12 ms·

Norwegian lawyer had visa withdrawn after private chat with client on Facebook

449 points by Deestan 13y ago

Deestan 13y ago
Summary: Lawyer conversing with client accused of terrorism, via private Facebook messages. Client's messages suddenly deleted as "spam", and 4 days later the lawyer was notified that his US Visa had been revoked.
- oellegaard 13y ago
  Not deleted as spam, rather marked as "spam or offensive content", basically flagged inappropriate for facebook.
  - katbyte 13y ago
    So private conversations i have on facebook can be "flagged inappropriate"? And thus likely checked over by a real human? forget the NSA, why should anyone aside for me and who i'm talking to be able to flag (and likely checked by a human) private messages? Private messages on facebook are well, not private it seems.
    - anologwintermut 13y ago
      This is a company that allegedly had a master password allowing employees to snoop on profiles. Moreover, the Terms of Service almost certainly say there is automated and human monitoring of messaging. Why would anyone in their right mind conduct privileged conversations using it?
      - katbyte 13y ago
        I did not know this, no allegedly about it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/facebook-master-password_n_1625474.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/facebook-master-pas...) but they did away with it "in favor of other, more secure forms of logging in to repair accounts"
    - scott_s 13y ago
      And thus likely checked over by a real human? That's a logical leap, I think. I can easily imagine passing private messages through a Bayesian filter to catch "inappropriate" messages, without needing human intervention. But, yes, if you are using a third-party service to communicate in plain-text, there is no such thing as "private."
    - taproot 13y ago
      > Private messages on facebook are well, not private it seems. News to.. you apparently?
      - katbyte 13y ago
        yea kinda, i expected law enforcement/government to be able to get the chat history, but not that something could be flagged for inappropriate content and then possibly checked by a human. Makes me wonder just how many times has something been flagged, checked by a human, and then not removed and your non the wiser that someone has just read your message
        taproot 13y ago
        Do you regularly send inappropriate private messages to your friends? If you've got nothing to hide...
        katbyte 13y ago
        yes. They are my friends, there are no real limits on what we discuss. and define inappropriate. I could be talking about health, sex, relationships, business, inventions, inside jokes and the list of normal appropriate topics that i wouldn't want other people reading goes on.
    - spinlock 13y ago
      Private messages on facebook are well, owned by facebook. In the future, hire a lawyer competent enough to read facebook's TOS.
      - blaabjerg 13y ago
        To be fair, being able to understand Facebook's TOS is not sufficient to be able to set up and use a properly encrypted communications channel. Not everyone is as tech savvy as you are.
- smartician 13y ago
  In other words: A Norwegian lawyer notices something weird going on with his private Facebook messages, and four days after this, his visa gets revoked. Later, after reading about PRISM in the morning newspaper, he's convinced that the NSA has been spying on him. It's obvious! After all, spy rule #1 is "make sure your subject knows he's being spied on by marking his messages as 'infringing or spam'". And it's totally impossible that the visa thing coincided with this.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Twice in my life I have noticed things that made me wonder. The first time I currently think was in my imagination. This time I am not so sure. I am noticing for example a cell phone whose battery level drops when connected to the charger and not in airplane mode. Google chat messages apparently long delayed. That this started after the Snowden leak makes it even more suspicious to me. I am an American citizen residing abroad. I could just be seeing things that aren't there. However as a vocal opponent of this sort of surveillance, it would make sense that I would be caught up in some sort of filter especially as the hunt for Snowden continues. (So note: If you are listening I think you might be. I am a patriot, as I believe Snowden is. I have not provided any active assistance for him, but I applaud those who do. My wife thinks I am too political but at some point my loyalty to my country, the United States, compels me to stand up to this sort of thing.)
    - Filligree 13y ago
      Battery levels will drop when connected to the charger - because of code in the battery controller. It's bad for the battery to stay at 100% for any amount of time, so the controller will cycle it in the 95-100% area. Smarter controllers will hide what they're doing. Google chat messages can be delayed for any number of reasons, ranging from internal glitches to "Your network connectivity was bad at the precise moment the message was attempted to be delivered, thrice, and it retries at exponentially longer intervals."
      - einhverfr 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
tropicalmug 13y ago
Isn't this a bigger deal than just monitoring supposedly private Facebook communications? This would also violate attorney-client privilege too, right? EDIT: This is just naïveté on my part.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Why would the not-an-American-citizen lawyer speaking to a not-an-American-citizen have attorney-client privilege from the perspective of an American governmental organization? Edited to add: It's remarkably difficult to quickly find information about attorney-client privilege in settings other than US, UK, Canada, and Australia. I found a brief mention that the privilege does not apply to in-house counsel in the EU, and that Brazil breaches it with a court order, but that's all. I'd hope I could find more given some more time, but I need to get back to work.
  - tropicalmug 13y ago
    You're correct, it wouldn't apply. My naïveté had me a little carried away.
  - anaptdemise 13y ago
    Ha. Also, what kind of attorney would have the kind of conversation covered under attorney client privileges on Facebook, PM or otherwise?
    - bananitaswokwok 13y ago
      One that lives in the year 2013? Which communication channels are supposed to be under attorney client privileges, then? I didn't know there was a list.
      - anaptdemise 13y ago
        I do not argue that it should be covered. Just that it is irresponsible. I would argue that GMail accounts are as well. "Picture this, man convicted of murder after subpoena to online marketing date reveals targeted ads for icotoners and shovels after GMail exchange with lawyer." It's a stretch of the imagination but we live in a crazy world.
deshmane 13y ago
what I am curious about in this and similar stories is whether the officials actually carry out due diligence in making sure the profile actually belongs to the person in question. after all, anybody can get an email and spoof a profile.
platz 13y ago
Two Facebook articles on foreign privacy events in one day? Where were these reports before Snowden hit the news cycle?
- stackedmidgets 13y ago
  Before that, you'd be voted down and hollered at because there would be little credibility for it among common idiots. This has been the case for years, because a lot of the information about the NSA published by journalists was built on anonymous sourcing. Now, there's more documentary evidence available to support it, so the US government no longer enjoys the benefit of ignorant doubt. Now, these stories can gain traction.
  - epoxyhockey 13y ago
    I'll also add that there are a lot of news stories that never get published. Some newsroom editor may determine to run one story over another because it would be better received and increase ratings/traffic.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Or they would get fact-checked before publishing and revealed as sensationalist hyperbole.
  - mbel 13y ago
    On the other hand, the latest revelations may be an "inspiration" for making up[0] such stories. As the demand for ominous surveillance themed news seems to be rather high right now, I guess it's one of the easiest way to gain wider attention by small publishers. After all most of the tabloids work this way, don't they? [0] I mean, they might not be totally made up, just written in a way that suggests more than is really going on.
  - untog 13y ago
    Conversely, these stories were previously ignored because of a lack of supporting evidence. Now that US surveillance is a talked about topic, these stories are gaining traction without people going through the critical thought processes they otherwise would have. Neither of these options are provably false.
Zimahl 13y ago
Isn't the NSA supposed to be for foreign intelligence only? I don't find it shocking that the US would track the messages of an accused terrorist. What I find funny is that a lawyer used Facebook for privileged communication.
Vivtek 13y ago
Ah. This one is actually kind of credible. But if the client was already accused of terrorism, then this monitoring was on his end, and surely covered by a specific warrant. So this isn't (presumably) the kind of massive data hoovering that is the primary concern; every country does this kind of thing. (Back when I was running Despammed.com I'd get requests from various LEOs - one came with a real live subpoena for information related to an identity theft ring, and one was from Italian authorities pursuing an insult to Mary.) Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect.
- sologoub 13y ago
  Isn't client-lawyer communication privileged? Similar to husband-wife communication?
  - darxius 13y ago
    My guess is that that only extends to american lawyers. I could be wrong though.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Governments can generally do what they want when it comes to foreign nationals, provided they aren't breaking any international treaties. And regardless of the spying involved in this case, the US is free to kick out anybody on a visa that it doesn't like at any time for any reason. It's not nice but that's how it is.
  - refurb 13y ago
    Yes they are privileged, but that doesn't mean the gov't can intercept them, it just means they are inadmissible as evidence in a trial.
    - sologoub 13y ago
      Makes sense, and it would taint any evidence discovered using that information... provided you could prove it. Unfortunately, doesn't stop them from playing visa games.
ttrreeww 13y ago
This is the generation in which freedom was lost.
- hughes 13y ago
  Or perhaps the generation in which freedom is to be reclaimed? It's too early to tell.
  - TillE 13y ago
    It's extraordinarily difficult not to be pessimistic when you see the abuses initiated by one party continued and expanded by the other, after bleating on about their supposed opposition to such programs. I'm convinced that the Democratic Party is the biggest roadblock to accomplishing meaningful change in the US. It exemplifies the mushy, frightened middle in the worst possible way, and should be reviled by anyone with principles. For example: http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png
    - nikster 13y ago
      It's hard to see any difference between Democrats and Republicans at this point. The entire system needs to be thrown out. I remember Ralph Nader was once asked why he is running for president when his candidacy might take away crucial votes from the Democrats and let the Republicans win; Wouldn't it be better if the lesser of two evils won? His answer: The difference between the Republics and Democrats is "the difference between Humpty and Dumpty". At the time, I didn't agree with him. But when I see what's going on now; how the Obama administration is basically run by the CIA and US big business; then I have to think of this quote and how right he was.
anologwintermut 13y ago
I'm shocked, shocked to find that the NSA is spying on a foreign terror suspect in a foreign country communicating with another foreign person.* Actually, I am shocked. Why'd the lawyer use Facebook for privileged communication? Why does the NSA care about someone who posted a threatening video in Norway? Hint: they don't. If they looked, it's probably because Norwegian Intelligence asked them to.( Which might well be a huge legal problem, for Norway) In fact, it seems there is little evidence that any of this happened. Marking messages as spam does not seem like something the NSA would do and as to denying him entry into the US: if US gov is in the habit of denying visa's to those who represent a foreign terror suspect, they didn't need Facebook to establish that. *Note, attorney client privilege doesn't apply to cases completely out of US jurisdiction with lawyers who are not lawyers in the US
- polemic 13y ago
  It's hard to say without knowing what was said, but the fact that his visa was withdrawn on the basis of a conversation between a laywer and his client is alarming. In other words: did the US government consider him a threat, or was it a tactic to infringe the alleged terrorist's right to a fair trial? If the latter, then it's an abuse of surveillance privileges.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in the article to suggest that his conversation had anything to do with his visa being withdrawn. Only a potentially spurious time correlation. In fact, it seems unlikely that anything in his conversation that legitimately would have resulted in his visa being withdrawn. And if the government doesn't need legit reasons, why not just deny his visa outright? Or deny it because he was representing a terror suspect.
  - spinlock 13y ago
    It would be alarming if a lawyer and his client were using facebook for privileged communications. That's your first hint you need a new lawyer. If they can't understand Facebook's TOS they can't possibly defend you. But, seriously, these are foreign nationals. We've had a longstanding distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance. Think of it this way, would you really want to need permission from Pakistan to surveil Osama bin Laden? He was an enemy of the USA and he was being harbored by Pakistan. Different rules apply in that case than in a domestic case.
belorn 13y ago
Be you a lawyer talking privileged to a client, a priest talking privileged to a follower, a hot-line worker talking privileged to someone thinking about suicide, or a social service person talking to a child who been sexually assaulted, every ones communication is equally collected. This is after all the result of ubiquitous surveillance. When people learn about it, the reaction is very simple. people stop talking. They do not call the lawyer. They don't call the priest. The person thinking about suicide won't call the hot-line, and the sexually assaulted child will stay quiet in fear of people finding out. After Germany introduced their ubiquitous surveillance law, this was exactly what the statistics ended up showing. I wonder, while hoping not, if the same result will happen in the US too after the current wave of news.
- CurtMonash 13y ago
  Right: "Chilling effect"
- nikatwork 13y ago
  Bizarrely, this whole scenario is very similar to the privacy issues explored in Brunner's 1975 book "The Shockwave Rider"[1]. Perhaps, as in the book, we need to setup an independent encrypted communication service where people can vent their frustrations at pervasive surveillance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Never mind PRISM. The week before the PRISM leaks, the news was full of hack attacks by state actors against US business and government targets. Why are we emailing and talking in the clear? That's just dumb. Moreover, the toothpaste can't be put back in the tube. Short of transformative change in government, how do we know there isn't another PRISM at another TLA? The only way to restore confidence in communications is to secure them against all attacks.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      You're right, but I'd still like to see us make a giant collective bowel movement on the spilled toothpaste, and generally make it so undesirable for a government agency to use the toothpaste that they'll only do so when no other alternative exists, or only when it's actually very important to do so.
etchalon 13y ago
This story reeks. None of it makes any sense (the messages were marked as SPAM?). I'm filing this under the same rubric mentally as all those tea party lunies who suddenly swore their legitimate, random audit was caused by their membership in the Tea Party.
- Filligree 13y ago
  Elden is a top-flight defence lawyer. He's not any good with computers (clearly..), but I'm sure he told the truth as he understands it.
gcb0 13y ago
This is the same a lawyer sending private information via a post-card. Plain irresponsible. But then again, which layer knows how to send PGP'ed emails?
XorNot 13y ago
Ok can anyone who reads Norwegian actually translate this properly? Because the Google translation certainly doesn't capture the nuance, and their are some notable inconsistencies in it - namely, why is someone's lawyer "no longer in contact now that their Facebook profile has been deleted".
brown9-2 13y ago
Worth noting that the lawyer says he has evidence but has not presented it, and until then it's just his word.
einhverfr 13y ago
Just remember, if you ever want to visit the US and you are not an American, you must be much more supportive of American foreign policies than most Americans are!
mariuolo 13y ago
Just tell me what kind idiot would use Facebook for a private conversation.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Who are you talking about? Elden or his client? The article implies Facebook was Elden's only way of reaching his client, so the "idiot" appears to have been the client. If the client is not very technical it is not unreasonable to assume the client felt Facebook was easier for him to use to communicate covertly with Elden and didn't want to give out a phone number or other details.
  - mariuolo 13y ago
    Either. Facebook retains forever anything done or written on their platform and that's a well known fact. Why anyone would use it for anything remotely confidential, is beyond me.
woof 13y ago
* The lawyer John Christian Elden defends several terror suspects, including Arfan Bhatti (now arrested in Pakistan) who was charged for terror planning agains the US embassy in Norway several years ago. * He disucussed a court meeting with another client on Facebook, it was not a attorney–client privileged discussion. Elden was briefed by the FBI on their e-surveilence in 2005 (with a group from Norwegian Justice dept.) so he probably has a good grasp on how private Facebook really is. * His US Visa was revoked four days after the conversation, the US embassy in Norway cites "Homeland Security" * Eldens comments gives the impression that he believes he's automaticly flagged, while still beeing a friend of the US. More facts: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2013%2F06%2F11%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fovervakning%2Fusa%2F27658066%2F http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=ht...
vidarh 13y ago
Here's a rough/quick manual translation: --- Private Facebook-correspondance between John Christian Elden and a client charged with terror offenses was monitored by American security services (NSA), the lawyer claims. Elden was discussing scheduling of the case with the Norwegian-Chilean client (20), who was charged with publishing a video where he threatened Norwegian officials and the royal family. Elden says that he has documentation that it was American authorities that were snooping on his Facebook-profile, TV2 writes. - That we as Norwegians are under surveillance by American authorities, I am not particularly happy about. It is uncomfortable to know that someone continuously reads what you write at communicate with other persons via what one believes is a closed channel, says the lawyer. The messages of the person in question got deleted on an ongoing basis, and in the chat-log they are now marked as "identified as offensive or marked as spam". Four days after the conversation, the well known lawyers visa was withdrawn. Elden says his client wished to show up in court, but that he no longer is able to contact him after the Facebook-profile was deleted. Facebook is one of the websites mentioned in The Guardian and Washington Posts revelations of NSAs surveillance of foreign citizens in the PRISM project. Ministor of Justice Grete Faremo has sent a request to the US, where the justice department requests a clarification about whether or not Norwegian citizens have been under surveillance. --- The main thing to note is that the bit about the deleted Facebook profile was unclear in the machine translation. It appears quite clear in the original article that the reason his communication with his client ceased was that the client used Facebook as his only communications-channel with his lawyer, and so the deleted Facebook profile means Elden is unable to communicate with his client. It is not made clear whether he suspects or claims that American authorities caused the profile to get deleted too, or if the client got spooked by the deleted messages.
werid 13y ago
This lawyer is a known figure in Norway and not some guy looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. He has defended people on terrorism charges in Norway before, and gotten them acquitted on those charges (while other lesser charges still stuck). On his twitter, he claims that the US embassy doesn't know why his visa was revoked, only that "Homeland security's computers" are telling them it's revoked. This is then connected to NSA leak by journalists. He is still waiting for a proper explanation from the US embassy.

449 points by Deestan 13y ago

Summary: Lawyer conversing with client accused of terrorism, via private Facebook messages. Client's messages suddenly deleted as "spam", and 4 days later the lawyer was notified that his US Visa had been revoked.

oellegaard 13y ago
Not deleted as spam, rather marked as "spam or offensive content", basically flagged inappropriate for facebook.
- katbyte 13y ago
  So private conversations i have on facebook can be "flagged inappropriate"? And thus likely checked over by a real human? forget the NSA, why should anyone aside for me and who i'm talking to be able to flag (and likely checked by a human) private messages? Private messages on facebook are well, not private it seems.
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    This is a company that allegedly had a master password allowing employees to snoop on profiles. Moreover, the Terms of Service almost certainly say there is automated and human monitoring of messaging. Why would anyone in their right mind conduct privileged conversations using it?
    - katbyte 13y ago
      I did not know this, no allegedly about it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/facebook-master-password_n_1625474.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/facebook-master-pas...) but they did away with it "in favor of other, more secure forms of logging in to repair accounts"
  - scott_s 13y ago
    And thus likely checked over by a real human? That's a logical leap, I think. I can easily imagine passing private messages through a Bayesian filter to catch "inappropriate" messages, without needing human intervention. But, yes, if you are using a third-party service to communicate in plain-text, there is no such thing as "private."
  - taproot 13y ago
    > Private messages on facebook are well, not private it seems. News to.. you apparently?
    - katbyte 13y ago
      yea kinda, i expected law enforcement/government to be able to get the chat history, but not that something could be flagged for inappropriate content and then possibly checked by a human. Makes me wonder just how many times has something been flagged, checked by a human, and then not removed and your non the wiser that someone has just read your message
      - taproot 13y ago
        Do you regularly send inappropriate private messages to your friends? If you've got nothing to hide...
        katbyte 13y ago
        yes. They are my friends, there are no real limits on what we discuss. and define inappropriate. I could be talking about health, sex, relationships, business, inventions, inside jokes and the list of normal appropriate topics that i wouldn't want other people reading goes on.
  - spinlock 13y ago
    Private messages on facebook are well, owned by facebook. In the future, hire a lawyer competent enough to read facebook's TOS.
    - blaabjerg 13y ago
      To be fair, being able to understand Facebook's TOS is not sufficient to be able to set up and use a properly encrypted communications channel. Not everyone is as tech savvy as you are.
smartician 13y ago
In other words: A Norwegian lawyer notices something weird going on with his private Facebook messages, and four days after this, his visa gets revoked. Later, after reading about PRISM in the morning newspaper, he's convinced that the NSA has been spying on him. It's obvious! After all, spy rule #1 is "make sure your subject knows he's being spied on by marking his messages as 'infringing or spam'". And it's totally impossible that the visa thing coincided with this.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Twice in my life I have noticed things that made me wonder. The first time I currently think was in my imagination. This time I am not so sure. I am noticing for example a cell phone whose battery level drops when connected to the charger and not in airplane mode. Google chat messages apparently long delayed. That this started after the Snowden leak makes it even more suspicious to me. I am an American citizen residing abroad. I could just be seeing things that aren't there. However as a vocal opponent of this sort of surveillance, it would make sense that I would be caught up in some sort of filter especially as the hunt for Snowden continues. (So note: If you are listening I think you might be. I am a patriot, as I believe Snowden is. I have not provided any active assistance for him, but I applaud those who do. My wife thinks I am too political but at some point my loyalty to my country, the United States, compels me to stand up to this sort of thing.)
  - Filligree 13y ago
    Battery levels will drop when connected to the charger - because of code in the battery controller. It's bad for the battery to stay at 100% for any amount of time, so the controller will cycle it in the 95-100% area. Smarter controllers will hide what they're doing. Google chat messages can be delayed for any number of reasons, ranging from internal glitches to "Your network connectivity was bad at the precise moment the message was attempted to be delivered, thrice, and it retries at exponentially longer intervals."
    - einhverfr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

tropicalmug 13y ago

Isn't this a bigger deal than just monitoring supposedly private Facebook communications? This would also violate attorney-client privilege too, right? EDIT: This is just naïveté on my part.

saraid216 13y ago
Why would the not-an-American-citizen lawyer speaking to a not-an-American-citizen have attorney-client privilege from the perspective of an American governmental organization? Edited to add: It's remarkably difficult to quickly find information about attorney-client privilege in settings other than US, UK, Canada, and Australia. I found a brief mention that the privilege does not apply to in-house counsel in the EU, and that Brazil breaches it with a court order, but that's all. I'd hope I could find more given some more time, but I need to get back to work.
- tropicalmug 13y ago
  You're correct, it wouldn't apply. My naïveté had me a little carried away.
- anaptdemise 13y ago
  Ha. Also, what kind of attorney would have the kind of conversation covered under attorney client privileges on Facebook, PM or otherwise?
  - bananitaswokwok 13y ago
    One that lives in the year 2013? Which communication channels are supposed to be under attorney client privileges, then? I didn't know there was a list.
    - anaptdemise 13y ago
      I do not argue that it should be covered. Just that it is irresponsible. I would argue that GMail accounts are as well. "Picture this, man convicted of murder after subpoena to online marketing date reveals targeted ads for icotoners and shovels after GMail exchange with lawyer." It's a stretch of the imagination but we live in a crazy world.

deshmane 13y ago

what I am curious about in this and similar stories is whether the officials actually carry out due diligence in making sure the profile actually belongs to the person in question. after all, anybody can get an email and spoof a profile.

platz 13y ago

Two Facebook articles on foreign privacy events in one day? Where were these reports before Snowden hit the news cycle?

stackedmidgets 13y ago
Before that, you'd be voted down and hollered at because there would be little credibility for it among common idiots. This has been the case for years, because a lot of the information about the NSA published by journalists was built on anonymous sourcing. Now, there's more documentary evidence available to support it, so the US government no longer enjoys the benefit of ignorant doubt. Now, these stories can gain traction.
- epoxyhockey 13y ago
  I'll also add that there are a lot of news stories that never get published. Some newsroom editor may determine to run one story over another because it would be better received and increase ratings/traffic.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Or they would get fact-checked before publishing and revealed as sensationalist hyperbole.
- mbel 13y ago
  On the other hand, the latest revelations may be an "inspiration" for making up[0] such stories. As the demand for ominous surveillance themed news seems to be rather high right now, I guess it's one of the easiest way to gain wider attention by small publishers. After all most of the tabloids work this way, don't they? [0] I mean, they might not be totally made up, just written in a way that suggests more than is really going on.
- untog 13y ago
  Conversely, these stories were previously ignored because of a lack of supporting evidence. Now that US surveillance is a talked about topic, these stories are gaining traction without people going through the critical thought processes they otherwise would have. Neither of these options are provably false.

Zimahl 13y ago

Isn't the NSA supposed to be for foreign intelligence only? I don't find it shocking that the US would track the messages of an accused terrorist. What I find funny is that a lawyer used Facebook for privileged communication.

Vivtek 13y ago

Ah. This one is actually kind of credible. But if the client was already accused of terrorism, then this monitoring was on his end, and surely covered by a specific warrant. So this isn't (presumably) the kind of massive data hoovering that is the primary concern; every country does this kind of thing. (Back when I was running Despammed.com I'd get requests from various LEOs - one came with a real live subpoena for information related to an identity theft ring, and one was from Italian authorities pursuing an insult to Mary.) Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect.

sologoub 13y ago
Isn't client-lawyer communication privileged? Similar to husband-wife communication?
- darxius 13y ago
  My guess is that that only extends to american lawyers. I could be wrong though.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Governments can generally do what they want when it comes to foreign nationals, provided they aren't breaking any international treaties. And regardless of the spying involved in this case, the US is free to kick out anybody on a visa that it doesn't like at any time for any reason. It's not nice but that's how it is.
- refurb 13y ago
  Yes they are privileged, but that doesn't mean the gov't can intercept them, it just means they are inadmissible as evidence in a trial.
  - sologoub 13y ago
    Makes sense, and it would taint any evidence discovered using that information... provided you could prove it. Unfortunately, doesn't stop them from playing visa games.

ttrreeww 13y ago

This is the generation in which freedom was lost.

hughes 13y ago
Or perhaps the generation in which freedom is to be reclaimed? It's too early to tell.
- TillE 13y ago
  It's extraordinarily difficult not to be pessimistic when you see the abuses initiated by one party continued and expanded by the other, after bleating on about their supposed opposition to such programs. I'm convinced that the Democratic Party is the biggest roadblock to accomplishing meaningful change in the US. It exemplifies the mushy, frightened middle in the worst possible way, and should be reviled by anyone with principles. For example: http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/06/6-10-13-4.png
  - nikster 13y ago
    It's hard to see any difference between Democrats and Republicans at this point. The entire system needs to be thrown out. I remember Ralph Nader was once asked why he is running for president when his candidacy might take away crucial votes from the Democrats and let the Republicans win; Wouldn't it be better if the lesser of two evils won? His answer: The difference between the Republics and Democrats is "the difference between Humpty and Dumpty". At the time, I didn't agree with him. But when I see what's going on now; how the Obama administration is basically run by the CIA and US big business; then I have to think of this quote and how right he was.

anologwintermut 13y ago

I'm shocked, shocked to find that the NSA is spying on a foreign terror suspect in a foreign country communicating with another foreign person.* Actually, I am shocked. Why'd the lawyer use Facebook for privileged communication? Why does the NSA care about someone who posted a threatening video in Norway? Hint: they don't. If they looked, it's probably because Norwegian Intelligence asked them to.( Which might well be a huge legal problem, for Norway) In fact, it seems there is little evidence that any of this happened. Marking messages as spam does not seem like something the NSA would do and as to denying him entry into the US: if US gov is in the habit of denying visa's to those who represent a foreign terror suspect, they didn't need Facebook to establish that. *Note, attorney client privilege doesn't apply to cases completely out of US jurisdiction with lawyers who are not lawyers in the US

polemic 13y ago
It's hard to say without knowing what was said, but the fact that his visa was withdrawn on the basis of a conversation between a laywer and his client is alarming. In other words: did the US government consider him a threat, or was it a tactic to infringe the alleged terrorist's right to a fair trial? If the latter, then it's an abuse of surveillance privileges.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, there is nothing in the article to suggest that his conversation had anything to do with his visa being withdrawn. Only a potentially spurious time correlation. In fact, it seems unlikely that anything in his conversation that legitimately would have resulted in his visa being withdrawn. And if the government doesn't need legit reasons, why not just deny his visa outright? Or deny it because he was representing a terror suspect.
- spinlock 13y ago
  It would be alarming if a lawyer and his client were using facebook for privileged communications. That's your first hint you need a new lawyer. If they can't understand Facebook's TOS they can't possibly defend you. But, seriously, these are foreign nationals. We've had a longstanding distinction between foreign and domestic surveillance. Think of it this way, would you really want to need permission from Pakistan to surveil Osama bin Laden? He was an enemy of the USA and he was being harbored by Pakistan. Different rules apply in that case than in a domestic case.

belorn 13y ago

Be you a lawyer talking privileged to a client, a priest talking privileged to a follower, a hot-line worker talking privileged to someone thinking about suicide, or a social service person talking to a child who been sexually assaulted, every ones communication is equally collected. This is after all the result of ubiquitous surveillance. When people learn about it, the reaction is very simple. people stop talking. They do not call the lawyer. They don't call the priest. The person thinking about suicide won't call the hot-line, and the sexually assaulted child will stay quiet in fear of people finding out. After Germany introduced their ubiquitous surveillance law, this was exactly what the statistics ended up showing. I wonder, while hoping not, if the same result will happen in the US too after the current wave of news.

CurtMonash 13y ago
Right: "Chilling effect"
nikatwork 13y ago
Bizarrely, this whole scenario is very similar to the privacy issues explored in Brunner's 1975 book "The Shockwave Rider"[1]. Perhaps, as in the book, we need to setup an independent encrypted communication service where people can vent their frustrations at pervasive surveillance. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Never mind PRISM. The week before the PRISM leaks, the news was full of hack attacks by state actors against US business and government targets. Why are we emailing and talking in the clear? That's just dumb. Moreover, the toothpaste can't be put back in the tube. Short of transformative change in government, how do we know there isn't another PRISM at another TLA? The only way to restore confidence in communications is to secure them against all attacks.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    You're right, but I'd still like to see us make a giant collective bowel movement on the spilled toothpaste, and generally make it so undesirable for a government agency to use the toothpaste that they'll only do so when no other alternative exists, or only when it's actually very important to do so.

etchalon 13y ago

This story reeks. None of it makes any sense (the messages were marked as SPAM?). I'm filing this under the same rubric mentally as all those tea party lunies who suddenly swore their legitimate, random audit was caused by their membership in the Tea Party.

Filligree 13y ago
Elden is a top-flight defence lawyer. He's not any good with computers (clearly..), but I'm sure he told the truth as he understands it.

gcb0 13y ago

This is the same a lawyer sending private information via a post-card. Plain irresponsible. But then again, which layer knows how to send PGP'ed emails?

XorNot 13y ago

Ok can anyone who reads Norwegian actually translate this properly? Because the Google translation certainly doesn't capture the nuance, and their are some notable inconsistencies in it - namely, why is someone's lawyer "no longer in contact now that their Facebook profile has been deleted".

brown9-2 13y ago

Worth noting that the lawyer says he has evidence but has not presented it, and until then it's just his word.

einhverfr 13y ago

Just remember, if you ever want to visit the US and you are not an American, you must be much more supportive of American foreign policies than most Americans are!

mariuolo 13y ago

Just tell me what kind idiot would use Facebook for a private conversation.

vidarh 13y ago
Who are you talking about? Elden or his client? The article implies Facebook was Elden's only way of reaching his client, so the "idiot" appears to have been the client. If the client is not very technical it is not unreasonable to assume the client felt Facebook was easier for him to use to communicate covertly with Elden and didn't want to give out a phone number or other details.
- mariuolo 13y ago
  Either. Facebook retains forever anything done or written on their platform and that's a well known fact. Why anyone would use it for anything remotely confidential, is beyond me.

woof 13y ago

* The lawyer John Christian Elden defends several terror suspects, including Arfan Bhatti (now arrested in Pakistan) who was charged for terror planning agains the US embassy in Norway several years ago. * He disucussed a court meeting with another client on Facebook, it was not a attorney–client privileged discussion. Elden was briefed by the FBI on their e-surveilence in 2005 (with a group from Norwegian Justice dept.) so he probably has a good grasp on how private Facebook really is. * His US Visa was revoked four days after the conversation, the US embassy in Norway cites "Homeland Security" * Eldens comments gives the impression that he believes he's automaticly flagged, while still beeing a friend of the US. More facts: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dagbladet.no%2F2013%2F06%2F11%2Fnyheter%2Finnenriks%2Fovervakning%2Fusa%2F27658066%2F http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=ht...

vidarh 13y ago

Here's a rough/quick manual translation: --- Private Facebook-correspondance between John Christian Elden and a client charged with terror offenses was monitored by American security services (NSA), the lawyer claims. Elden was discussing scheduling of the case with the Norwegian-Chilean client (20), who was charged with publishing a video where he threatened Norwegian officials and the royal family. Elden says that he has documentation that it was American authorities that were snooping on his Facebook-profile, TV2 writes. - That we as Norwegians are under surveillance by American authorities, I am not particularly happy about. It is uncomfortable to know that someone continuously reads what you write at communicate with other persons via what one believes is a closed channel, says the lawyer. The messages of the person in question got deleted on an ongoing basis, and in the chat-log they are now marked as "identified as offensive or marked as spam". Four days after the conversation, the well known lawyers visa was withdrawn. Elden says his client wished to show up in court, but that he no longer is able to contact him after the Facebook-profile was deleted. Facebook is one of the websites mentioned in The Guardian and Washington Posts revelations of NSAs surveillance of foreign citizens in the PRISM project. Ministor of Justice Grete Faremo has sent a request to the US, where the justice department requests a clarification about whether or not Norwegian citizens have been under surveillance. --- The main thing to note is that the bit about the deleted Facebook profile was unclear in the machine translation. It appears quite clear in the original article that the reason his communication with his client ceased was that the client used Facebook as his only communications-channel with his lawyer, and so the deleted Facebook profile means Elden is unable to communicate with his client. It is not made clear whether he suspects or claims that American authorities caused the profile to get deleted too, or if the client got spooked by the deleted messages.

werid 13y ago

This lawyer is a known figure in Norway and not some guy looking for his fifteen minutes of fame. He has defended people on terrorism charges in Norway before, and gotten them acquitted on those charges (while other lesser charges still stuck). On his twitter, he claims that the US embassy doesn't know why his visa was revoked, only that "Homeland security's computers" are telling them it's revoked. This is then connected to NSA leak by journalists. He is still waiting for a proper explanation from the US embassy.