3 ms·

Isn't the NSA breaking US law by hacking into a commercial entity's network?

by steffenfrost 12y ago

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Which is probably why GCHQ was the one doing the actual hacking. NSA just got a share in the prize.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  That seems to be the real value in the Five Eyes network. Each member can undertake surveillance of the domestic communications of the other members, thus absolving the own-state surveillance apparatus from claims of domestic spying. But the poisoned fruit may be (and appears to be) freely shared.
  - a3n 12y ago
    If I receive and use/sell stolen property, I've broken the law even if I didn't steal it. I would think if anyone could work their way through the "standing" restrictions, it could be shown in court that the NSA violated the Constitution by receiving "stolen" surveillance data. The reason why we have the 4th Amendment is not because the act of spying is feared (as egregious as that is), it's because of what the government might do with the results. So receiving the data violates at least the spirit of the constitution, and I would think the letter also.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Maybe. Seems to me that there's a bit of an issue with the general operating mode of an intelligence agency. I've said in the past that I wasn't generally overly concerned with stories such as the NSA's reported monitoring of German chancellor Angela Merkel -- which later reports suggest might _not_ have happened -- apparently they're not even totally up on which close national ally heads-of-state they're spying on. But keeping tabs on other countries -- even friendly ones -- yeah, that's part of the basic remit. But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way. At the same time, if a talent scout in North Whateveristan gets handed a sheaf of goatskins exfiltrated from the local TCP-over-parchment connectivity provider, the legality of that data's acquisition shouldn't be a hinderence. But if North Whateveristan happens to be a friend and we're concerned with that the goatskins reveal, then breaking that information to the government (or other friends in slow places) should be possible at some level. If there's a resolution by law in this, it's likely going to have to require explicit controls over how and when data of a given nation's nationals or residents is provided to that nation. And bars on mass transfers. Perhaps mandating them outside intelligence services through diplomatic channels? At least that'll give Wikileaks a sporting chance.
      - a3n 12y ago
        > But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way. That is exactly my point. And it's horrible, it's the government thuggishly wiping its ass with the Constitution. East Germany would have swooned in ecstasy at all the intelligence porn collected by the NSA.
_cudgel 12y ago
Laws only apply to people without power in the United States.
NSASPY 12y ago
The NSA is freely admitting to direct domestic mass surveillance at its website which details the extent of the domestic spying, the search, seizure, and indefinite storage of ALL citizen electronic data. The fact that there is no discussion or disagreement of this in the US media and amoung US Citizens is tacit approval given the transparency shown by the NSA Domestic Surveillance Website: http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  You are aware that you are getting your information from a parody site, right?

Isn't the NSA breaking US law by hacking into a commercial entity's network?

SoftwareMaven 12y ago

Which is probably why GCHQ was the one doing the actual hacking. NSA just got a share in the prize.

dredmorbius 12y ago
That seems to be the real value in the Five Eyes network. Each member can undertake surveillance of the domestic communications of the other members, thus absolving the own-state surveillance apparatus from claims of domestic spying. But the poisoned fruit may be (and appears to be) freely shared.
- a3n 12y ago
  If I receive and use/sell stolen property, I've broken the law even if I didn't steal it. I would think if anyone could work their way through the "standing" restrictions, it could be shown in court that the NSA violated the Constitution by receiving "stolen" surveillance data. The reason why we have the 4th Amendment is not because the act of spying is feared (as egregious as that is), it's because of what the government might do with the results. So receiving the data violates at least the spirit of the constitution, and I would think the letter also.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Maybe. Seems to me that there's a bit of an issue with the general operating mode of an intelligence agency. I've said in the past that I wasn't generally overly concerned with stories such as the NSA's reported monitoring of German chancellor Angela Merkel -- which later reports suggest might _not_ have happened -- apparently they're not even totally up on which close national ally heads-of-state they're spying on. But keeping tabs on other countries -- even friendly ones -- yeah, that's part of the basic remit. But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way. At the same time, if a talent scout in North Whateveristan gets handed a sheaf of goatskins exfiltrated from the local TCP-over-parchment connectivity provider, the legality of that data's acquisition shouldn't be a hinderence. But if North Whateveristan happens to be a friend and we're concerned with that the goatskins reveal, then breaking that information to the government (or other friends in slow places) should be possible at some level. If there's a resolution by law in this, it's likely going to have to require explicit controls over how and when data of a given nation's nationals or residents is provided to that nation. And bars on mass transfers. Perhaps mandating them outside intelligence services through diplomatic channels? At least that'll give Wikileaks a sporting chance.
    - a3n 12y ago
      > But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way. That is exactly my point. And it's horrible, it's the government thuggishly wiping its ass with the Constitution. East Germany would have swooned in ecstasy at all the intelligence porn collected by the NSA.

_cudgel 12y ago

Laws only apply to people without power in the United States.

NSASPY 12y ago

The NSA is freely admitting to direct domestic mass surveillance at its website which details the extent of the domestic spying, the search, seizure, and indefinite storage of ALL citizen electronic data. The fact that there is no discussion or disagreement of this in the US media and amoung US Citizens is tacit approval given the transparency shown by the NSA Domestic Surveillance Website: http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/ http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/

lern_too_spel 12y ago
You are aware that you are getting your information from a parody site, right?