4 ms·

As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. tptacek: "It's hard not to come

As opposed to what the NSA is doing now, which is just debatably illegal, and if actually illegal is only illegal at the edges. tptacek: "It's hard not to come to the conclusion that these activities were essentially criminal. I don't see how the administration can fail to disavow them, investigate them fully, and hold their instigators accountable. It feels like Special Prosecutor time." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6641483 I don't want to take quotes out of context; the context seemed similar, to the point of it spawning interesting discussion. And I'd love to get your take on his position.

rayiner 13y ago
'tptacek is very well-informed about these issues and I hesitate to disagree with him because he's almost certainly thought about the specific point more thoroughly than I have, but I think the key is this: "NSA documents about the effort refer directly to 'full take,' 'bulk access' and 'high volume' operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...). I'm not quite sure what dimension is added to the problem by the fact that U.S. companies are involved, but the NSA tapping into overseas links doesn't seem to me, on its face, to be illegal. Indeed, that would seem to be the point of the NSA.
- milkshakes 13y ago
  These are private circuits leased by Google and Yahoo you're talking about here, connecting data centers that they own outright. Are you arguing that because these links are geographically located in a foreign country, the NSA should be able to disregard the provenance of the data they carry?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I'm not well-versed on the applicability of the Constitution to property abroad owned by American corporations, but my guess is that the NSA can make a credible argument that because the wires and the bits are overseas, they're allowed to tap them, especially if they take measures to filter out any data of American origin in the pipes. It's a reasonable presumption that the origin of most of that data is foreign. Yes, the companies in question are American, but Google and Yahoo go to great lengths to take advantage of the legal distinctions between operating in the U.S. and operating abroad, especially with regard to taxation. It seems a little disingenuous for them to claim now that in this context, we should ignore the distinction between operating inside the U.S. and operating outside the U.S.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > It's a reasonable presumption that the origin of most of that data is foreign. I think that statement is false. Since it's known that google, yahoo and basically all major players mirror data from one data center to others to protect themselves from outages, a reasonable assumption from the technical side is that a large chunk of the data is actually American and that there is no way to figure out the nationality of the bits you're collecting. It reeks of trying to circumvent the restrictions that apply to data collection on american soil. That may still be legal by the letter of the law (all american data collected is just "bycatch"), but I doubt it's unintentional.
    - milkshakes 13y ago
      Personally, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the standard to which we hold our foreign intelligence services should have anything to do with the tax strategy of the service providers whose infrastructure it is that they are violating. These are quite clearly American companies, headquartered in America, listed on American exchanges, with the majority of their staff based in America, already cooperating fully with lawful American intercept requests (remember, that's what PRISM was). Even if there were some John Yoo style memorandum finding this legal under some perverted legal construction, I still don't understand what could possibly justify a program like this, especially given the cost, implications, and consequences of building one.
tptacek 13y ago
I wrote that comment before it became widely known that NSA's access to data center traffic had been laundered through other foreign intelligence services. My opinion of the activities themselves is unchanged (I am not militant about the FISA process, but have a real problem with extrajudicial surveillance), but I would now be surprised if those actions were formally disavowed by the administration; the narrative is too complex.

rayiner 13y ago

'tptacek is very well-informed about these issues and I hesitate to disagree with him because he's almost certainly thought about the specific point more thoroughly than I have, but I think the key is this: "NSA documents about the effort refer directly to 'full take,' 'bulk access' and 'high volume' operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...). I'm not quite sure what dimension is added to the problem by the fact that U.S. companies are involved, but the NSA tapping into overseas links doesn't seem to me, on its face, to be illegal. Indeed, that would seem to be the point of the NSA.

milkshakes 13y ago
These are private circuits leased by Google and Yahoo you're talking about here, connecting data centers that they own outright. Are you arguing that because these links are geographically located in a foreign country, the NSA should be able to disregard the provenance of the data they carry?
- rayiner 13y ago
  I'm not well-versed on the applicability of the Constitution to property abroad owned by American corporations, but my guess is that the NSA can make a credible argument that because the wires and the bits are overseas, they're allowed to tap them, especially if they take measures to filter out any data of American origin in the pipes. It's a reasonable presumption that the origin of most of that data is foreign. Yes, the companies in question are American, but Google and Yahoo go to great lengths to take advantage of the legal distinctions between operating in the U.S. and operating abroad, especially with regard to taxation. It seems a little disingenuous for them to claim now that in this context, we should ignore the distinction between operating inside the U.S. and operating outside the U.S.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > It's a reasonable presumption that the origin of most of that data is foreign. I think that statement is false. Since it's known that google, yahoo and basically all major players mirror data from one data center to others to protect themselves from outages, a reasonable assumption from the technical side is that a large chunk of the data is actually American and that there is no way to figure out the nationality of the bits you're collecting. It reeks of trying to circumvent the restrictions that apply to data collection on american soil. That may still be legal by the letter of the law (all american data collected is just "bycatch"), but I doubt it's unintentional.
  - milkshakes 13y ago
    Personally, I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the standard to which we hold our foreign intelligence services should have anything to do with the tax strategy of the service providers whose infrastructure it is that they are violating. These are quite clearly American companies, headquartered in America, listed on American exchanges, with the majority of their staff based in America, already cooperating fully with lawful American intercept requests (remember, that's what PRISM was). Even if there were some John Yoo style memorandum finding this legal under some perverted legal construction, I still don't understand what could possibly justify a program like this, especially given the cost, implications, and consequences of building one.

tptacek 13y ago

I wrote that comment before it became widely known that NSA's access to data center traffic had been laundered through other foreign intelligence services. My opinion of the activities themselves is unchanged (I am not militant about the FISA process, but have a real problem with extrajudicial surveillance), but I would now be surprised if those actions were formally disavowed by the administration; the narrative is too complex.