7 ms·

So, "collect it all" ... unless you're in court, in which case it's okay to delete key evidence because it's "hard" to keep evidence? Snark aside, this part ma

by sigil 12y ago

So, "collect it all" ... unless you're in court, in which case it's okay to delete key evidence because it's "hard" to keep evidence? Snark aside, this part made me curious: the NSA may have to shut down all systems and databases that contain Section 702 information in order to preserve [it] Is this really just a technical problem: a system design that failed to anticipate how legal proceedings would / could interact with the minimization feature? (Of course, they probably never expected the former.)

jjoonathan 12y ago
> Snark aside Is it really snark? Cops pull the "missing evidence" stunt all the time and get away with it, why should we expect different from the NSA (now that they're playing at being a law enforcement agency)? > Is this really just a technical problem I wouldn't go so far as to say this happened by design, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Opportunistic evil is still evil, and this opportunity dangles the temptation of opportunistic evil in front of a group of people that don't exactly have a sterling track record of self-restraint in such matters. EDIT (re:downvoters): I realize that the court order has more to do with the ongoing court case than ongoing retention policy. That doesn't make ongoing retention policy irrelevant.
biot 12y ago
It's a bit like the government using a whiteboard to track terrorists and the court has asked them to preserve what's on the whiteboard. The government considers this too burdensome because if they can't erase the whiteboard they have to stop all tracking of terrorists. Unfortunately, scientists are still working on the ability to copy information. Perhaps some day they'll crack it.
ccrush 12y ago
Doesn't it make sense that the court tell the government to not only shut down the service to retrieve the data, but also keep it offline until they have made modifications to allow the court to inspect it? It would only be reasonable that such programs be, at a minimum, prepared for court oversight. If preservation of evidence cannot be guaranteed then the program should not be used to enforce the law. I find it particularly troubling that this system was not only never envisioned to be used to pursue a warrant from the courts, but also designed to make it impossible to do so by making the act of proving the legality of the evidence collected by making a chain-of-custody analysis deliberately conflict with national security interests. I believe this is clearly analogous to a defensive weapon which is designed to kill enemies of the country, but although it regularly also kills civilians the government refuses to allow it to be inspected (and potentially fixed) using the excuse that turning it off would harm even more civilians. I unequivocally support the defence and enforcement of our national security, political and economic interests. However, I find it entirely unreasonable to sacrifice the freedoms from which our nation sprung, political and economic systems included, in order to preserve it.

by sigil 12y ago

jjoonathan 12y ago

> Snark aside Is it really snark? Cops pull the "missing evidence" stunt all the time and get away with it, why should we expect different from the NSA (now that they're playing at being a law enforcement agency)? > Is this really just a technical problem I wouldn't go so far as to say this happened by design, but at the end of the day does it really matter? Opportunistic evil is still evil, and this opportunity dangles the temptation of opportunistic evil in front of a group of people that don't exactly have a sterling track record of self-restraint in such matters. EDIT (re:downvoters): I realize that the court order has more to do with the ongoing court case than ongoing retention policy. That doesn't make ongoing retention policy irrelevant.

biot 12y ago

It's a bit like the government using a whiteboard to track terrorists and the court has asked them to preserve what's on the whiteboard. The government considers this too burdensome because if they can't erase the whiteboard they have to stop all tracking of terrorists. Unfortunately, scientists are still working on the ability to copy information. Perhaps some day they'll crack it.

ccrush 12y ago

Doesn't it make sense that the court tell the government to not only shut down the service to retrieve the data, but also keep it offline until they have made modifications to allow the court to inspect it? It would only be reasonable that such programs be, at a minimum, prepared for court oversight. If preservation of evidence cannot be guaranteed then the program should not be used to enforce the law. I find it particularly troubling that this system was not only never envisioned to be used to pursue a warrant from the courts, but also designed to make it impossible to do so by making the act of proving the legality of the evidence collected by making a chain-of-custody analysis deliberately conflict with national security interests. I believe this is clearly analogous to a defensive weapon which is designed to kill enemies of the country, but although it regularly also kills civilians the government refuses to allow it to be inspected (and potentially fixed) using the excuse that turning it off would harm even more civilians. I unequivocally support the defence and enforcement of our national security, political and economic interests. However, I find it entirely unreasonable to sacrifice the freedoms from which our nation sprung, political and economic systems included, in order to preserve it.