39 ms·

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 spe

by 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.
nostromo 13y ago
I'm curious; did you turn in the guy who insulted Mary?
- Vivtek 13y ago
  No. I told them if they gave me a subpoena I'd give them what they wanted, and they promised a couple of times that they were working on it, then I never heard from them again. Which is exactly the way I handled every other request to pull back the veil of anonymity.
drrotmos 13y ago
I know this isn't an opinion shared by the current US administration, but having a fair trial for one's crimes is a human right. It's a right guaranteed by articles 10 and 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Part of having a fair trial includes having legal representation, and the ability to communicate with your legal council in confidence. Eavesdropping on privileged lawyer-client conversations, regardless of legality is outrageously indecent and should be illegal. Revoking a lawyer's visa because he is representing a particular client is equally outrageous, especially due to the chilling effects it causes upon the legal community making it much more difficult for suspects of serious crimes to find good legal representation.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  I agree with you on moral grounds, but technically human or natural rights are not the same as legal rights. In particular, they cannot be guaranteed by any document the UN produces, unless embodied as legal rights within a functioning judicial system. Instead, these rights are more like ideals.
  - justincormack 13y ago
    The US did sign this as a treaty. But yes that is why in Europe most of these rights were signed into law as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adds a court to enforce them. They did remove some like the right to democracy, bizarrely.
  - jackcviers3 13y ago
    I am sure King George tried the same argument against the colonies.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It's not the view of any administration. The client was Norwegian-Chilean. Foreigners not in the US don't have A right to counsel (which is the constitutional basis of attorney client privilege in the US). And I'd argue that's the way it should be. Every time courts declare something unconstitutional, they use up limited political capital. I don't think defending the "human rights" of non Americans is a valid use of that political capital.
saraid216 13y ago
> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect. Except that this is speculation by the lawyer. Unless the lawyer's chats included, "Yes, I will help you smuggle something into the US," I don't see why the US would bother pulling the lawyer's visa. What exactly are they getting from doing that? This smells to me of a guy trying to get fifteen minutes of fame by riding on the public outcry. I mean... is it even worth digging to verify whether or not his visa was actually pulled?
- Bishizel 13y ago
  While that is speculation on the lawyer's part, it's also speculation on your part to assume he did something especially wrong. That's the problem with this type of monitoring(and revoking), it turns each case, as well as public opinion, towards guilty until proven innocent. Not to mention, if I remember correctly, just being a known associate of a terrorist (i.e. talking to one) is enough to revoke or deny a foreign visa. To me, this whole situation seems more like a "he talked directly to a terrorist, revoke his visa because he's a 1st degree contact in that terrorist's social network (not looking at what his profession is or what the purpose of the contact is)" than any other possible situation. It's not about what the US is getting from this specific revocation, it's more that they likely have a specific set of guidelines in place and this guy got swept up in an inaccurate net.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > it's also speculation on your part to assume he did something especially wrong. I don't think getting your fifteen minutes of fame is especially wrong. The fault is on the part of the public for being credible; that's how the market works, no?
zmmmmm 13y ago
> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect Indeed. This is the kind of thing that punches a hole in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. He obviously had something to fear - getting his visa revoked. So by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic he had to have something to hide, and that thing had to justify the negative consequences that befell him. From the CIA/NSA perspective I am sure it just looks like he is someone who consorts with terrorists. They don't consider anybody has a "right" to visit the US in the first place, so removing that "right" cannot be a "harm". Thus there is zero loss from taking a conservative approach and just cancelling his visa. But it is most certainly a harm, probably a severe one to somebody like a prominent lawyer. So this kind of disconnect is exactly why we can't accept "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" kind of arguments.
- marvin 13y ago
  This is pretty damning. I think the best thing US officials could possibly say, was that he is not a US citizen and therefore does not have the right to privacy in his electronic communication. I'm from Norway by the way; this guy is a high-profile, nationally famous lawyer. He's not just some random criminal attorney.
nikster 13y ago
Client side monitoring makes way more sense in this case, I'd have to agree. I suppose people need to learn not to use facebook for private messages. Or Skype. Or any US based corporation. There's plenty of end user solutions that are secure - depending on the level of surveillance on the client it's going to be relatively difficult to set up secure communications though. Imagine a scenario where authorities have a warrant to listen in to your communications. They'll install a trojan on your computer that sends screenshots and keyboard input to their computers. So forget about using the PC (or Mac, doesn't matter; while Macs don't get attacked by trojans in the wild, a targeted attack is near impossible to prevent). That means use a mobile phone (buy a new one in a shop if extra paranoid); use a VPN or that secure chat program, and only use public internet access, like starbucks, as your home internet might be compromised. Then, once a secure channel is established, you're pretty safe. PS: I suppose buying a new laptop would work too but laptops / PC operating systems are a soft target compared to say an iPhone.

by Vivtek 13y ago

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.

nostromo 13y ago

I'm curious; did you turn in the guy who insulted Mary?

Vivtek 13y ago
No. I told them if they gave me a subpoena I'd give them what they wanted, and they promised a couple of times that they were working on it, then I never heard from them again. Which is exactly the way I handled every other request to pull back the veil of anonymity.

drrotmos 13y ago

I know this isn't an opinion shared by the current US administration, but having a fair trial for one's crimes is a human right. It's a right guaranteed by articles 10 and 11 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Part of having a fair trial includes having legal representation, and the ability to communicate with your legal council in confidence. Eavesdropping on privileged lawyer-client conversations, regardless of legality is outrageously indecent and should be illegal. Revoking a lawyer's visa because he is representing a particular client is equally outrageous, especially due to the chilling effects it causes upon the legal community making it much more difficult for suspects of serious crimes to find good legal representation.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I agree with you on moral grounds, but technically human or natural rights are not the same as legal rights. In particular, they cannot be guaranteed by any document the UN produces, unless embodied as legal rights within a functioning judicial system. Instead, these rights are more like ideals.
- justincormack 13y ago
  The US did sign this as a treaty. But yes that is why in Europe most of these rights were signed into law as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adds a court to enforce them. They did remove some like the right to democracy, bizarrely.
- jackcviers3 13y ago
  I am sure King George tried the same argument against the colonies.
rayiner 13y ago
It's not the view of any administration. The client was Norwegian-Chilean. Foreigners not in the US don't have A right to counsel (which is the constitutional basis of attorney client privilege in the US). And I'd argue that's the way it should be. Every time courts declare something unconstitutional, they use up limited political capital. I don't think defending the "human rights" of non Americans is a valid use of that political capital.

saraid216 13y ago

> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect. Except that this is speculation by the lawyer. Unless the lawyer's chats included, "Yes, I will help you smuggle something into the US," I don't see why the US would bother pulling the lawyer's visa. What exactly are they getting from doing that? This smells to me of a guy trying to get fifteen minutes of fame by riding on the public outcry. I mean... is it even worth digging to verify whether or not his visa was actually pulled?

Bishizel 13y ago
While that is speculation on the lawyer's part, it's also speculation on your part to assume he did something especially wrong. That's the problem with this type of monitoring(and revoking), it turns each case, as well as public opinion, towards guilty until proven innocent. Not to mention, if I remember correctly, just being a known associate of a terrorist (i.e. talking to one) is enough to revoke or deny a foreign visa. To me, this whole situation seems more like a "he talked directly to a terrorist, revoke his visa because he's a 1st degree contact in that terrorist's social network (not looking at what his profession is or what the purpose of the contact is)" than any other possible situation. It's not about what the US is getting from this specific revocation, it's more that they likely have a specific set of guidelines in place and this guy got swept up in an inaccurate net.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > it's also speculation on your part to assume he did something especially wrong. I don't think getting your fifteen minutes of fame is especially wrong. The fault is on the part of the public for being credible; that's how the market works, no?

zmmmmm 13y ago

> Where it gets to be a concern is revoking a guy's visa because he's defending a terror suspect Indeed. This is the kind of thing that punches a hole in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. He obviously had something to fear - getting his visa revoked. So by the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" logic he had to have something to hide, and that thing had to justify the negative consequences that befell him. From the CIA/NSA perspective I am sure it just looks like he is someone who consorts with terrorists. They don't consider anybody has a "right" to visit the US in the first place, so removing that "right" cannot be a "harm". Thus there is zero loss from taking a conservative approach and just cancelling his visa. But it is most certainly a harm, probably a severe one to somebody like a prominent lawyer. So this kind of disconnect is exactly why we can't accept "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" kind of arguments.

marvin 13y ago
This is pretty damning. I think the best thing US officials could possibly say, was that he is not a US citizen and therefore does not have the right to privacy in his electronic communication. I'm from Norway by the way; this guy is a high-profile, nationally famous lawyer. He's not just some random criminal attorney.

nikster 13y ago

Client side monitoring makes way more sense in this case, I'd have to agree. I suppose people need to learn not to use facebook for private messages. Or Skype. Or any US based corporation. There's plenty of end user solutions that are secure - depending on the level of surveillance on the client it's going to be relatively difficult to set up secure communications though. Imagine a scenario where authorities have a warrant to listen in to your communications. They'll install a trojan on your computer that sends screenshots and keyboard input to their computers. So forget about using the PC (or Mac, doesn't matter; while Macs don't get attacked by trojans in the wild, a targeted attack is near impossible to prevent). That means use a mobile phone (buy a new one in a shop if extra paranoid); use a VPN or that secure chat program, and only use public internet access, like starbucks, as your home internet might be compromised. Then, once a secure channel is established, you're pretty safe. PS: I suppose buying a new laptop would work too but laptops / PC operating systems are a soft target compared to say an iPhone.