3 ms·
> So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and what sort of data is being sought they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orde
by burntsushi 13y ago
> So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and what sort of data is being sought they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access.
Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts.
> their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and such, including the secretive FISA requests.
While I think it's reasonable to doubt the claim that the NSA has true direct access to servers, I haven't been given a reason to doubt that information can be requested without court orders, warrants or FISA requests.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811
- GreatBuck 13y ago> Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts. The court document from Google (http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf) clearly states the desire to clearly list, in aggregate, the number of accounts impacted.
- burntsushi 13y agoI know. I wasn't responding to Google's court document. I was responding to rasterizer.
- rasterizer 13y agoThey would want to publish the scope of the FISA requests. The other companies aren't going this far and I think they deserve a credit for what they're doing. And I disagree with commend you link to, the solution isn't limiting data collection, sure it makes you a target but more data equals a better product. It's an issue of government overreach not engineering decisions.
- burntsushi 13y agoWe've had a misunderstanding. I agree with this entire comment. Even the part where you disagreed with part of the comment I linked to. I even responded to that poster before replying to you. :-) (Sorry about that. I meant to link to the comment for the text of the FISA order, and not for the jab against Google.)