13y ago
You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information. They're just someone who has your information (I.e. Your level of trust of them has no basis in any actual obligations they have with respect to your information--see facebooks ever shifting privacy policies for proof that they have no particular obligations). Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers. It just isn't. The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it.
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  "You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information." They are -- you can question whether they are a good steward or not, but that is irrelevant as far as I can tell. The government didn't give them the option of keeping their users' information private. "Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers." You assert that, but I don't see why. Clearly they were trying to find something in all of that data -- if trying to find something is not a search, what is? "The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it." It doesn't matter whether they have a legal obligation to protect it or not. They weren't given an option to protect it. If I write you a letter about a new political party platform, you have no legal obligation to keep that a secret. But do you think it's reasonable for the government to come in and demand all of the letters you've ever received, and then browse through them to see if someone might be starting a radical political movement?

jevinskie 13y ago

Precisely. Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. I did not broadcast this information, the NSA obtained it by using state powers to secure a secret, unrestricted (in the most literal sense) warrant.

wwweston 13y ago
> Can rayiner obtain my call metadata? They cannot. That's what we suppose, anyway. Of course, we don't know whether or not rayiner has acquaintances who work for your carrier who have access to it, or perhaps law enforcement who have access to a portal that the carrier voluntarily provides. And we don't know if the carrier has freely entered into any private agreements to sell call data to others... which they might be free to do even in the face of aggressive bans on law enforcement or national security organizations ever even breathing at carriers.
rayiner 13y ago
The 4th amendment protects your personal information, not just information that isn't public. That's a big difference. I might not be able to obtain your call metadata, but hundreds of people at Verizon have access to it. Indeed, its not even you data. They generated it. Do you ever think the framers contemplated you being able to invoke the 4th to protect other people's letters about you?

nathan_long 13y ago

Excellent point. A thought experiment: the Founding Fathers specified that individuals' "papers" must be safe from casual government search. They did not say that by handing a sealed letter to a postman, I'm implicitly making it public. If someone had invented a machine to see through envelopes and read letters, they would not have approved of its warrant-less use. Why should email or phone calls be different? Technically, the communication leaves my control. Technically, there are ways to snoop on it. But the law concerns itself not with what is possible, but what is permissible. A machine that could see through envelopes wouldn't make letters a "broadcast" medium; only the intention of the sender to make something public could do that. Snooping on phone calls and emails without a warrant specifying which people's communications should be investigated and why is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation.

rayiner 13y ago
Something not being private doesn't mean its has to be public. It just means it has to be disclosed beyond your sphere of personal privacy. Actually, the 4th doesn't protect sealed letters you hand to just anyone, only USPS carriers. And not what's written on the outside (metadata). Also, in this hypothetical you didn't write the "paper" in question. A CDR isn't your data. Its verizon's data about you. So take away the special status of the USPS, and add in the fact that its verizon's tracking data for you, and its more like the government hitting up your local steamboat company for a list of all the shipments you sent through them. And I think that would not have required a warrant in 1810.
- nathan_long 13y ago
  I think you have a good point when it comes to metadata. But I'm not at all convinced that's all they're monitoring. Snowden is quoted as saying: >> “I, sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal e-mail,” he added. http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-nsa-leaker-appears-a-patriot-not-a-traitor/ http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/10/on-first-glance-... The IRS reportedly thinks it has the authority to read the contents of emails, not just metadata: http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/new-documents-suggest-irs-reads-emails-without-warrant http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-sec... The NSA reportedly has fiber cable taps at AT&T: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619

rayiner 13y ago

You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information. They're just someone who has your information (I.e. Your level of trust of them has no basis in any actual obligations they have with respect to your information--see facebooks ever shifting privacy policies for proof that they have no particular obligations). Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers. It just isn't. The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it.

jeffdavis 13y ago
"You have this mistaken idea that google is a "steward" of your information." They are -- you can question whether they are a good steward or not, but that is irrelevant as far as I can tell. The government didn't give them the option of keeping their users' information private. "Its not a "search" of you to get information google keeps about you using government powers." You assert that, but I don't see why. Clearly they were trying to find something in all of that data -- if trying to find something is not a search, what is? "The framers did not contemplate that people would freely hand over private information to third parties who have no legal obligations to protect it." It doesn't matter whether they have a legal obligation to protect it or not. They weren't given an option to protect it. If I write you a letter about a new political party platform, you have no legal obligation to keep that a secret. But do you think it's reasonable for the government to come in and demand all of the letters you've ever received, and then browse through them to see if someone might be starting a radical political movement?