4 ms·

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

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.
  - nullc 13y ago
    The same kind that run third party provided spyware on their personal computers in order to take exams in law school. (In other words: Practically all newly minted attorneys in the US) There is no education in law school in the US at least on responsible data handling, and— in fact— schools often direct students to behave irresponsibly with respect to data security.
    - andreyf 13y ago
      The same kind that run third party provided spyware on their personal computers in order to take exams in law school. Do you have a specific case in mind? schools often direct students to behave irresponsibly with respect to data security Why would they do that? Reference?
      - nullc 13y ago
        Sure, the practice is ubiquitous Example software and policies are things like: http://www.exam4.com/ http://www.exam4.com/ (used by Harvard, George Washington, etc) http://www.law.wisc.edu/help/for_students/securexam/ http://www.law.wisc.edu/help/for_students/securexam/ http://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/registrar/Laptop_Exams http://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/registrar/Laptop_Exams https://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/registration/exams/Pages/default.aspx https://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/registration/exams... Most (all?) schools offer students the ability to take their exams on paper, but doing so is a substantial competitive disadvantage because examinations are usually timed and writing on paper is much slower, students are marked down for legibility and copy-editing noise, etc. I don't have a citation studying it— but by all appearances it's only a small minority of students that opt out of using their laptops. ("Most Stanford Law School students take their examinations on laptops") IIRC the California bar exam now also uses one of these spyware exam packages. I'm mostly amused that we have a whole information-security critical profession who is nearly required to behave negligently wrt information security from day one. :P
        andreyf 13y ago
        Wow, no kidding. Why the heck could it need "Administrator level account permissions" (both on OSX and Windows [1])? I guess you could run it in a VM and wipe it afterwards. 1. https://www.examsoft.com/dotnet/Default.aspx?f=mtlaw https://www.examsoft.com/dotnet/Default.aspx?f=mtlaw
  - vidarh 13y ago
    You're implying he had a choice. The article implies that Facebook was his only means of contacting the client, and that situation was presumably his clients choice.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  common decency? human rights? [when americans visit other countries, do you expect to not have any rights here? to be treated to different laws from the locals? to not be able to talk privately with your lawyers? what do you think the rest of us are like? as bad as you?]
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Because it says 'attorney-client privilege' and not 'American attorney-American client privilege'.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    And it's clearly impossible that this is simply shorthand for the most common situation Americans or citizens of a given nation that enforce it are likely to encounter. No, clearly 3 words are supposed to accurately summarize an entire area of rights and law!
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Don't be an ass.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Because we expect our government to act ethically, not merely within the confines of the law?
mpyne 13y ago
Somehow I don't think even the NSA's system is going to pick up on the fact that it's an attorney-client conversation. The conversation itself would not be admissible in a court action, but if the NSA were looking for known "confidants" of the flagged terrorist suspect then it wouldn't be surprising that the Visa was flagged for cancellation by one of those automated NSA algorithms. NSA lives in a world where they don't normally have to worry about attorney-client privilege because they're not trying to bring cases to trial, they're trying to gain intel on enemy networks, and ideally prevent them from gaining entry to the U.S. in the first place. So I'm not even sure if attorney-client communications is something their analysts would even check for (that is, if a human analyst even ever saw this conversation).

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.
- nullc 13y ago
  The same kind that run third party provided spyware on their personal computers in order to take exams in law school. (In other words: Practically all newly minted attorneys in the US) There is no education in law school in the US at least on responsible data handling, and— in fact— schools often direct students to behave irresponsibly with respect to data security.
  - andreyf 13y ago
    The same kind that run third party provided spyware on their personal computers in order to take exams in law school. Do you have a specific case in mind? schools often direct students to behave irresponsibly with respect to data security Why would they do that? Reference?
    - nullc 13y ago
      Sure, the practice is ubiquitous Example software and policies are things like: http://www.exam4.com/ http://www.exam4.com/ (used by Harvard, George Washington, etc) http://www.law.wisc.edu/help/for_students/securexam/ http://www.law.wisc.edu/help/for_students/securexam/ http://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/registrar/Laptop_Exams http://www.law.columbia.edu/academics/registrar/Laptop_Exams https://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/registration/exams/Pages/default.aspx https://www.law.umich.edu/currentstudents/registration/exams... Most (all?) schools offer students the ability to take their exams on paper, but doing so is a substantial competitive disadvantage because examinations are usually timed and writing on paper is much slower, students are marked down for legibility and copy-editing noise, etc. I don't have a citation studying it— but by all appearances it's only a small minority of students that opt out of using their laptops. ("Most Stanford Law School students take their examinations on laptops") IIRC the California bar exam now also uses one of these spyware exam packages. I'm mostly amused that we have a whole information-security critical profession who is nearly required to behave negligently wrt information security from day one. :P
      - andreyf 13y ago
        Wow, no kidding. Why the heck could it need "Administrator level account permissions" (both on OSX and Windows [1])? I guess you could run it in a VM and wipe it afterwards. 1. https://www.examsoft.com/dotnet/Default.aspx?f=mtlaw https://www.examsoft.com/dotnet/Default.aspx?f=mtlaw
- vidarh 13y ago
  You're implying he had a choice. The article implies that Facebook was his only means of contacting the client, and that situation was presumably his clients choice.
andrewcooke 13y ago
common decency? human rights? [when americans visit other countries, do you expect to not have any rights here? to be treated to different laws from the locals? to not be able to talk privately with your lawyers? what do you think the rest of us are like? as bad as you?]
jacquesm 13y ago
Because it says 'attorney-client privilege' and not 'American attorney-American client privilege'.
- XorNot 13y ago
  And it's clearly impossible that this is simply shorthand for the most common situation Americans or citizens of a given nation that enforce it are likely to encounter. No, clearly 3 words are supposed to accurately summarize an entire area of rights and law!
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Don't be an ass.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jlgreco 13y ago
Because we expect our government to act ethically, not merely within the confines of the law?

mpyne 13y ago

Somehow I don't think even the NSA's system is going to pick up on the fact that it's an attorney-client conversation. The conversation itself would not be admissible in a court action, but if the NSA were looking for known "confidants" of the flagged terrorist suspect then it wouldn't be surprising that the Visa was flagged for cancellation by one of those automated NSA algorithms. NSA lives in a world where they don't normally have to worry about attorney-client privilege because they're not trying to bring cases to trial, they're trying to gain intel on enemy networks, and ideally prevent them from gaining entry to the U.S. in the first place. So I'm not even sure if attorney-client communications is something their analysts would even check for (that is, if a human analyst even ever saw this conversation).