6 ms·

I actually came here to comment on the same quote. It's quite sad, really, that my country has, with the revelations of a single person (and of course their res

by pvnick 13y ago

I actually came here to comment on the same quote. It's quite sad, really, that my country has, with the revelations of a single person (and of course their response), completely lost all credibility to make statements regarding "the rule of law"...

rayiner 13y ago
All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? We could very well have a case come down in the future that pulls a Roe v. Wade on electronic privacy and reads a broad protection of communications privacy into the Constitution. It would be an act of legislating by judicial fiat, but sometimes that is justified to address gaps in the Constitution. Maybe that would be a good thing. But in the meantime, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that the government's dedication to the rule of law is undermined by a set of programs that seem to be explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law as it exists today.
- lukifer 13y ago
  > the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law My understanding of this basis is that the government contends that pure storage of data does not constitute a search (not that I accept this line of reasoning). However, in a legal system that takes intellectual property very seriously, in what sense does it not constitute a seizure?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    For content data that's held temporarily it counts as caching, and there are probably exemptions in law for Government secret spy agencies. For meta-content that's held forever - I guess they say it's not private and thus they can keep it forever. The UK is going through some kerfuffle around meta-data to allow it to be gathered and kept. See, for example, the exemption in the UK version of the DMCA for people who are "studying cryptography" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA) I should just link to UK RIPA (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents), especially this bit: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42) but actually all of it. RIPA is interesting. I genuinely don't care about GCHQ caching content for three days and keeping meta data for 30 days. That has no impact on my life. I do care about the abuses that other government departments (usually local government) has carried out using powers under RIPA. Some edits, but I forget to label them! Sorry.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    There are two bases, both of which are pretty uncontroversial: 1) The 4th amendment doesn't extend to non-U.S. persons. The prevailing view of the Constitution is that its scope is territorial. You have to have some connection to the U.S. to have rights and obligations under the Constitution. That means either living here, even if you're not a citizen, or being a citizen, even if you're living abroad. A lot of the NSA's procedures are concerned with making sure that it's data collection is limited to that likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." 2) The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information and can no longer claim that it's private in the same way the contents of your desk drawer are private. It is already established that bank records and telephone numbers you've dialed are not protected by the 4th amendment for this reason (https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy). I'm not sure the degree to which it has been established that the NSA is doing anything that requires treating pure data storage as not a search, but in any case why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws? The intent and purposes of the two regimes are totally different. Also, you have to be careful about whose data is being stored, because Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons).
    - lukifer 13y ago
      > likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." This seems highly suspect; either they have to snoop on you to see if it's okay to snoop on you, and/or do some probabilistic mumbo-jumbo to guess at whether you're a foreigner. > The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information Doesn't basic encryption (HTTPS) imply an expectation of privacy? Also, assuming the tech companies aren't BSing us, it certainly seems like the data is being consumed against their will as well, so it's not necessarily a matter of Google selling search histories. While I believe that NSA activities already violate the letter and spirit of the 4th Amendment, I absolutely support the idea that we should pass new legislation to protect our privacy rights in the Information Age from both state and corporate power, removing all ambiguity. > why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws There seems to be an interesting Catch-22 here: how can I claim ownership over my data without disclosing it? I could declare every email I send to be a copyrighted work, thus making it illegal to store without permission, yet doing so inherently divulges the information. > Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons There isn't, but there should be. The deeper moral issues notwithstanding, we're well on track to destroy our leadership in the global internet industry right now.
- pvnick 13y ago
  Maybe if you squint really really hard you can see some legality to the individual components that make of the programs, but, according to the ACLU, the programs themselves are blatant violations of the first and fourth amendments [1], and I must say I agree with them. Edit: Even the FISC itself thinks the programs are unconstitutional [2]. Now you may think the constitution itself is obsolete on these points, but there are perfectly valid methods of ratifying/updating that document other than to completely ignore it. [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-cha... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023 http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-cou...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Lots of interest groups think (and hope) lots of things about the law. The fact that the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law does not mean that interpretation is an unreasonable one given the current precedent. It means the ACLU thinks it's the wrong one and is hoping to get the courts to decide that way. As for the FISC opinion, we have no idea which programs it is referring to. We definitely need to get that opinion made public so that we can see. There are two different things at play: are the NSA's activities Constitutional and is the NSA adhering to the rule of law? The latter is really about a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law as it currently exists. To go back to my Roe v. Wade example, a complete ban on abortion is unconstitutional as of 1973. But does that meant that the legislatures that passed those bans in 1972 had no commitment to the rule of law?
    - pvnick 13y ago
      You're correct that lots of interest groups say lots of things, but I happen to agree with the ACLU's position, which is why I specifically brought it up. I agree that the FISC opinion in question will be very enlightening. Also, I agree that a "Roe v. Wade"-esque supreme court decision would provide a nice degree of finality to the issue, provided they agree with my position :P (kidding!). We were so close earlier this year to having some of these programs declared unconstitutional (5-4 decision) [1], maybe this time around we will be a little more fortunate. Or maybe I'm just naively optimistic. Also, Rayiner, from the based on the well-educated substance of your posts and your profile I have to ask, are you a lawyer? [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisses-aclus-challenge-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-law http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisse...
- revscat 13y ago
  > All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? I think the more accurate question would be "So how does that undermine the government's credibility?" The "with regards to the rule of law" part is more or less irrelevant when dealing with international politics. For several years now the United States and the UK have been warning about Chinese hacking/spying/electronic espionage. Now the US has been exposed to having conducted the same operations they accused China of, on a possibly even greater scale. Obviously this has damaged their credibility, and is why they are so angry.

by pvnick 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? We could very well have a case come down in the future that pulls a Roe v. Wade on electronic privacy and reads a broad protection of communications privacy into the Constitution. It would be an act of legislating by judicial fiat, but sometimes that is justified to address gaps in the Constitution. Maybe that would be a good thing. But in the meantime, it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that the government's dedication to the rule of law is undermined by a set of programs that seem to be explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law as it exists today.

lukifer 13y ago
> the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law My understanding of this basis is that the government contends that pure storage of data does not constitute a search (not that I accept this line of reasoning). However, in a legal system that takes intellectual property very seriously, in what sense does it not constitute a seizure?
- DanBC 13y ago
  For content data that's held temporarily it counts as caching, and there are probably exemptions in law for Government secret spy agencies. For meta-content that's held forever - I guess they say it's not private and thus they can keep it forever. The UK is going through some kerfuffle around meta-data to allow it to be gathered and kept. See, for example, the exemption in the UK version of the DMCA for people who are "studying cryptography" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/296ZA) I should just link to UK RIPA (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents), especially this bit: (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/42) but actually all of it. RIPA is interesting. I genuinely don't care about GCHQ caching content for three days and keeping meta data for 30 days. That has no impact on my life. I do care about the abuses that other government departments (usually local government) has carried out using powers under RIPA. Some edits, but I forget to label them! Sorry.
- rayiner 13y ago
  There are two bases, both of which are pretty uncontroversial: 1) The 4th amendment doesn't extend to non-U.S. persons. The prevailing view of the Constitution is that its scope is territorial. You have to have some connection to the U.S. to have rights and obligations under the Constitution. That means either living here, even if you're not a citizen, or being a citizen, even if you're living abroad. A lot of the NSA's procedures are concerned with making sure that it's data collection is limited to that likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." 2) The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information and can no longer claim that it's private in the same way the contents of your desk drawer are private. It is already established that bank records and telephone numbers you've dialed are not protected by the 4th amendment for this reason (https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/privacy). I'm not sure the degree to which it has been established that the NSA is doing anything that requires treating pure data storage as not a search, but in any case why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws? The intent and purposes of the two regimes are totally different. Also, you have to be careful about whose data is being stored, because Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons).
  - lukifer 13y ago
    > likely to be with "non-U.S. persons." This seems highly suspect; either they have to snoop on you to see if it's okay to snoop on you, and/or do some probabilistic mumbo-jumbo to guess at whether you're a foreigner. > The third party doctrine: by handing information over to Google, etc, you're purposefully exposing the information Doesn't basic encryption (HTTPS) imply an expectation of privacy? Also, assuming the tech companies aren't BSing us, it certainly seems like the data is being consumed against their will as well, so it's not necessarily a matter of Google selling search histories. While I believe that NSA activities already violate the letter and spirit of the 4th Amendment, I absolutely support the idea that we should pass new legislation to protect our privacy rights in the Information Age from both state and corporate power, removing all ambiguity. > why should the standard for what constitutes a search have any relation to copying under the copyright laws There seems to be an interesting Catch-22 here: how can I claim ownership over my data without disclosing it? I could declare every email I send to be a copyrighted work, thus making it illegal to store without permission, yet doing so inherently divulges the information. > Constitutionally there is nothing wrong with them storing the data of non-U.S. persons There isn't, but there should be. The deeper moral issues notwithstanding, we're well on track to destroy our leadership in the global internet industry right now.
pvnick 13y ago
Maybe if you squint really really hard you can see some legality to the individual components that make of the programs, but, according to the ACLU, the programs themselves are blatant violations of the first and fourth amendments [1], and I must say I agree with them. Edit: Even the FISC itself thinks the programs are unconstitutional [2]. Now you may think the constitution itself is obsolete on these points, but there are perfectly valid methods of ratifying/updating that document other than to completely ignore it. [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-challenging-constitutionality-nsa-phone-spying-program http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-files-lawsuit-cha... [2] http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-court-opinion-confirmed-nsas-illegal-surveillance-1305023 http://www.ibtimes.com/fisc-will-not-object-release-2011-cou...
- rayiner 13y ago
  Lots of interest groups think (and hope) lots of things about the law. The fact that the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law does not mean that interpretation is an unreasonable one given the current precedent. It means the ACLU thinks it's the wrong one and is hoping to get the courts to decide that way. As for the FISC opinion, we have no idea which programs it is referring to. We definitely need to get that opinion made public so that we can see. There are two different things at play: are the NSA's activities Constitutional and is the NSA adhering to the rule of law? The latter is really about a good faith attempt to stay within the bounds of the law as it currently exists. To go back to my Roe v. Wade example, a complete ban on abortion is unconstitutional as of 1973. But does that meant that the legislatures that passed those bans in 1972 had no commitment to the rule of law?
  - pvnick 13y ago
    You're correct that lots of interest groups say lots of things, but I happen to agree with the ACLU's position, which is why I specifically brought it up. I agree that the FISC opinion in question will be very enlightening. Also, I agree that a "Roe v. Wade"-esque supreme court decision would provide a nice degree of finality to the issue, provided they agree with my position :P (kidding!). We were so close earlier this year to having some of these programs declared unconstitutional (5-4 decision) [1], maybe this time around we will be a little more fortunate. Or maybe I'm just naively optimistic. Also, Rayiner, from the based on the well-educated substance of your posts and your profile I have to ask, are you a lawyer? [1] http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisses-aclus-challenge-nsa-warrantless-wiretapping-law http://www.aclu.org/national-security/supreme-court-dismisse...
revscat 13y ago
> All the evidence I've seen suggests that the programs were explicitly designed to stay within the bounds of the law (as it exists now, not as technologists wish it were). So how does that undermine the government's credibility with regards to the rule of law? I think the more accurate question would be "So how does that undermine the government's credibility?" The "with regards to the rule of law" part is more or less irrelevant when dealing with international politics. For several years now the United States and the UK have been warning about Chinese hacking/spying/electronic espionage. Now the US has been exposed to having conducted the same operations they accused China of, on a possibly even greater scale. Obviously this has damaged their credibility, and is why they are so angry.