5 ms·

I don't know what the actual legal position on this is, but I think that public sentiment usually recognizes that: 1.) There is a legitimate need for classifie

I don't know what the actual legal position on this is, but I think that public sentiment usually recognizes that: 1.) There is a legitimate need for classified information within a government; 2.) The purpose of classified information is not to cover up illegal activities by the government. So when it comes to revealing classified information, if it is done to expose a crime, I think the US public generally supports that. But in this case, near as I can tell, no crime was exposed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? So now there's the question of whether or not PRISM should have been legal, and whether or not exposing classified information to put a spotlight on that discussion is legit. And I don't know how I feel about that let alone what the public at large thinks about it.

danielweber 13y ago
This is an article designed to generate rage-views. Greenwald isn't going to jail. Tim B Lee is HN's Rush Limbaugh, getting people into a lather about things that might happen (in the sense that they wouldn't violate any laws of physics) and getting them to freak out about that.
pvnick 13y ago
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? Remember, even the Stasi was legal. But no, these programs violate the 4th amendment.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
  Not technically, as they only get to search collected data with a warrant from the FISC. Now we're getting into the territory of strict vs. liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. In a world that could not have foreseen the ability of the US government to quite literally record everything, and thusly didn't include in the 4th amendment a protection against ex post facto search and seizure, something beyond even sci-fi at that point.
  - ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
    The process and procedure of an FISC warrant is one of the things that is being called into question. Not to mention the fact that there are challenges to the true accessibility of this data or if it can be mined without metadata information being attached to it.
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    Putting aside Prism, I don't see how the cell phone metadata is compatible with the fourth amendment at all. The 4A exists specifically to ban general warrants that allow the government to seize whatever they want without any specificity. That's exactly what the FISC order authorizing metadata collection is. There really isn't any strict vs. liberal interpretation here that I can see.
    - dclowd9901 13y ago
      The interpretation is in the word "seizing." Nothing is taken. It's copied and collected. So does "seizing" mean to collect benignly, or to take possession from another?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Except this very issue about metadata was already deliberated in the courts decades ago when it first came up that phone companies maintained these metadata records, with the conclusion that they are phone company records, not your records, and that therefore the government could subpoena them if they wished, as long as they didn't individually identify people (which would require something more substantive).
      - LoganCale 13y ago
        Phone numbers individually identify people.
        mpyne 13y ago
        Strictly speaking, phone numbers identify phones. I mean, that's what we would say when the RIAA comes at us saying that IP address umpty-squat was used to download a movie, right? "Must have been my neighbor on my Wifi". "My friend was browsing my laptop". But either way, that's why the NSA must get a separate subpoena to get the subscriber information for a given phone number, if they don't already have it from earlier. And only after that can they get a warrant to allow for grabbing the data itself.
- elmuchoprez 13y ago
  Has there been a clear acknowledgement from a court that these programs violated the 4th amendment? Because I'm pretty sure that government's position is that PRISM was fully authorized under the law with the direct approval of a FISA Court.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I honestly don't much care what the courts say on this. My own personal opinion is that the 4th amendment is clear enough, and that "spy on everybody all the time" is not allowed, not even with a court order. If approval of a court were enough to allow this kind of thing, then why do police bother with specific warrants like "search address X for evidence of crime Y"? They could just get a single warrant that says "search everything for everything" and be done. I fully expect this program to be upheld by the courts if it ever gets that far, but that's because I think the courts are largely corrupt, not because I think it's actually being done in a legal and constitutional manner.
    - elmuchoprez 13y ago
      Here's an analogy I've heard that makes some sense: The government has been tracking postal letters and packages for decades. They don't open your letters (that we know of), but they certainly look at the to and from addresses and keep track of who is sending what. Do you think this is a violation of your fourth amendment rights? Do you have a reasonable expectation to privacy for something you write on the outside of an envelope and drop in a public receptacle? The government is essentially claiming that they're doing the same thing with phone and email records. They're keeping track of who is communicating with who, but not monitoring the contents of the communication for US citizens. (And yeah, whether they are actually monitoring the contents of the communications is now up for debate, but the government's position is still that they don't monitor contents).
      - john_b 13y ago
        This analogy has some flaws. For one, if you write an encrypted letter, the government (at least not to my knowledge) doesn't claim the right to keep it indefinitely just in case you're using it to communicate with your terrorist buddies. You can send letters without return addresses. You don't have to use the recipient's real name when sending a letter. Writing something on the outside of the letter makes it publicly visible, and thus carries no expectation of privacy. Writing an email to your friend is the electronic equivalent of a private one on one conversation, and thus carries an expectation of privacy. If you had wanted the government to know about it, you would have CC'd the NSA. I can see why the government would take this position, as it portrays them in a more favorable light, but it's misdirection more than explanation.
john_b 13y ago
> "Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law?" If Americans had looked at the programs that preceded PRISM and the motivation behind them and instead asked "is this ethical?" we wouldn't now be asking "is this legal?". All sorts of crimes (in the ethical sense) have been legal throughout American history, and it's a sad waste of one's rights under a democratic republic to skip the ethical question and jump straight to the legal question.

danielweber 13y ago

This is an article designed to generate rage-views. Greenwald isn't going to jail. Tim B Lee is HN's Rush Limbaugh, getting people into a lather about things that might happen (in the sense that they wouldn't violate any laws of physics) and getting them to freak out about that.

pvnick 13y ago

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law? Remember, even the Stasi was legal. But no, these programs violate the 4th amendment.

dclowd9901 13y ago
Not technically, as they only get to search collected data with a warrant from the FISC. Now we're getting into the territory of strict vs. liberal interpretations of the Bill of Rights. In a world that could not have foreseen the ability of the US government to quite literally record everything, and thusly didn't include in the 4th amendment a protection against ex post facto search and seizure, something beyond even sci-fi at that point.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
  The process and procedure of an FISC warrant is one of the things that is being called into question. Not to mention the fact that there are challenges to the true accessibility of this data or if it can be mined without metadata information being attached to it.
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  Putting aside Prism, I don't see how the cell phone metadata is compatible with the fourth amendment at all. The 4A exists specifically to ban general warrants that allow the government to seize whatever they want without any specificity. That's exactly what the FISC order authorizing metadata collection is. There really isn't any strict vs. liberal interpretation here that I can see.
  - dclowd9901 13y ago
    The interpretation is in the word "seizing." Nothing is taken. It's copied and collected. So does "seizing" mean to collect benignly, or to take possession from another?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Except this very issue about metadata was already deliberated in the courts decades ago when it first came up that phone companies maintained these metadata records, with the conclusion that they are phone company records, not your records, and that therefore the government could subpoena them if they wished, as long as they didn't individually identify people (which would require something more substantive).
    - LoganCale 13y ago
      Phone numbers individually identify people.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Strictly speaking, phone numbers identify phones. I mean, that's what we would say when the RIAA comes at us saying that IP address umpty-squat was used to download a movie, right? "Must have been my neighbor on my Wifi". "My friend was browsing my laptop". But either way, that's why the NSA must get a separate subpoena to get the subscriber information for a given phone number, if they don't already have it from earlier. And only after that can they get a warrant to allow for grabbing the data itself.
elmuchoprez 13y ago
Has there been a clear acknowledgement from a court that these programs violated the 4th amendment? Because I'm pretty sure that government's position is that PRISM was fully authorized under the law with the direct approval of a FISA Court.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I honestly don't much care what the courts say on this. My own personal opinion is that the 4th amendment is clear enough, and that "spy on everybody all the time" is not allowed, not even with a court order. If approval of a court were enough to allow this kind of thing, then why do police bother with specific warrants like "search address X for evidence of crime Y"? They could just get a single warrant that says "search everything for everything" and be done. I fully expect this program to be upheld by the courts if it ever gets that far, but that's because I think the courts are largely corrupt, not because I think it's actually being done in a legal and constitutional manner.
  - elmuchoprez 13y ago
    Here's an analogy I've heard that makes some sense: The government has been tracking postal letters and packages for decades. They don't open your letters (that we know of), but they certainly look at the to and from addresses and keep track of who is sending what. Do you think this is a violation of your fourth amendment rights? Do you have a reasonable expectation to privacy for something you write on the outside of an envelope and drop in a public receptacle? The government is essentially claiming that they're doing the same thing with phone and email records. They're keeping track of who is communicating with who, but not monitoring the contents of the communication for US citizens. (And yeah, whether they are actually monitoring the contents of the communications is now up for debate, but the government's position is still that they don't monitor contents).
    - john_b 13y ago
      This analogy has some flaws. For one, if you write an encrypted letter, the government (at least not to my knowledge) doesn't claim the right to keep it indefinitely just in case you're using it to communicate with your terrorist buddies. You can send letters without return addresses. You don't have to use the recipient's real name when sending a letter. Writing something on the outside of the letter makes it publicly visible, and thus carries no expectation of privacy. Writing an email to your friend is the electronic equivalent of a private one on one conversation, and thus carries an expectation of privacy. If you had wanted the government to know about it, you would have CC'd the NSA. I can see why the government would take this position, as it portrays them in a more favorable light, but it's misdirection more than explanation.

john_b 13y ago

> "Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't PRISM conducted within the bounds of the law?" If Americans had looked at the programs that preceded PRISM and the motivation behind them and instead asked "is this ethical?" we wouldn't now be asking "is this legal?". All sorts of crimes (in the ethical sense) have been legal throughout American history, and it's a sad waste of one's rights under a democratic republic to skip the ethical question and jump straight to the legal question.