NSA's Legal Win Introduces a Lot of Online Insecurity 239
Nerval's Lobster writes "The decision of a New York judge that the wholesale collection of cell-phone metadata by the National Security Agency is constitutional ties the score between pro- and anti-NSA forces at one victory apiece. The contradictory decisions use similar reasoning and criteria to come to opposite conclusions, leaving both individuals and corporations uncertain of whether their phone calls, online activity or even data stored in the cloud will ultimately be shielded by U.S. laws protecting property, privacy or search and seizure by law-enforcement agencies. On Dec. 27, Judge William H. Pauley threw out a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that sought to stop the NSA PRISM cell-phone metadata-collection program on the grounds it violated Fourth Amendment provisions protecting individual privacy and limits on search and seizure of personal property by the federal government. Pauley threw out the lawsuit largely due to his conclusion that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to records held by third parties. That eliminates the criteria for most legal challenges, but throws into question the privacy of any data held by phone companies, cloud providers or external hosting companies – all of which could qualify as unprotected third parties."
The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
You are right. But the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home, thus giving it the strongest possible U.S. 4th ammendment 'papers' protection.
http://cloudsession.com/dawg/downloads/misc/kag-draft-2k121024.pdf [cloudsession.com]
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/ [arstechnica.com]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/google-fiber-continues-awful-isp-tradition-banning-servers [eff.org]
http://crossies.com/pissed.html [crossies.com]
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/google-fiber-now-explicitly-permits-home-servers/ [arstechnica.com]
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/01/198327/googles-call-for-open-internet.html [mcclatchydc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP that I have at home permits me to run servers from my connection. I suggest you either change ISP or put pressure on them to change their policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Many ISPs will let you host servers. For example if you are a Cablevision Ultra 50 subscriber you are good to go.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the problem is that the ISPs will not allow you to use the internet properly (e.g. hosting your own data on your own server at home
That's a pile of bullshit. ISP's don't give a shit about private servers on home service connections, and most don't even care if they're public as long as it's not a "business grade" server.
And even if they do, that's for residential "buffet style" internet access, every ISP in the country will happily sell you a business account where you can run servers 24/7.
And what are the price differentials the residential user sees if they purchase that "business grade" service? What if the only feature of the business grade service they were interested in was not having their home server's traffic discriminated against? (i.e. not needing more 9s of uptime or any other part of the 'business grade' service). The answer is an absolutely ridiculous premium in price, often by a factor of well over 100%. This is a convenient way for the established internet giants to preven
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA.
Just about everyone in the US, unless you believe that freedom and the constitution don't matter. You also can't disregard future abuses, and as history shows, they're inevitable. You people who believe the people in the government are perfect beings are so disgustingly naive that I'm not sure how you even exist.
Re: (Score:3)
As for concrete examples of how information can be abused, consider the Cannibal Cop. No, he wasn't from the NSA, but he did use a much less extensive Federal database to stalk women he planned to kill and eat (imagine what he could have done with NSA access). Being killed and eaten is an objectively negative consequence, as is being staked for such a dinner date. Secondly, his interest in killing and eating these women had nothing to do with how innocent they were of anything.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/ [cnn.com]
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is more important than safety. Remember how this is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? No? Then perhaps you're too trusting of the government.
History also shows that invasions, terrorism, and spying against our country are inevitable.
Such is life. In order to be free, we have to take some risks. That's what happens when you're free.
I'll take those risks over your police/surveillance state any day.
The constitution's meaning isn't determined by what is in your head.
No, it's determined by the constitution. Try reading it sometime, and while doing so, try to avoid letting government propaganda destroy your ability to interpret it properly.
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Informative)
Freedom is more important than safety. Remember how this is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? No? Then perhaps you're too trusting of the government.
Or maybe you simply ignore parts of the Constitution that aren't your favorite. If you bother to read the constitution, you see entire sections devoted to the question of providing for the security of the United States. If fact you could make the very reasonable argument that freedom of the individual citizens was assumed and it was security, national defense, that had to be explicitly provided for. Many of the specific guarantees regarding various freedoms are not in the text of the main document itself, but are "add ons" in amendments. The main text of the document, the Constitution, is concerned with explicitly describing authority related to providing national defense and powers of the Federal government.
The simple fact is that various aspects of security and freedom are tied together. A nation that is conquered by a foreign invader will not be free. A nation that has a breakaway region faces enormous questions as to its fate. If lawlessness in your city is such that you have reasonable fear for your life or limb by leaving the building where you live, what true freedom do you have? If pirates are taking your citizens as slaves [city-journal.org], you are failing to protect their freedom, and yet it isn't clear you would be troubled by that since ".... we have to take some risks. That's what happens when you're free." Would you protect the freedoms of American citizens, either protecting or freeing them from pirates? I have no confidence in that.
On the whole I find your argument "freedom is more important than safety" to be ill considered, at best, since most people I see making that claim here tend to resolve it towards the direction of "therefore we cannot tolerate steps taken to provide for security, at all," even if not explicitly stated.
Benjamin Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." I think if we look closely at the arguments of those who claim we must only have freedom, and any steps towards security are too many, that they are in effect saying, "Hang the lot of you, but stay away from me." If there was a guarantee that they would be a "canary in the coal mine," the first to be hung to give the rest ample warning, it might be worth considering. But there is no such guarantee, so we must provide for both.
The Constitution of the United States [archives.gov]
Article. I.
Section. 8.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ....
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Pri
Re: (Score:3)
It does? Can you show me the line that says the government can pass any law and it is constitutional, or even the part that says the Supreme Court gets to decide?
No? I didn't think so because the Constitution doesn't say it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's paradoxical. How could something that's blatantly unconstitutional only be constitutional whenever the Supreme Court feels like getting around to it? We do such things because it's the 'best' way we knew of, not because the Supreme Court is automatically right or everything is automatically constitutional. The Supreme Court has even overruled itself in the past. In reality, when people say that something is unconstitutional, they're saying that it violates the constitution. You can try as much hairsp
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
A constitution by its very definition expresses what the government can do and what the people cannot do. Any legislation that is passed either gives the government powers or restricts the people from doing something. The government is only allowed to do what the laws say it can do. The people can do anything they want that is not explicitly against the law. To protect the people from 1 or 2 branches of the government from getting out of control the Judicial Branch was given absolute authority over all laws.
The Constitution was designed to explicitly state what the federal government could do. It left everything else to the states and the people, with the exceptions that there were certain things that even the states could not overrule, namely, those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Within those constraints, the government should have no additional powers without an amendment. Collecting all data is an expansion.
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Informative)
anything NOT in the CONSTITUTION is up to the STATES, NOT the federal government. Perhaps you should try reading it again. I recommend you start with the 10th amendment to clear up your ill informed understanding of the constitution
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither
No where in the constitution does it say that it is governments job to keep me safe, it is my job to keep me safe, it is the governments job to ensure my freedoms and liberties are preserved not to infringe upon freedoms themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Boston bombing? You mean the two brothers who packed two pressure cookers with fireworks?
I can't see how any amount of surveillance could have called them out as an imminent threat. NSA is concerned with threats that will kill thousands of people, not a couple of punks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Boston bombing? You mean the two brothers who packed two pressure cookers with fireworks?
I can't see how any amount of surveillance could have called them out as an imminent threat.
They were explicitly told about the brothers, and they decided to not follow up on the investigation. They're not interested in terrorism. They're interested in political machinations. The Feds including the IRS are focusing all attention on guiding elections now.
Re: (Score:2)
They were explicitly told about the brothers, and they decided to not follow up on the investigation.
They dropped the ball, period.
They're not interested in terrorism. They're interested in political machinations.
Please provide evidence that the NSA and FBI are involved in that.
The Feds including the IRS are focusing all attention on guiding elections now.
The IRS needs to be roasted by Congress and reformed. There is no evidence that the FBI and NSA joined in that I know of. I'd love to see it if you know of any.
The IRS Scandal, Day 232 [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:3)
History namely the Boston bombing also show that the government surveillance is utterly useless when applied to terrorism even when it is given plenty of warning by other nations. So if said surveillance is ineffectual against terrorism why is it still need.
A single failure by government invalidates an entire approach? Should we close the Post Office for missed deliveries? If your passport is delivered late to you, shutter the State Department? NASA blew up some rockets as part of the space program, should they have stopped on the first failure? The Union Army lost a lot of battles at the start of the Civil War, should the US have just let the Southern states go, as well as let them keep their "peculiar institution" of slavery?
what is it useful for? creating a police state.
Do you have any evidence that
Re: The insecurity right now (Score:4, Informative)
The only people with horrible logic are those that support this type of surveillance. They also have an awful grasp of history and are disgustingly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, look. An NSA shill posting AC on Slashdot. Didn't see that coming!
Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA.
Besides everyone that has the constitutional right to not be searched without probably cause and warrant? How about the companies that were being spied on for economic purposes? Were they big winners from that? No? How strange.
How about the big tech companies (such as anyone in cloud computing or cryptography) that took a major hit as a result of the leaks? You think they are happy that they are losing money now that people know how insecure these systems really are? How about Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. that are suffering the same backlash on top of needing to invest a lot more resources to fix holes that the NSA was exploiting? What about RSA?
How about Lavabit and Silent Circle [usatoday.com]? These are just two examples of businesses that were dismantled because of legal pressure. They are completely legal businesses.
How about anyone that isn't actually doing anything wrong, but our government decides to harass/blackmail/defame anyways? We know that the NSA will find your porn [huffingtonpost.com] and be more than happy to tell everyone about it. Blackmail is NOT OK [washingtonsblog.com]!
We also know that the NSA has been writing and distributing malware [forbes.com]. How about TorMail or any other (legitimate) service provided by Freedom Hosting? We know that the FBI confiscated the servers, but the NSA helped with installing malware on any connection and siphoning data regardless of whether or not the user was attempting to access a legal service or not. Hell, we even know that the NSA took part in hacking consumer Tor nodes to initiate a MITM attack in the hope that they might be able to track someone unrelated.
I think I've made my point. I could keep going, if I had to. There is a hell of a lot of people being wronged by this program, but lets turn your own game on you.
Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA.
It's your turn. Name a single person or incident that has been stopped, hindered, or investigated in relation to terrorism from the NSA's programs. Trick question, we already know that there isn't any [falkvinge.net] These programs have nothing to do with terrorism, so get your head out of your ass and stop pretending that it's OK for the government to infringe on our rights for their own personal gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:5, Insightful)
let's not forget that the NSA's charter explicitly prohibits them from spying on Americans, which they've admittedly done with this program (including American to American communications, which are not exempted by the Patriot act).
My understanding is this program has been invaluable to the FBI for getting warrantless information on suspected drug offenders or dealers (where they typically have to request a warrant), but I've heard nothing about it stopping terrorism in any way.
Re:The insecurity right now (Score:4, Informative)
Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA. NSA is not the threat, it's the maniacs that for example leave bombs at public sport events or goes shooting at a school.
I'm sure that, back in the 1700s, if you'd complained to a Loyalist about how a British soldier could just choose to search an American colonist's house on a whim - they'd have given you a similar answer. Which, by the way, was one of the reasons the Founding Fathers thought the Fourth Amendment was necessary...
But it's also funny how, in trying to defend the NSA, you chose to use examples where it's obvious they completely failed - despite having these overarching broad powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA. NSA is not the threat,
I am a scientist. That is an unevidenced claim. Prove it. Ah, but the mathematics of information disparity show that you can not prove a secret agency is working in the public benefit. Prove the NSA is not still doing COINTELPRO. [wikipedia.org]
These secret organizations are known to do evil. COINTELPRO seeks to control the socio-political space by discrediting or silencing "radicals" like civil rights and anti-war activists. Martin Luther King was considered "radical". The privacy rights activists (those advocating
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i suppose being the girl/boyfriend of a terrorist does make you a valid target.
Being the girl/boyfriend of a NSA Employee does not make you a valid target.
How about that rented storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the fourth doesn't apply to records held by third parties... what if your records are in a rented storage unit or a bank safety deposit box? If your property is held by a third party (your money in the bank), do constitutional protections against the government just seizing your money also not apply?
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, worse, what about people who rent rather than own? If you live in an apartment owned by someone else, do you have any rights???
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the fourth amendment ownership of the building is irrelevant. The Fourth protects your person, papers, house, and effects. If you have a legal right to store papers you own in a place then they have the same Constitutional protections regardless of who actually owns the building. If you don't have a legal right to store them there -- maybe you leave the book where you record your illegal bets in some guys house and he finds it -- then the owner can rat your ass out and you get no Fourth Amendment protections. OTOH if the owner chooses not to rat you out the police need a warrant to search his house before they can get the book.
The debate in this case is who actually owns these records. The government is arguing that since these records are not used by you, but are generated by a private company as part of it's business, they aren't actually your records. Just as the government doesn't need a warrant to read who has a tab at the local bar it doesn't need a warrant to read the data on who you called last week.
Privacy advocates are arguing otherwise. The fact you think your records are yours is extremely important, and the NSA snooping has to stop.
In legal terms the simple fact is that the only judges who matter are not likely to side with privacy advocates, because two of them are Obama appointees unlikely to argue his attempt to get the program covered by getting the FISA Court to issue warrants was evil Fascism, a third (Roberts) appointed the FISA guys who issued said warrants, and four more are aligned with the guys who thought that we didn't warrants in the first place. Five votes to overturn the NSA will be tricky.
Re: (Score:3)
That was really explanatory, indeed. One idea that came to my mind: how about medical records? Medical records are used by doctors not by you*, they are kept at hospitals and they are still protected by 4th Amendment. Do you think that this brings sufficient analogy to telephone metadata? Or is it maybe that medical records are protected by some law and not by the constitution?
* In some cases they may be used by the patient, but that can be said for phone listings and related metadata as well.
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not the best person to ask about that, because there's extra regulations involved. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) lots of patient information is protected from disclosure. Disclosing it wrongly can get medical professionals in deep trouble (including putting their licenses in jeopardy), but they are supposed to turn info over "when legally required." More important then the legal niceties, almost no healthcare professional will turn over a patient record without first being informed by his lawyer that, yes, under HIPAA he is supposed to turn over said record. In writing. Two copies. Of actual writing, with an actual signature (ie: not a print-out). One for his home files which he knows nobody will mess with, and one for work, where he may have to use it.
Keep in mind there's supposed to be a cost/benefit analysis to all governmental data collection. If the benefits outweigh the costs the search is reasonable, and thus allowed. The benefit to the government (and thus the society that created the government) of knowing the numbers every drug dealer is dialing is very high. It helps cops do their jobs and lock up very destructive people, so it's easy to calculate in dollar terms. The cost in privacy rights is impossible to calculate in dollar terms, and therefore $0.00 in most court-rooms. With medical data the cost/benefit is much different. There is no benefit to law enforcement knowing every person on anti-depressants, and the cost to those people if there's a data breach would be high. Careers could be ruined.
Prior to HIPAA the only example of a Fourth Amendment compliant mass database of medical info I can think of was a listing of everyone with a valid painkiller prescription in New York State. The people on the list benefited because they didn't have to be hassled by the cops, and society as a whole benefited because the cops were able to do their job of stopping prescription drug abuse more effectively. But I have no idea if they still do this since HIPAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not have housing associations? Where you "own", but you own a share in the association which grants you the right to live in the property that your share corresponds to.
Likewise, do you not have leasehold ownership, rather than freehold ownership? In the UK, almost everything that's "owned" is leasehold. (You own the building and the right to live there, but not the land its on.)
Do you also not have enough soft recycled wood pulp to use as toilet paper? Otherwise, w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The constitution can only cover so much in modern times."
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I don't see this as a deficiency in the Constitution. The Constitution says that people shall be secure in their "papers, and effects". Courts have for the most part ruled that modern communications are equivalent to "papers and effects". Some exceptions were made later (like the "3rd party" rule this judge used), but those exceptions are pretty clearly obsolete today.
What is really important is the "expectation of privacy" that people have with their communications. They expect cell phone calls to be private. (And I would argue that they also expect their phone call "metadata" to be private too.) They expect emails to be private (or should).
Courts are supposed to use the "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" principle: what would a reasonable person do, or expect? Using that standard, I think it is pretty darned clear that the vast majority of people DO have an expectation of privacy. And if most people expect it, it is by definition "reasonable".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:4)
MOST people haven't actually thought about it. All you have to do is ask a few questions, and you'll discover that 100% of the people you know have an expectation of privacy regarding their metadata.
Ask them if it's ok for any random person to query the phone company database and get a list of who they called last week. I guarantee you not a single one of them will think it's ok. Now ask them if it's ok for Abercrombie and Fitch to query the phone company database and get a list of who they called last week. I can't guarantee you won't find a single taker for that, but I bet your positive response rate is tiny. Now pull a dirty trick used by pollsters everywhere, and, having asked those two questions, ask them if it's ok for some random deputy to sheriff to query the phone company database without a warrant and get a list of who they called last week. Want to bet the response is overwhelmingly negative?
Alternatively, ask if they expect the phone company calling record database to have a password on it. Want to bet every single one of them says yes?
Really though, all that needs to be done to get people to actually think about the subject for one second is to ask the first question. Get people to acknowledge that they don't want Joe the Plumber looking up their calling record any time he wants and then remind them that that's privacy. You can also ask the same series of questions about email headers
Somebody should ask that assinine judge that question. On camera.
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:4, Informative)
Clue #1 that you're Sheeple:
You think the US Constitution has anything to do with protecting freedom.
The US Constitution was created to allow the middle class of early America to get rich. Many of the activities they wanted to do were pro-freedom. Advancing technology, creating railroads, etc. are good things. But others were the exact opposite. In particular protecting slavery and stealing land from Native Americans were two of the top agenda items for the young United States.
The goal was to allow enough freedom to this very specific WASP class so that they could get rich without worrying about the government, but not so much freedom that the British, nasty abolitionists, or Natives who liked living East of the Mississippi could arrange effective resistance to their get-rich-quick schemes. In this particular case there's no way in hell that the Founders intended Quakers to have the ability to organize peaceful resistance to slavery among slaves, which is why nobody batted an eye when the Federal Post Office started reading everyone's mail and arresting anyone who dared send anti-slavery info. to the South despite the fact this seems to violate both the First and the Fourth Amendments.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, you are a complete moron.
The US constitution was for one purpose and that was to create a union of 13 different countries (which the colonies became after independence from England and why outside the US state means country) without imposing on them outside the impacts of presenting a unified front for foreign affairs, settling disputes between the states, and providing very basic services like post office and roads, regulating interstate commerce and the such. It is all there outlined in the constitut
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are a complete moron.
The US constitution was for one purpose and that was to create a union of 13 different countries (which the colonies became after independence from England and why outside the US state means country) without imposing on them outside the impacts of presenting a unified front for foreign affairs, settling disputes between the states, and providing very basic services like post office and roads, regulating interstate commerce and the such. It is all there outlined in the constitution- you can read it and it will back this up. It says nothing about what you try to claim.
I guess you're a complete moron, too, because you just agreed with me.
I wasn't saying the Constitution didn't do that stuff. I was saying that the point of the Constitution is not to protect freedom. Most of the things you mention reduce freedom by small but measurable amounts by forcing state governments to obey the Feds, despite the fact that states are closer to their people the Feds are.
And you'll note that all the things you mention helped America's WASP Middle Class conquer Indian territory (with an A
Re: (Score:2)
Just outside the US, to the south, you'll find the United Mexican States.
Time for a classic:
The United Nations initiated a poll with the request, "Please tell us your honest opinion about the lack of food in the rest of the world." The poll was a total failure. The Russians did not understand "Please". The Italians did not know the word "honest". The Chinese did not know what an "opinion" was. The Europeans did not know "lack", while the Africans did not know "food". F
Re: (Score:2)
What in the hell are you talking about. None of the colonies were forced to sign anything and if they were, they would just rebel against them like they did the king of england. There was no USA before then, the armies used to fight in the revolutionary war was the product of the states and took little direction from the continental congress. The articles of confederation were completely voluntary too. When it was seen that those weren't strong enough to protect each state's interest in them selves, the con
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, are you even talking about the USA? Those what? and where was what was said wrong or incomplete?
And be specific enough to use complete sentences this time and communicate a complete thought instead of vague referrals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:4, Interesting)
I will admit that the language is a wee bit strong, but I really fucking hate it when assholes who've done 10 whole minutes of research on the internet refer to almost everyone else as Sheeple.
It's not as revisionist as you think. The Constitution is clearly intended to head off the slavery debate. Technically it was legal almost everywhere, but the Northern states were starting to abolish it and Southerners were worried a strong Federal government would impose freedom on their unwilling states. So they said flat-out exactly what was to be done about slavery, and everybody went along with that consensus for a few decades.
As for the Indians, keep in mind that under the Articles of Confederation we hadn't been able to take control of the Northwest territories. We had no Army and the states were so busy arguing over who would get the land when we finally divided it up that nobody was able to make an Army. In 1789 we passed the Constitution. In 1790 we sent the first expedition into the Territory, and it was crushed. The same thing happened a year later. Then in 1792 Mad Anthony Wayne took command. As a result of the war the Indian population of Ohio was virtually eliminated.
BTW, on the prices we paid for Indian land, most Indian tribes did not have governments in the sense that we have a government. They didn't have an elaborate legal system, with elected Sheriffs, and County Jails, to enforce the will of some central body. It was not uncommon for the US to declare some random, easily bribeable dude "Chief," give him a lifetime supply of beer (plus just enough axes and other equipment to make him important in the community) and then send in the Army to shoot anyone who insisted on not being cheated.
The phone company is not a third party. (Score:3)
What I want to know is, why the phone company is considered a third party at all? As I understand it a legal third party is a party uninvolved in the transaction. If I give you $10 and Bob happens to walk by, Bob is a third party. However, if I give $10 to Bob to give to you he is now an intermediary, not a third party. By the same reasoning the phone company is an intermediary in our telephone conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not - they are on good terms with GCHQ, who will have explained to them that the trick is to use this data to find out what they CAN use against you.
Re:How about that rented storage? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, we know they have used this information against Americans in American courts. We had a big story about it a while ago when the feds would call up a state agency and say X is going to happen at Y or something similar, you need to find a way of making it legit and capture them.
I think it was called creating a parallel construction where they know you have drugs in your car or something but pull you over for doing 1mph over the speed limit and search your car because "you were acting suspicious".
http://slashdot.org/story/13/08/05/168205/dea-program-more-troubling-than-nsa [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you missed the stories about how local law enforcement departments are getting tip-offs from undisclosed sources (the NSA), which are then used to conduct "random" stops which result in finding evidence.
Can't rely on the law then (Score:5, Informative)
The Right To Serve (Score:3)
Obviously, if you don't want the NSA to read your data, make sure they can't read them. Make sure your data is not stored outside your control by someone who could at least in theory read it (like Lavabit). Make sure the data is not stored in the USA at all if you can avoid it.
Unfortunately there are large hypocritical corporations as well as governments colluding to prevent people from being more in control of their data by hosting it on residential servers.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/ [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the USA won't help much.
Very few countries have the Constitutional protections we have, and no country that's managed to survive actually does everything privacy advocates want. If you tell everyone they're being investigated so they can do something about the investigation you are (by definition) telling 100% of the criminals you could have caught exactly when they should start destroying evidence. Some of them have official rules saying you should be notified afterwards, but I've seen no evidence
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Can't rely on the law then (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a casual observer can figure out that SCOTUS has been ignoring the Constitution.
Well then, it's a good thing we have "casual observers" to tell us what is and isn't constitutional. Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated. Any opinion is as good as any other.
Everything that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, and Hitler did to their respective peoples was "legal".
Appeal to authority fails.
The founders placed the ultimate responsibility for determining the constitutionality of laws/acts and other actions/policies of the government in the hands of the people.
The US is in a state of "cold" civil war, with the Federal government on one side, and the people on the other. It hasn't gotten to the point of open warfare...yet. However, given the unconstitutional and author
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers and judges are clearly overrated.
You slobbered a bibfull that time, kid.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they've been way more wrong (cough, Dred Scott, cough), but at least that was a clear and open wrongness (in that case, some of the most racist frothing I've ever read someone in a state of power utter), rather than a corrupt ulterior one.
The internet cannot be made "useful" and "secure". (Score:2)
The way to deal with exposure is not to use insecure communications for information which must be kept secure.
There will be much thrashing as users attempt to get secure outcomes because people are hard-headed.
Water is wet and the Sun rises in the East.
All NSA-related judgements should be suspended (Score:5, Interesting)
Due to the scale of NSA data collection, it is safe to assume that the NSA has data about every single US judge.
The data NSA has may render the judges unable to render impartial judgement.
A bi-partisan political review of all NSA data about every US judge should be conducted to verify that the judges are in the position to do their jobs.
By now the entire US legal system might be corrupted by the virtually unlimited NSA data collection.
Re: (Score:2)
And the internet has just jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't like the courts decision so they must be being blackmailed by the NSA? This kind of reasoning has made the truth inconsequential in todays society. Anything that validates your particular viewpoint automatically becomes true and every thing else is a conspiracy and patently untrue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that surveillance and monitoring of the judges are FACTS. While your "conspiracy theories" are not.
Such facts do indeed have consequences of the legality and morality of such judges' decisions, REGARDLESS wether such records have been used or not.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are now saying that you have proof that the NSA is actively spying on judges in order to collect information so they can pressure the judge to make a particular ruling?
Re: (Score:2)
True, however who is to say that being a judge these days isn't like being a politician, corporate owned before being allowed on the ballot.
Federal judge isn't an elected position. You've got that all wrong.
goberment
That word and "sheeple" are usually argument "winners" all by themselves.
With the knee jerk actions in mind it is conceivable that they are moving towards depopulation, or population control.
No, "Infowars" hysteria aside.
Impartiality (Score:3)
Aren't judges supposed to be impartial adjudicators? This judges statements read like an NSA PR release touting all of the "wonders" of the NSA program without providing any evidence or noting any of the drawbacks.
Re:Impartiality (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody believes that since the Republican-majority Supreme Court handed the election over to the Republican candidate in Bush vs. Gore.
I don't even think the idealistic lawyers believe that. They've had too much experience with the courts.
It's like the Greek philosopher Thrasymacus said: law is the interest of the strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody believes that since the Republican-majority Supreme Court handed the election over to the Republican candidate in Bush vs. Gore.
So that's what really did it for you? That's when you started doubting the system, when the Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that you can't keep changing the rules of an election after the voting until the other guy wins?
Scalia on Bush v Gore: ‘Get Over It’ [outsidethebeltway.com]
Re:Impartiality (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody believes that since the Republican-majority Supreme Court handed the election over to the Republican candidate in Bush vs. Gore.
So that's what really did it for you? That's when you started doubting the system, when the Supreme Court upheld the legal principle that you can't keep changing the rules of an election after the voting until the other guy wins?
Scalia on Bush v Gore: ‘Get Over It’ [outsidethebeltway.com]
Starting in the 1970s, I worked as a paralegal in some law firms on a different cases, including a few important pro bono stuff. [Long legal experience omitted] There was a big debate at the time about whether the law was just enforcing the privilege of the rich, or whether it actually promoted justice. At one point, they had me convinced that there was some justice in the system, after we won some abortion cases and forced some cities and states to provide housing for the homeless, as they were required to do in their constitutions (which they had ignored). The civil rights laws finally helped negroes fight for right to vote in the South without getting killed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers'_murders [wikipedia.org] as often, and finally gave broad protection to black people and women as well.
So the optimists had me convinced. The law could sometimes, imperfectly, provide justice. American corporate capitalism seemed to be doing pretty good too -- good pay, secure jobs.
Then came Ronald Reagan. The gentleman's agreement up to then in Congress was that each president would choose a distinguished legal scholar and jurist who was impartial and respected by all sides. Reagan openly announced that he would be appointing justices that would give conservatives the results they wanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Supreme_Court_candidates [wikipedia.org] He deliberately chose young justices (rather than the customary older, experienced justices) to end the normal rotation in the Court. I followed this on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and they were open about what they were trying to do -- which was pack the court. And yes, Scalia was one of the nastiest bullies of all, just making decisions based on his own opinion and coming up with excuses to ignore the law. Since then it's gotten worse.
There were many opinions of the Supreme Court that I didn't like, but I never expected to see something like Bush vs. Gore. The law in Florida was that votes were to be counted according to the intent of the voter. In order to believe that the voters intended to vote for Bush, you'd have to believe that 3,400 Jewish voters intentionally voted for Pat Bucanan, a prominent critic of Israel, instead of Gore and Lieberman. Even Bucanan didn't believe that. The 5 Republican justices ignored Florida law, and the facts, to hand the election to Bush. Since then they've been voting the Republican party line, which has moved far to the right.
So I had to admit that the Marxist cynics were right. The law enforces the privileges of the powerful. No money, no justice.
In Soviet Russia ... (Score:5, Insightful)
During the cold war, we heard stories about how the Communist governments monitor their citizens.
Now our government is monitoring us in ways that the East Germans would envy.
Here's something useful you can do:
-- Find out how your Congressman and Senators voted on these policies.
-- Add it to their Wikipedia page.
-- Don't vote for them if they don't support the Fourth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
Write your Congressman and Senators, don't just update their Wiki page.
Re: (Score:2)
Write your Congressman and Senators, don't just update their Wiki page.
That's an interesting political science model: Politicians read thoughtful opinions by their constituents, and change their policies based on reasoned facts and arguments.
I had a friend who used to write thoughtful, articulate letters to her elected officials. I thought it was charming, in a naive way.
In my observation, politicians are more likely to get elected based on campaign contributions from special interest groups. In addition to money, there are special interest groups that can actually drive voter
Re: (Score:3)
If your Senator is Chuck Schumer then you have my condolences.
Most politicians do pay at least some attention to the public's sentiment on various issues. When they get volumes of communications about a subject they are likely to take that into account, including which way the communications lean. There are no guarantees that will change anything. Some questions are a matter of party discipline and a particular vote is demanded. In other cases they are free to vote their conscience, and in those cases t
Re: (Score:2)
No, not even close. Great troll though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you paid attention during the Cold War you know that the problem was active oppression engaged in by the communist governments, not just the listening. Vote the wrong way - go to jail. Tell a joke about the party leader - go to jail for 10 years. Want to leave the country - go to jail.
The only difference is that in the current day, and in the U.S. Such things are not as public, this oppresion is happening in our country. We just have a better illusion that these violations do not happen.
No, not even close. Great troll though.
There is oppression, however the US has until now used a different way of doing this. The Soviet Union was in-your-face brutal about it but the West does this instead by degrees, through social / financial / legal ruination and then by physical means when the above are not useful. If fear is overused in statecraft it results in loss of productivity through reduced innovation and motivation. The intelligence gathering system is for picking the victims. If this is thwarted, the oppressio
The ruling does nothing novel (Score:3)
The article summary is misleading. The Supreme Court ruled, in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records you don't control. It's not Judge Pauley's conclusion, it's binding precedent that the court that rucked against the NSA handwaved away with not good explanation.
Re:The ruling does nothing novel (Score:5, Interesting)
The question is whether Smith v. Maryland -- which was about one order to put a pen register on one phone based on suspicion (but no warrant nor probable cause) -- is distinguishable from this case where every phone record from every phone in the country with no particularized suspicion at all. Pauley explicitly ruled "no", the other court ruled that it was distinguishable.
If the NSA metadata collection is not distinguishable from Smith v. Maryland, then the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.
Re: (Score:3)
The other ruling, by Judge Richard Leon, distinguished this case from Smith v. Maryland on the basis that the NSA's metadata collection was different in nature because of its volume. However, as Power Line's Paul Mirengoff noted, [powerlineblog.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What uncertainty are they talking about? (Score:2)
If after all that has happened someone is still uncertain about this, then i'm quite certain that something is wrong with his/her cognitive abilities.
The technical is more important than the legal... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely.
Boy howdy. This judge ruled it's legal under sec 215 of the patriot act. The other judge ruled section 215 is unconstitutional. Both judges can be right.
Imagine if the legislature passed a constitutional amendment instead of a law in 2001. They had the votes to do it. BTW, I agree with your conclusion. If the NSA isn't submitting broken encryption standards and bad commits, then someone else will. Even if they stop, this is the wake up call.
If you aren't working on NSA proof apps/protocols now, you're wasti
It's a valid opinion (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just wrong, that's all. Wrong because our emails are *clearly* the "papers" mentioned in the Constitution. If there's a law that makes 3rd party possession of same somehow the equivalent of "it suddenly not being yours" then it's THAT law that has to go. This is how it is in most of Europe BTW. YOU control your phone records, not Verizon.
I could almost live with TIA if I thought that it would only be accessed via a court order, but that's not what we have. What we have is secret FISA orders, executed in secret, using secret criteria in accord with secret interpretations of secret executive orders.
I sympathize with this judge's concerns, I do, but the real world consequences of what they're doing are more likely to be worse than the real world consequences of stopping them from doing it, even if we have another 9-11 every year.
Our democracy will not survive if the government can data mine all our "anonymous" data until programs it wrote decide that we fit a "profile" and THAT itself constitutes "reasonable suspicion". This can be used to stifle all dissent, and will be used for exactly that, starting, obviously, with people who speak out against the legitimacy of this process in the first place. A guy like Howard Zinn would just be destroyed by this.. we wouldn't have legitimate dissent in this nation.
Here's something that should help people think clearly on this topic. The NSA line operators and management REFUSED to permit the NSA to apply the same level of monitoring to THEM as they apply to us. They didn't want Congress to second guess them or know what they were doing.
(Binney) ".. also explained that NSA never developed and implemented technology in order to have the capabilities to track activities by employees on the agencyâ(TM)s systems because of two groups of people: the analysts and management.
The analysts âoerealized that what that would be doing is monitoring everything they did and assessing what they were doing. They objected. They didnâ(TM)t want to be monitored.â
Management resisted because it meant one would be âoeable to assess returns on all the programs around the world.â It would be possible to âoelay out all the programs in the world and map [them] against the spending and the return on investment.â
It meant the agency would be âoeexposed to Congress for auditing,â Binney added.â Management did not want that."
From:
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/12/27/interview-with-nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-afraid-were-spreading-secret-government-around-world/ [firedoglake.com]
But this is the ONE thing that MUST be implemented. If an NSA operator cuts a fart, I want Congress to be able to know what he had for lunch. Unwatched watchers cannot be permitted to exist. Period.
At the heart of what's going on here is the people at the NSA are looking into their own hearts and deciding that they're all right and the American public has nothing to fear from them or their intentions. Bully for them, I'm sure it's true, but they won't always be there.
It's not about them or their intentions. It's about the institution, the process, *the machine* and how we're building that machine.
You can't say to yourself, as an NSA employee, by way of assuaging your own secret apprehensions, "Well, if push ever does come to shove, if it came right down to it, an unconstitutional, openly fascist-level of abuse would just never happen because WE'D never permit it". At least, you can't tell yourself that and also bash guys like Snowden and Binney because THOSE guys , whom you hate so much they make you grind your teeth , they're exactly the hypothetical WE you posit in the above safeguard. It doesn't look any different that THIS .. THIS THIS that is before your ey
Re: (Score:2)
I say BS (Score:5, Interesting)
"The decision of a New York judge that the wholesale collection of cell-phone metadata by the National Security Agency is constitutional ties the score between pro- and anti-NSA forces at one victory apiece.
I call BS. Nowhere in the article did the judge even mention the Constitution. From the information provided in the article, the judge is obviously either paid off or incompetent. He states that
In the 54-page opinion issued in New York, Pauley said the sweeping program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaeda's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.
which has nothing to do with legally acquiring evidence or the Constitution, and
"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks," he wrote.
which once again was irrelevant to the question before the court. Just because the government has NOT YET been caught using the data illegally has nothing to do with it being illegally acquired.
The judge also quotes extensive justifications from the Patriot Act, which last I checked, is NOT part of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice comment. Good points, good job, thanks.
If there's no expectation of privacy for this data (Score:2)
Remember: No expectation of privacy -- which means that secrecy is a complete no-go..
By the Declaration of Independence... (Score:2)
the founder recognized the rights and DUTY of the people to put off Tyranny.
Its not law, its more powerful than law, its the foundation and spirit of all legitimate law.
With this that judge is up for being fired.... someone just need to do so...... Tell him he is fired.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges can be removed by Congress, that's it. Private citizens don't "fire" judges, or even try, unless they want to go to jail for threatening an officer of the court. If you don't like the way things turned out then write your Congressmen. That is the way things work.
Nothing has really changed (Score:2)
The status of the law isn't all that different than it was 30 days ago. The only "win," defined as a finding that the NSA's activities may not be legal, is a preliminary injunction for two people, and the case has yet to be decided. That isn't a win yet. It is also unlikely that complainants in the suit winning the injunction will ultimately prevail upon appeal. You can read some informed legal commentary from an actual law professor here:
Another Problem With Judge Leon’s NSA Opinion: Absolute vs. [volokh.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It would be easy to do but you would need access to the internet backbones blank ssl certs and much more you can't get without either owning the infrastructure or having the force of the government on your side. Oh and you would need to have the equipment manufactures give you backdoors as well as the owners of the major propriety OS's. So unless you are the government or own everything its not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the wealth of information on the NSA programs, it is possible to reverse engineer each NSA program and then apply each to the communications of the White House, President and Vice President to do the them what they intend to do do to us before they have a chance to "do us."
Instead of engaging in revenge fantasies it would be a more productive use of your time to write your Congressional representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't spy on your countrys people.
Sometimes you do.