3 ms·

>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 eve

>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.

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.