3 ms·

>means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. the "direct collection" is a part of "FAA702 operations". The FAA702

>means that NSA grabs data directly from the "dropbox" set up and operated by the company. the "direct collection" is a part of "FAA702 operations". The FAA702 is unrestricted collection of data of "non-USPER"sons, and in particular no individualized FISC orders required. Now there is a choice - either Google combs their data, decides who is FAA 702 "eligible" and of interest to NSA and dumps the "non-USPER" data it has identified to the "dropbox" or the NSA does the combing/identifications itself (and if NSA does the combing - where it does it? on NSA servers attached to Google datacenters or does it transfer all data to NSA datacenter and combs it there?). What do you think NSA has chosen?

leoc 13y ago
Individualised FISC orders are required. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text (Or more precisely, FISC review and approval of individualised FISA 702 orders are required - the court doesn't actually issue 702 orders.) That's almost the only protection non-resident aliens have under FISA and the jurisprudence that upholds FISA, but the protection is there. It could be undermined by issuing millions of FAA 702 orders or one FAA 702 order covering millions of people, but we have reasonable assurance that this hasn't happened (yet) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Individualised FISC orders are required. doesn't sound like it. 2nd slide: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI0065.pdf http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI...
  - leoc 13y ago
    Yes, a FISA order, like a warrant, can identify more than one person. But again, in order to target (for example) every Facebook user, the 2000 FISA orders in 2012 would have to have covered an average of about 500,000 Facebook accounts each. That has probably not happened https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >the 2000 FISA orders in 2012 would have to have covered an average of about 500,000 Facebook accounts each. 500K pales in comparison with all the tens (or even hundred) of millions in this _one_ FISC order http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri... Again, for FAA 702 collection no individualized FISC required. 1 order for the whole Facebook, 1 order for whole Google, ... it seems that NSA does really need that server farm in Uta.
      - leoc 13y ago
        > 500K pales in comparison with all the tens (or even hundred) of millions in this _one_ FISC order > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri.... > Again, for FAA 702 collection no individualized FISC required. That's not a FAA 702 order though. In fact it's in a different category to all the 70* orders, which fall under the "electronic survellance and/or physical searches" category in the https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf annual report. The Verizon order would be a FAA 501 order, though people only ever seem to refer to it as a 50 USC § 1861 order. They're the "Applications for Access to Certain Business Records (Including the Production of Tangible Things)" on the annual report. These orders seem to be intended for things like the Verizon metadata, which it seems (IANAL) are considered to be unprotected by the probable-cause requirement even for USPERS. So I presume a 501 order couldn't be used to grab users' full private data from Google. In any case Google has denied that it has ever complied with http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-ftp-to-feds/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-... (or even been served http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2013/06/what.html ) any order nearly as broad as the Verizon one, and Facebook and MS have more or less followed suit.
    - trevelyan 13y ago
      You think they're issuing individual FISA orders to track down whether foreign students are planning to work part-time while studying in the US? http://www.dailydot.com/news/us-immigration-german-au-pair-facebook-spying/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/us-immigration-german-au-pair-f...

leoc 13y ago

Individualised FISC orders are required. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text (Or more precisely, FISC review and approval of individualised FISA 702 orders are required - the court doesn't actually issue 702 orders.) That's almost the only protection non-resident aliens have under FISA and the jurisprudence that upholds FISA, but the protection is there. It could be undermined by issuing millions of FAA 702 orders or one FAA 702 order covering millions of people, but we have reasonable assurance that this hasn't happened (yet) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Individualised FISC orders are required. doesn't sound like it. 2nd slide: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI0065.pdf http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI...
- leoc 13y ago
  Yes, a FISA order, like a warrant, can identify more than one person. But again, in order to target (for example) every Facebook user, the 2000 FISA orders in 2012 would have to have covered an average of about 500,000 Facebook accounts each. That has probably not happened https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5865717 .
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >the 2000 FISA orders in 2012 would have to have covered an average of about 500,000 Facebook accounts each. 500K pales in comparison with all the tens (or even hundred) of millions in this _one_ FISC order http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri... Again, for FAA 702 collection no individualized FISC required. 1 order for the whole Facebook, 1 order for whole Google, ... it seems that NSA does really need that server farm in Uta.
    - leoc 13y ago
      > 500K pales in comparison with all the tens (or even hundred) of millions in this _one_ FISC order > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/veri.... > Again, for FAA 702 collection no individualized FISC required. That's not a FAA 702 order though. In fact it's in a different category to all the 70* orders, which fall under the "electronic survellance and/or physical searches" category in the https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/2012rept.pdf annual report. The Verizon order would be a FAA 501 order, though people only ever seem to refer to it as a 50 USC § 1861 order. They're the "Applications for Access to Certain Business Records (Including the Production of Tangible Things)" on the annual report. These orders seem to be intended for things like the Verizon metadata, which it seems (IANAL) are considered to be unprotected by the probable-cause requirement even for USPERS. So I presume a 501 order couldn't be used to grab users' full private data from Google. In any case Google has denied that it has ever complied with http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-ftp-to-feds/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/google-uses-secure-... (or even been served http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2013/06/what.html ) any order nearly as broad as the Verizon one, and Facebook and MS have more or less followed suit.
  - trevelyan 13y ago
    You think they're issuing individual FISA orders to track down whether foreign students are planning to work part-time while studying in the US? http://www.dailydot.com/news/us-immigration-german-au-pair-facebook-spying/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/us-immigration-german-au-pair-f...