Yahoo Scan By US Fell Under Foreign Spy Law Expiring Next Year (reuters.com) 50
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A Yahoo operation in 2015 to scan the incoming email of its customers for specific information requested by the U.S. government was authorized under a foreign intelligence law, parts of which will expire next year, two U.S. government officials familiar with the matter said. The collection in question was specifically authorized by a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said the two government sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely. Yahoo's request came under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the sources said. The two sources said the request was issued under a provision of the law known as Section 702, which will expire on Dec. 31, 2017, unless lawmakers act to renew it. The FISA Court warrant related specifically to Yahoo, but it is possible similar such orders have been issued to other telecom and internet companies, the sources said. Section 702 of the FISA governs a program exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden known as Prism, which gathers messaging data from Alphabet Inc's Google, Facebook Inc, Microsoft Corp, Apple Inc and other major tech companies that involves a foreign target under surveillance. Another type of spying the authority allowed under Section 702 is known as "upstream," and allows the NSA to copy web traffic flowing along the internet backbone located inside the United States and search for certain terms associated with a target. "The NSA has said that it only targets individuals under Section 702 by searching for email addresses and similar identifiers," Senator Ron Wyden (OR-D) said in a statement to Reuters on Monday. "If that has changed, the executive branch has an obligation to notify the public."
Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure Congress will extend it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably already did, probably buried somewhere deep in the CR bs they just passed.
[section 12.3.4.a.4.b(1).a is hereby amended to replace " no later than December 31st 2016 ", with "as such date determined to be appropriate by the DNI."]
Re: (Score:2)
The most likely next president is either President Clinton, or President Obama.
Oh, and also possibly Hillary. So that's three possibilities.
Re:The only thing FAA 702 covers... (Score:5, Informative)
The United States enumerates and protects BASIC HUMAN RIGHT for ALL PEOPLE, not just US Citizens. I don't know from where it originated the fallacy that the US Constitution applies only to US Citizens on US Soil. The Constitution prohibits the US violating the basic human rights of ALL PEOPLE, no matter where they are or of what nation they are a citizen.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Then the US government violates the US constitution on a massive scale, every day again.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the US government violates the US constitution on a massive scale, every day again.
s/Then t/T/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it fucking doesn't.
Here's the first phrase in the constitution:
"We the People of the United States"
Not everyone, not people IN the US, but people OF the US.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the section that says who is writing the constitution and why, not who rights apply to.
Re: (Score:2)
Only on US territory. In both U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez and Odah v. U.S, the courts have held that non citizens outside the US, do not enjoy constitutional protections.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the courts fucked up. The letter and spirit of the law are crystal clear. Inalienable human rights are inalienable, for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But I'm sure the constitution will always apply to my white males friends so I'm not worried.
(I'm just staying safe up here in Canada and letting the USA act as a cautionary tale for us remaining democracies
Re: (Score:2)
The United States enumerates and protects BASIC HUMAN RIGHT for ALL PEOPLE, not just US Citizens. I don't know from where it originated the fallacy that the US Constitution applies only to US Citizens on US Soil. The Constitution prohibits the US violating the basic human rights of ALL PEOPLE, no matter where they are or of what nation they are a citizen.
Citation please? It's a nice idea, but if what you are saying were true, the U.S. would never be able to be at war with another country.
Re:The only thing FAA 702 covers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The only thing FAA 702 covers... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing FAA 702 covers... ...and its sole and entire reason for being:
Non US Persons outside the US.
Foreign intelligence targets don't magically imbue themselves with US Constitutional protections simply because their communications enters, traverses, or otherwise touches something within the United States.
But it is being used to collect data on domestic targets which puts it in breach regardless of how many foreigners it's used on/for.
The prohibition against general warrants would also apply.
Sorry, but "compelling national interest" is not sufficient reason to violate the restrictions on government power in the US Constitution. Nearly every tyrant and authoritarian regime through history thought, at least in the beginning, that what they were doing by violating the mutual agreement between government and the governed was good and necessary for their national interest and their people. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
But it is being used to collect data on domestic targets which puts it in breach regardless of how many foreigners it's used on/for.
Actually, the case in question was apparently a group of foreign individuals who would always identify their messages with a particular signature phrase, described as "highly unique" to the group in question.
Yahoo was directed to capture only messages that matched that signature, and turn those over to the government, resulting in a high probability that only the foreign targets' messages would be collected by the investigators. That high probability, even if imperfect, is good enough to pass any legal or e
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo was directed to capture only messages that matched that signature, and turn those over to the government, resulting in a high probability that only the foreign targets' messages would be collected by the investigators.
That's the current story. Like many of these stories, this one may turn out to be untrue or only a partial truth. Maybe they actually showed some respect for the rule of law, as out of character as that may seem given past and recent revelations.
Numerous other programs such as the ones revealed by Snowden do grossly violate the civil rights of US citizens so my comment, even if it may not be true in this individual case, stands.
Strat
Ooh I Got This One (Score:2)
a group of foreign individuals who would always identify their messages with a particular signature phrase, described as "highly unique" to the group in question
Was it "E. Pluribus Unum"? Or "Yes, Mister President"?
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.
It was "suka blyat" (in Arabic since slashcode is too primitive for Cyrillic).
As a result, many CS:GO players and others have had their email traffic closely watched.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Microsoft had bought Yahoo for $40 Billion. It would have drained Microsoft's resources to do more evil. And the cultural as well as
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal, Un-Constitutional and MSM fail (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
"The collection in question was specifically authorized by a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said the two government sources"
Notice how Reuters just regurgitates the info they get from "anonymous government sources"? They don't even bother to cite the law, nor do they question it on Constitutional grounds. Anonymous sources say that the FISA court said it was OK, therefore it's OK? Thanks for the investigative journalism.
From The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"... no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized ..."
IANAL, but it would be impossible for the government to demonstrate "probable cause" to search the e-mail messages of every single Yahoo! user. The word "particularly" is also very relevant here as it contrasts to "general". It's illegal to issue a "general" warrant. The verbiage is very deliberate in meaning that the "particular" person or premises must be named in the warrant. "All Yahoo! e-mail users" or "All e-mail on Yahoo! servers" is not a "particular" description.
I'm not optimistic, but *maybe* there's a lawsuit here that will force a court ruling on this crap. If all Yahoo! e-mail users were affected, the government can't argue(as it has done successfully in the past) that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To look at any US content a court order per account or some other court document for a connected group of account users under active US investigation is the law.
Just using the internet does not remove all US protections and make all content "Foreign" and a free for all to the NSA and other agencies.
Color of law 4+ hops of l
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it's Reuters, a newswire agency. They send along facts to other news sources who subscribe to their feed, and let them do the editorializing. Not that they never editorialize on their own site, but they have a "stick to the facts" background. If the Constitution is relevant to the story is up to the editors, apparently.
Re: Yahoo (Score:1)
Yahoo Scan By US Fell Under Foreign Spy Law Expiring Next Year
Happy to help!
Re: (Score:2)
Secret Courts
Secret Laws
Secret Interpretations of Laws
Secret Court Orders
Secret Warrants
Secret Arrests (in the middle of the night)
Secret Evidence (that the defense does not have access to)
Secret Trials
Secret Convictions
Secret Prisons
Secret Um . . . we call it . . . Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
Re: (Score:2)
The legal community, NSA, other agencies all understood what the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] found and did.
Domestic protections never went away under color of law, findings or secret courts.
All domestic protections have total supremacy over any color of law collection efforts.
Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, THAT 702... (Score:1)
The same 702 that was set to expire in 2012? The same 702 that was enabled by the House and Senate in late December and signed by Obama on December 30, 2012, two days before expiration? The same one that many of us protested back in 2012? The same one that the government must be sure we've all forgotten by now so it can be quietly renewed next year by whatever muppet is installed as President? The one that was promised to target furriners only? The one in that bill there? [wikipedia.org]
Well, color me surprised. And
While it may be legal under US law (Score:1)
It is still a criminal offense when seen from other countries. Basically, it shows again that an American-based company is not trustworthy.for storing any data at all.