3 ms·
Stupid question: why is it legal for the NSA to perform MITM attacks?
I get it that some degree of latitude to break the law is justified when enforcing the law (such as a police officer running a red light when pursuing a criminal). But those types of permitted transgressions are carefully controlled by police department policy. What is the legal authority by which the NSA masquerades as a major internet service? Why isn't this criminal "hacking"/unauthorized access held to the same standard Aaron Swartz was?
It seems like even if they don't need a search warrant (vis-a-vis the presumed FISA court permission), MITM is still illegal, and they would need special permission for that.
Don't think I'm asking the question very well, but is it implicit? Explicit? And if explicit, where is it codified?
- skidoo 13y agoI think in today's world, not only are corporations/collectives people too, but they have far more rights than actual individuals in every conceivable manner. Regarding the cloak and dagger stuff, there is no real legal justification, and I believe that is why they insist on fighting any actual transparency. Laws today are retroactively rewritten to further protect those guilty. The children are running the candy shoppe. And as such are calling for a rather profound spanking.
- bediger4000 13y agoWhat is the legal authority by which the NSA masquerades as a major internet service? I think that you're asking that question very clearly and simply. I also think it needs a clear and simple answer, but I doubt we'll see one. The USA's legal environment allows what we in the Real World call "hair splitting", and further, redefines everyday terms, and allows the use of the redefined term in a deceptive manner. Not to justify the NSA in any way (I think the NSA should be abolished) but I imagine they do have some legal justification. They won't be forthcoming about it, and if you read it, you'd be amazed at the interpretation the NSA would have to do to allow itself to do MITM attacks. That's just a cynical guess on my part, not a defense of the action.