3 ms·

> 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 probabi

by 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.

rayiner 13y ago
> 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. They have these amazing things called IP addresses that tell you what country traffic is coming from. > Doesn't basic encryption (HTTPS) imply an expectation of privacy? Privacy as against who? Even if you use HTTPS, you still expose the clear text to Google, Facebook, etc. I don't think it is an unreasonable interpretation of existing precedent, on the NSA's part, to argue that if random sysadmins at Google can access the data, then the government doesn't need a warrant to subpoena the data. > 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. It's not a matter of Google selling search histories. "Private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment means "inside your desk drawer" private, not just "not public." Bank records aren't public, your bank doesn't sell them, but they're not covered by the 4th amendment. > 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. The Constitution determines the rights and obligations of Americans to each other and those on U.S. soil. It's not a vehicle for determining who we treat non-Americans, and should not be so. The country's foreign policy is a political issue, not a legal issue. Indeed, it would be a massive violation of the separation of powers for the courts to start policing how the U.S. treats foreigners, because foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the elected branches, especially the executive. This is by design, the framers intended the U.S. to "speak with one voice" with regards to the outside world. If Americans want to spy on the rest of the world, it's not the courts' job to tell them that they can't. If that hurts American competitiveness in the internet industry, well that's an issue for political debate too. I think as a practical matter the U.S. is far too dominant in software and online technology for NSA spying to be more than a blip, and it's not like other countries don't do it too.
- lukifer 13y ago
  > They have these amazing things called IP addresses that tell you what country traffic is coming from. I'd be embarrassed for our intelligence agencies if that's all they looked at. (a) Americans travel abroad, an American Skyping home should be completely covered under the 4th. (b) Foreign actors are perfectly capable of using proxies, either human or electronic. > "Private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment means "inside your desk drawer" private, not just "not public." If I mail a letter to Bob, it is private to both Bob and I. If I save a document to Google Docs over https, it is private to both Google and I. Assuming Google honors that privacy (big assumption, I know), how does that not qualify as "desk drawer private"? > The Constitution determines the rights and obligations of Americans to each other and those on U.S. soil. Absolutely; I'm not arguing a legal imperative not to spy indiscriminately on foreigners. I'm stating a moral imperative not to do so. There are ways in which I believe the current spying activity violates the Constitution as-is, and yet I also believe we need to new laws to safeguard the values of human liberty that the Constitution is meant to enshrine and defend, for all humans and not just citizens. (And yes, that includes restraints on corporate power in addition to government power.)

by lukifer 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> 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. They have these amazing things called IP addresses that tell you what country traffic is coming from. > Doesn't basic encryption (HTTPS) imply an expectation of privacy? Privacy as against who? Even if you use HTTPS, you still expose the clear text to Google, Facebook, etc. I don't think it is an unreasonable interpretation of existing precedent, on the NSA's part, to argue that if random sysadmins at Google can access the data, then the government doesn't need a warrant to subpoena the data. > 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. It's not a matter of Google selling search histories. "Private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment means "inside your desk drawer" private, not just "not public." Bank records aren't public, your bank doesn't sell them, but they're not covered by the 4th amendment. > 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. The Constitution determines the rights and obligations of Americans to each other and those on U.S. soil. It's not a vehicle for determining who we treat non-Americans, and should not be so. The country's foreign policy is a political issue, not a legal issue. Indeed, it would be a massive violation of the separation of powers for the courts to start policing how the U.S. treats foreigners, because foreign policy is the exclusive domain of the elected branches, especially the executive. This is by design, the framers intended the U.S. to "speak with one voice" with regards to the outside world. If Americans want to spy on the rest of the world, it's not the courts' job to tell them that they can't. If that hurts American competitiveness in the internet industry, well that's an issue for political debate too. I think as a practical matter the U.S. is far too dominant in software and online technology for NSA spying to be more than a blip, and it's not like other countries don't do it too.

lukifer 13y ago
> They have these amazing things called IP addresses that tell you what country traffic is coming from. I'd be embarrassed for our intelligence agencies if that's all they looked at. (a) Americans travel abroad, an American Skyping home should be completely covered under the 4th. (b) Foreign actors are perfectly capable of using proxies, either human or electronic. > "Private" for the purposes of the 4th amendment means "inside your desk drawer" private, not just "not public." If I mail a letter to Bob, it is private to both Bob and I. If I save a document to Google Docs over https, it is private to both Google and I. Assuming Google honors that privacy (big assumption, I know), how does that not qualify as "desk drawer private"? > The Constitution determines the rights and obligations of Americans to each other and those on U.S. soil. Absolutely; I'm not arguing a legal imperative not to spy indiscriminately on foreigners. I'm stating a moral imperative not to do so. There are ways in which I believe the current spying activity violates the Constitution as-is, and yet I also believe we need to new laws to safeguard the values of human liberty that the Constitution is meant to enshrine and defend, for all humans and not just citizens. (And yes, that includes restraints on corporate power in addition to government power.)