6 ms·

Speaking as a foreigner, I can assure you that "oh, this is only for foreigners" is not going over well in europe. I'm pretty sure the EU is going to come down

by Joeri 13y ago

Speaking as a foreigner, I can assure you that "oh, this is only for foreigners" is not going over well in europe. I'm pretty sure the EU is going to come down hard on the US over this. Or rather, they will simply mandate that data for EU citizens is not allowed to leave the EU without the express prior consent of those citizens. It's the perfect excuse to give favorable treatment to the EU IT industry without the US having a legitimate complaint in front of the WTO.

glurgh 13y ago
This seems highly unlikely given that just about every EU country engages in foreign surveillance. What do you think is the primary purpose of agencies such as the GHCQ or BND?
- marshray 13y ago
  And since there are intelligence-sharing agreements between the countries, countries are spying on their own citizens with deniability by doing it through third parties. If they even care enough to maintain the ruse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
  - munin 13y ago
    what you say is false, EO12333 expressly forbids this with the following: "2.12 Indirect Participation. No element of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order. "
    - marshray 13y ago
      Where in EO12333 does it forbid spying on Americans?
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        I'd have to read it closer than I have to figure out what it means, but section 2.4 seems relevant: Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize: (a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance; (b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for: (1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and (2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession. (c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for: (1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and (2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service. (d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means
        btilly 13y ago
        It all is in how you interpret it. Nothing in PRISM involves physical surveillance, therefore b, c, and d are trivially satisfied. Surveillance by foreign intelligence agencies is in no way surveillance by the CIA, so a is satisfied. There is no noticeable user impact at all, which satisfies "least intrusive". PRISM is, in accord with the law, established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. There are procedures in place to protect constitutional and other rights. In the legal reality supported by the last several administrations, section 2.4 is completely satisfied by turning over US data wholesale to foreign countries, who are then free to use it to spy on US citizens.
tptacek 13y ago
You don't like being spied on? I don't blame you. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. One time, we invaded a whole country, dropped bombs all over populated urban centers, took over for about 5 minutes, dissolved the army, and then stood back and let the whole place turn to hell. That sucked a lot. Also: not unconstitutional.
- leoc 13y ago
  No, this is actually a pretty anomalous situation on the face of it. Everyone knows that you can be sitting outside in the evening sun using your laptop in Western Pakistan, and Barack Obama can send a Predator drone over the horizon to kill you without any US constitutional issue if you're not a US citizen. (Aside from maybe the War Powers Clause.) What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. So it's actually moderately suprising that non-resident aliens' US cloud data apparently doesn't enjoy the same US constitutional protections that their other US interests do.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. Are you sure that would be unconstitutional rather than "only" a violation of various treaties and an act likely to cause powerful entities to respond politically?
    - rdouble 13y ago
      Property rights ranking above human rights is neither implausible nor inconsistent in the America that I live in.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Given that Pres. Obama would be operating under his military authority as Commander-in-Chief if he did order such a drone strike, then it might very easily still be considered a war crime. The U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly talk to homicide but U.S. legal code does, and there's no requirement that your victim be a U.S. citizen. So even with the drone example it's not clear-cut that Pres. Obama has the legal authority to kill any foreigner he wishes.
anigbrowl 13y ago
The EU isn't going come down that hard on it because a) they do the exact same thing and b) they quite like outsourcing the costs to the US but getting a lot of the benefits. I'm guessing that at most you'll see a aspirational clause on data privacy buried in the depths of the forthcoming EU-US FTA. http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0614/456567-eu-us-fta/ http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0614/456567-eu-us-fta/

by Joeri 13y ago

glurgh 13y ago

This seems highly unlikely given that just about every EU country engages in foreign surveillance. What do you think is the primary purpose of agencies such as the GHCQ or BND?

marshray 13y ago
And since there are intelligence-sharing agreements between the countries, countries are spying on their own citizens with deniability by doing it through third parties. If they even care enough to maintain the ruse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- munin 13y ago
  what you say is false, EO12333 expressly forbids this with the following: "2.12 Indirect Participation. No element of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order. "
  - marshray 13y ago
    Where in EO12333 does it forbid spying on Americans?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      I'd have to read it closer than I have to figure out what it means, but section 2.4 seems relevant: Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize: (a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance; (b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for: (1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and (2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession. (c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for: (1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and (2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service. (d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means
      - btilly 13y ago
        It all is in how you interpret it. Nothing in PRISM involves physical surveillance, therefore b, c, and d are trivially satisfied. Surveillance by foreign intelligence agencies is in no way surveillance by the CIA, so a is satisfied. There is no noticeable user impact at all, which satisfies "least intrusive". PRISM is, in accord with the law, established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. There are procedures in place to protect constitutional and other rights. In the legal reality supported by the last several administrations, section 2.4 is completely satisfied by turning over US data wholesale to foreign countries, who are then free to use it to spy on US citizens.

tptacek 13y ago

You don't like being spied on? I don't blame you. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. One time, we invaded a whole country, dropped bombs all over populated urban centers, took over for about 5 minutes, dissolved the army, and then stood back and let the whole place turn to hell. That sucked a lot. Also: not unconstitutional.

leoc 13y ago
No, this is actually a pretty anomalous situation on the face of it. Everyone knows that you can be sitting outside in the evening sun using your laptop in Western Pakistan, and Barack Obama can send a Predator drone over the horizon to kill you without any US constitutional issue if you're not a US citizen. (Aside from maybe the War Powers Clause.) What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. So it's actually moderately suprising that non-resident aliens' US cloud data apparently doesn't enjoy the same US constitutional protections that their other US interests do.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  >What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. Are you sure that would be unconstitutional rather than "only" a violation of various treaties and an act likely to cause powerful entities to respond politically?
  - rdouble 13y ago
    Property rights ranking above human rights is neither implausible nor inconsistent in the America that I live in.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Given that Pres. Obama would be operating under his military authority as Commander-in-Chief if he did order such a drone strike, then it might very easily still be considered a war crime. The U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly talk to homicide but U.S. legal code does, and there's no requirement that your victim be a U.S. citizen. So even with the drone example it's not clear-cut that Pres. Obama has the legal authority to kill any foreigner he wishes.

anigbrowl 13y ago

The EU isn't going come down that hard on it because a) they do the exact same thing and b) they quite like outsourcing the costs to the US but getting a lot of the benefits. I'm guessing that at most you'll see a aspirational clause on data privacy buried in the depths of the forthcoming EU-US FTA. http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0614/456567-eu-us-fta/ http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0614/456567-eu-us-fta/