5 ms·

Important Allies Join the Fight Against NSA Internet Backbone Surveillance

224 points by alexcasalboni 12y ago

niche 12y ago
Hooray for democracy! A self correcting system indeed. Even the NSA is capable of meaningful change.
bnejad 12y ago
"A federal court in San Francisco sided with the U.S. Department of Justice, ruling that the plaintiffs could not win a significant portion of the case—a Fourth Amendment challenge to the NSA’s tapping of the Internet backbone—without disclosure of classified information that would harm national security. In other words, Judge Jeffrey White found that “state secrets” can trump the judicial process and held that EFF’s clients could not prove they have standing." From the linked ruling in the article. This type of ruling is mind boggling - what a giant cop out that the government can just say "oh sorry national security!" to end court cases.
- mikegioia 12y ago
  It's unbelievable to me, too. It basically means the government can both violate the Constitution and absolve itself for the reason of "national security". To think how that would have gone over in the 18th century!
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Of course it can. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln...
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      Lincoln was president in the 19th century. Washington, Adams, etc, were the 18th century presidents. And my money is on Washington and Jefferson spinning in their graves every time "national security" is used to squash a court case.
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Eh, "national security" was basically the rationale for replacing the Articles of Confederation, so...
      - LLWM 12y ago
        I'm responding to the outrage over >It basically means the government can both violate the Constitution and absolve itself for the reason of "national security" Why does the century matter?
    - sp332 12y ago
      Both of those court cases said it can't.
      - LLWM 12y ago
        Both of those court cases didn't matter.
  - rfrank 12y ago
    Frustrating as well because supporters of the programs like to bring up how they've been challenged in court before so they're perfectly fine and legal. Well, not exactly...
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Who says the specific programs have been challenged in court? The argument is that they rest on principles that have been set forth in previous Supreme Court opinions. Look at the EFF's handy image: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg. Do you see the box labeled "filtering aimed at eliminating fully domestic transactions"? That's there because precedent says the 4th amendment does not protect things crossing the border. So the crux of the case is showing that the unconstitutional part happens in the first box--when the data is first copied. In my opinion, none of it is protected once it's on the backbone. If hundreds of AT&T or Verizon engineers can access a data stream, it's not "private." But I also think the question should be litigated in court.
      - spiralpolitik 12y ago
        The question already has been litigated in court. To monitor a domestic phone conversion (which prior to digital exchanges the switchboard operator could listen into) requires a warrant to capture. Same principle here. Just because something can be easily listened to doesn't mean the government doesn't need a warrant.
- btilly 12y ago
  Indeed the very first case that established this right for the government is seen by many as an example of the privilege being abused. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds for the story.
earldouglas 12y ago
There's a Reddit AMA about this happening right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_jaffer_of_the_aclu_wikipedia/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_...
- Red_ 12y ago
  HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326
nickysielicki 12y ago
> "It also said that the additional information needed was just too secret to serve as a basis for a court decision about whether the constitution has been violated. As a result, the District Court found that a “full and fair adjudication” of our clients' Fourth Amendment claims would require consideration of evidence covered by the state secrets privilege and would risk harm to national security." This is pathetic. This country is seriously fucked.
darkwingduck 12y ago
What happened to all of the accounts cheering EFF donations on? Someone steal your sweet-roll? As it turns out, skirmishes with the US Government using US Law aren't very successful. You can pretend you gain awareness that the laws are completely bent out of shape, but you must also become aware of the motivation and morale that was lost. Whatever we've won being aware that the law will not help in this case, we've lost in self-censorship and awareness that to truly stand against this system can very likely hurt your professional and personal well-being. Very little will be won by skirmishing with the redcoats in the open fields. This will be realized soon enough; why else would we have so many years of media invested in developing such a deep emotional connection with the word 'terrorism', which can now so broadly be applied. As always, the masses are a day late and a dollar short.
josefresco 12y ago
"As former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently put it, "[L]et me be really clear. NSA doesn't just listen to bad people. NSA listens to interesting people. People who are communicating information." Isn't this the correct approach? In a perfect world the NSA would only need to "listen" to criminals outside the US, but the world isn't perfect and adversaries don't play by the rules. Shouldn't this be a triumph of technology that can tell the difference between Johnny-High-Schooler researching the middle east, and a radicalized potential terrorist?
- bediger4000 12y ago
  Very good! Nice approach to the Poe's Law limit on detectable sarcasm.
- sp332 12y ago
  Actually, they're recording every cell phone call in Afghanistan and the Bahamas. Not just "interesting people".
- nullc 12y ago
  Yea, well they could stop a lot more terrorism if they just shot everyone in the head they suspected was a terrorist or interacted with anyone they suspected was a terrorist. Criminals don't play by the rules, you know.

224 points by alexcasalboni 12y ago

niche 12y ago

Hooray for democracy! A self correcting system indeed. Even the NSA is capable of meaningful change.

"A federal court in San Francisco sided with the U.S. Department of Justice, ruling that the plaintiffs could not win a significant portion of the case—a Fourth Amendment challenge to the NSA’s tapping of the Internet backbone—without disclosure of classified information that would harm national security. In other words, Judge Jeffrey White found that “state secrets” can trump the judicial process and held that EFF’s clients could not prove they have standing." From the linked ruling in the article. This type of ruling is mind boggling - what a giant cop out that the government can just say "oh sorry national security!" to end court cases.

mikegioia 12y ago
It's unbelievable to me, too. It basically means the government can both violate the Constitution and absolve itself for the reason of "national security". To think how that would have gone over in the 18th century!
- LLWM 12y ago
  Of course it can. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln-suspends-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus-during-the-civil-war http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-lincoln...
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    Lincoln was president in the 19th century. Washington, Adams, etc, were the 18th century presidents. And my money is on Washington and Jefferson spinning in their graves every time "national security" is used to squash a court case.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Eh, "national security" was basically the rationale for replacing the Articles of Confederation, so...
    - LLWM 12y ago
      I'm responding to the outrage over >It basically means the government can both violate the Constitution and absolve itself for the reason of "national security" Why does the century matter?
  - sp332 12y ago
    Both of those court cases said it can't.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      Both of those court cases didn't matter.
- rfrank 12y ago
  Frustrating as well because supporters of the programs like to bring up how they've been challenged in court before so they're perfectly fine and legal. Well, not exactly...
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Who says the specific programs have been challenged in court? The argument is that they rest on principles that have been set forth in previous Supreme Court opinions. Look at the EFF's handy image: https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg https://www.eff.org/files/2015/03/19/backbone-2015-color.jpg. Do you see the box labeled "filtering aimed at eliminating fully domestic transactions"? That's there because precedent says the 4th amendment does not protect things crossing the border. So the crux of the case is showing that the unconstitutional part happens in the first box--when the data is first copied. In my opinion, none of it is protected once it's on the backbone. If hundreds of AT&T or Verizon engineers can access a data stream, it's not "private." But I also think the question should be litigated in court.
    - spiralpolitik 12y ago
      The question already has been litigated in court. To monitor a domestic phone conversion (which prior to digital exchanges the switchboard operator could listen into) requires a warrant to capture. Same principle here. Just because something can be easily listened to doesn't mean the government doesn't need a warrant.
btilly 12y ago
Indeed the very first case that established this right for the government is seen by many as an example of the privilege being abused. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds for the story.

earldouglas 12y ago

There's a Reddit AMA about this happening right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_jaffer_of_the_aclu_wikipedia/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2zpkxx/we_are_jameel_...

Red_ 12y ago
HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9240326

nickysielicki 12y ago

> "It also said that the additional information needed was just too secret to serve as a basis for a court decision about whether the constitution has been violated. As a result, the District Court found that a “full and fair adjudication” of our clients' Fourth Amendment claims would require consideration of evidence covered by the state secrets privilege and would risk harm to national security." This is pathetic. This country is seriously fucked.

darkwingduck 12y ago

What happened to all of the accounts cheering EFF donations on? Someone steal your sweet-roll? As it turns out, skirmishes with the US Government using US Law aren't very successful. You can pretend you gain awareness that the laws are completely bent out of shape, but you must also become aware of the motivation and morale that was lost. Whatever we've won being aware that the law will not help in this case, we've lost in self-censorship and awareness that to truly stand against this system can very likely hurt your professional and personal well-being. Very little will be won by skirmishing with the redcoats in the open fields. This will be realized soon enough; why else would we have so many years of media invested in developing such a deep emotional connection with the word 'terrorism', which can now so broadly be applied. As always, the masses are a day late and a dollar short.

josefresco 12y ago

"As former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently put it, "[L]et me be really clear. NSA doesn't just listen to bad people. NSA listens to interesting people. People who are communicating information." Isn't this the correct approach? In a perfect world the NSA would only need to "listen" to criminals outside the US, but the world isn't perfect and adversaries don't play by the rules. Shouldn't this be a triumph of technology that can tell the difference between Johnny-High-Schooler researching the middle east, and a radicalized potential terrorist?

bediger4000 12y ago
Very good! Nice approach to the Poe's Law limit on detectable sarcasm.
sp332 12y ago
Actually, they're recording every cell phone call in Afghanistan and the Bahamas. Not just "interesting people".
nullc 12y ago
Yea, well they could stop a lot more terrorism if they just shot everyone in the head they suspected was a terrorist or interacted with anyone they suspected was a terrorist. Criminals don't play by the rules, you know.