3 ms·
For me, the big takeaway is that information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected' (as they are [mis-]using the word). I don't think that is an int
by michaelfeathers 13y ago
For me, the big takeaway is that information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected' (as they are [mis-]using the word). I don't think that is an interpretation that the lawmakers anticipated, and it is an incredible end-run with potentially cataclysmic effects for liberty.
We all know that information can be leaked or misused. In fact, I think it is a truism: all 'secret' information is eventually leaked or misused.
The old process, where the government had to go to court to even start to collect information about a suspect was a completely different thing with less horrific side-effects.
And yes, we learned that the government may not have direct access to servers of the social media companies, but dispelling that claim brought the issue of internet backbone access to the fore.
- skwirl 13y agoI don't follow. "Information is being stored in advance of it being 'collected'" - what exactly do you mean? Your GMail e-mail is stored with Google. The government can only get it with a FISA request targeted at you or someone yo e-mailed (via a request aimed at their account).
- michaelfeathers 13y agoFibre optic splitter: https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/presskit/ATT_onepager... And there's this story, also on the front page of HN now: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-and-use-data-inadvertently-collected-from-communications-of-us-citizens/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/20/the-nsa-can-retain-...
- skwirl 13y agoThis was exposed in 2006. As PRISM claims are walked back, it seems the recently renewed outrage is being pushed to other old stories.
- tlrobinson 13y agoThat's fine. There wasn't enough outrage the first time around.