3 ms·
>I think they understand they are just pushing an alternate view of reality (and interpretation of surveillance, search and so on terms). The idea they run with
by rtpg 12y ago
>I think they understand they are just pushing an alternate view of reality (and interpretation of surveillance, search and so on terms). The idea they run with is unless a human looks at the data, it is not a search or seizure so Constitutional protections don't take effect.
I think there's also the fact that realising something is a phone number of an email account might not be considered a search, in the "expectation of privacy" sense.
If you send postal mail, you expect the contents not to be looked at by the mailman, but do you expect the fact that you sent a letter to be private?
Now, "common sense" might dictate otherwise, but Smith Vs. Maryland is the precedent, and the Courts don't think the fact that you're calling someone (and even who you're calling) to be private. So looking at whether its a phone number or email might also not be expected to be "private" information, even if the contents are.
>Maybe later you do something suspicious, like participate in some protest -- then you are labeled a terrorist, i.e. person of interest. They get a warrant even (to be legit and all) and do a search for everything you ever did online since, well forever.
That's not how evidence works. The gov't isn't authorised to collect everyone's info, so even if they have it on hand (a point the gov't disputes in this case), they don't necessarily have the write to use it.
One of the points of the gov't in the case is that the EFF is arguing that the filtering is a two step process : collect all data, then filter it. But the EFF doesn't know that's actually how things are happening, and it might not be. So the lawyers are actually refuting the plantiff's main line of reasoning.
This case is not about the core of the law, it's about implementation details. Ones that we do not know.
- mkal_tsr 12y ago> One of the points of the gov't in the case is that the EFF is arguing that the filtering is a two step process : collect all data, then filter it. But the EFF doesn't know that's actually how things are happening, and it might not be. So the lawyers are actually refuting the plantiff's main line of reasoning. EFF directly points to (multiple times) that the NSA had a specific redefinition of the word 'collect', did you miss it?
- talmand 12y ago> That's not how evidence works. Evidence? My concern isn't using said data for evidence if you are accused of a crime. My concern is the use of this data in a non-legal manner for purposes beyond my control. These uses range from mundane stupid crap all the way to the worst paranoia of the biggest conspiracy theorists. Doesn't matter at what level it is, any level beyond the current publicly available law that we have been allowed to know about is too far to me. Plus, all it takes is some national emergency for the government to give itself permission to waive that whole warrant thing. You know, to save us all from something.
- SnacksOnAPlane 12y ago> If you send postal mail, you expect the contents not to be looked at by the mailman, but do you expect the fact that you sent a letter to be private? But the contents of it are being copied and stored. That's the danger. They claim that because no human is looking at it, it's still OK, but of course a human could look at it in the future if you're suspected of something. So if you become a political activist or an enemy of someone with access to the data, they can get dirt on you. They can even manufacture dirt on you by taking things you say out of context.