Federal Court Rules Backdoor Searches of 702 Data Unconstitutional (eff.org) 28
A federal district court has ruled that backdoor searches of Americans' private communications collected under Section 702 of FISA are unconstitutional without a warrant. "The landmark ruling comes in a criminal case, United States v. Hasbajrami, after more than a decade of litigation, and over four years since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that backdoor searches constitute 'separate Fourth Amendment events' and directed the district court to determine a warrant was required," reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Now, that has been officially decreed." Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares the report: Hasbajrami involves a U.S. resident who was arrested at New York JFK airport in 2011 on his way to Pakistan and charged with providing material support to terrorists. Only after his original conviction did the government explain that its case was premised in part on emails between Mr. Hasbajrami and an unnamed foreigner associated with terrorist groups, emails collected warrantless using Section 702 programs, placed in a database, then searched, again without a warrant, using terms related to Mr. Hasbajrami himself.
The district court found that regardless of whether the government can lawfully warrantlessly collect communications between foreigners and Americans using Section 702, it cannot ordinarily rely on a "foreign intelligence exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause when searching these communications, as is the FBI's routine practice. And, even if such an exception did apply, the court found that the intrusion on privacy caused by reading our most sensitive communications rendered these searches "unreasonable" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In 2021 alone, the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless searches of US person's 702 data.
The district court found that regardless of whether the government can lawfully warrantlessly collect communications between foreigners and Americans using Section 702, it cannot ordinarily rely on a "foreign intelligence exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause when searching these communications, as is the FBI's routine practice. And, even if such an exception did apply, the court found that the intrusion on privacy caused by reading our most sensitive communications rendered these searches "unreasonable" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In 2021 alone, the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless searches of US person's 702 data.
Won't change anything (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and who is watching those who watch the watchers?
Re:Won't change anything (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And in a small town, who shaves the man who manufactures watches for all those watchers who do not manufacture their own watches?
Re: (Score:3)
And in a small town, who shaves the man who manufactures watches for all those watchers who do not manufacture their own watches?
Very valid point. The watchers need to have watchers to ensure the watches are manufactured for watchers of watches, because the whole system breaks if those watchers aren't watching the other watchers. So, you see, the watches have to be watched all of the way through the Panama^H^H^H^H^H^HTrump Canal (that just sounds gross) and the Gulf of America until they reach their destination where the watchers can oversee the unloading of the watches and ensure there are no makers of watches interfering with the
It doesn't matter anymore. (Score:3)
It'll just be appealed to the supreme court. The judges will already have the hint or go and talk to their money-givers behind the scenes and be told that this type of data is useful for those who are at the top. It will be reversed.
Watch.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's difficult to tell. Don't forget, POTUS is an outright criminal and his top advisors aren't exactly interested in having the law restrain them. Trump didn't exactly show support for the cops when he pardoned the Jan 6 seditionists, and the MAGA crowd doesn't believe in rights for brown people and never imagines they'll be on the wrong end of this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
...and never imagines they'll be on the wrong end of this kind of thing.
Too late. ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh yeah, cops were apparently surprised by the pardons and not happy about them. Which leads me to ask, why are so many American cops unable to handle actually listening to the guy they apparently voted for, who repeated said he'd do this?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yeah, cops were apparently surprised by the pardons and not happy about them. Which leads me to ask, why are so many American cops unable to handle actually listening to the guy they apparently voted for, who repeated said he'd do this?
One word. Donuts. They need to get back in shape by eating Trumpnuts, manufactured in *scratches out name quickly* Paradise, the best bullshit manufacturer in the Gulf of America. *writes over the scratches*
Re: (Score:2)
He’s hurting the libs!
Oh wait I never thought the leopard would eat MY face.
Re: (Score:1)
> why are so many American cops unable to handle actually listening to the guy they apparently voted for, who repeated said he'd do this?
Are cops a particular Trump supporting demographic?
It doesn't matter - pretty soon you're going to have a lot less cops. Those that are left will be more like security guards - there to "observe" and to "organise", but not there to actually do any resisting or protecting. It's unclear who'll do the actual protecting...
Re: (Score:3)
Which leads me to ask, why are so many American cops unable to handle actually listening to the guy they apparently voted for
Cops aren't smart, that's why. You only need to go to community college to become one. Studies show the cops don't know the law, for example. Then you just pass a physical and maybe pass a range qualification test (there are lots of stories from cops about cheating on those which explains why cops can't hit shit in addition to not knowing shit) and bingo, you're in.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
> Nothing happened that day between protestors and cops that would have gone past 30 days of time served.
Yeah, just a little light sedition and some deaths. Why should a legal system worry about a violent mob trying to overturn an election result they don't like?
Re: (Score:2)
Over charging and not offering a plea to people who simply walked around the peoples house. Nothing happened that day between protestors and cops that would have gone past 30 days of time served.
With regard to the first sentence above, I agree there are almost certainly some people who fit this category and were unjustly charged, convicted, and over sentenced. But give me a fucking break on the rest of this bullshit. There was, undeniably, unequivocally, a fucking riot at and in the Capitol building, and there were plenty of things that happened that merit a sentence far beyond 30 days. Some of those morons showed up with zip cuffs so they could take prisoners! Darth Cheeto pardoned almost ever
Re:It doesn't matter anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Supremes are and always have been a wild card and they already have not given Trump everything he wants.
That doesn't mean you're wrong, but this ruling is really no problem for the feds, who can hide any information about their wrongdoing behind "national security". Just like they have been. They don't honor FOIA requests related to their unconstitutional citizen spying programs now, and this ruling won't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supremes are and always have been a wild card and they already have not given Trump everything he wants.
That doesn't mean you're wrong, but this ruling is really no problem for the feds, who can hide any information about their wrongdoing behind "national security". Just like they have been. They don't honor FOIA requests related to their unconstitutional citizen spying programs now, and this ruling won't change that.
I'm unclear about what you mean by the Supremes being a wild card in this case. With the deck stacked in [your] favor and $$ being in play, I can't see why a Justice would accept precedent or morals when there are both money to come out of an action, and less of a fear of programmed attack by sanewashed minds and others who may have "dirt" on them. Animal response is easy - take the path of least resistance and future reward.
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unclear about what you mean by the Supremes being a wild card in this case.
The same thing it has always meant. They often do not rule as expected, because there are no consequences for them. They're in for life.
Maybe the threat of going out of a window will change that now, but if that happens to any of the Supremes, you can bet the rest will want to know why and how because they will be concerned for themselves, so it won't just wash away.
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken. That gives me a little grounding to try and make sense of all of this nonsense. Wow, that was a simple sentence.
SCOTUS is not so predictable (Score:2)
It's surprising how often it has taken the libertarian view on issues like this, even recently.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not bet one way or the other on how this one goes. The court may take the view the information gather was done in the performance of lawful duties. Just like if the police are searching a home for stolen property either based on probably cause or a warrant, they don't have to just pretend they did not see the spoon, lighter, hypodermic, and bag of white powder on the credenza on their way to the basement identified to be searched.
The court could easily the rule here the harm has already been done i
Re: (Score:2)
I would not bet one way or the other on how this one goes. The court may take the view the information gather was done in the performance of lawful duties. Just like if the police are searching a home for stolen property either based on probably cause or a warrant, they don't have to just pretend they did not see the spoon, lighter, hypodermic, and bag of white powder on the credenza on their way to the basement identified to be searched.
The court could easily the rule here the harm has already been done in the way of a rights/privacy violation it was done for legitimate reasons. The argument underlying the fruit of the poison tree approach to A4 domestically is that to allow law enforcement to use evidence gathered in violation of 4A rights would encourage them violate those rights, the only remedy for that is to deny them benefit of abuse. You can't un-search something after all.
It might even come down to if the courts own experience with this, remember they oversee FISA if in their view intercepts for supposedly lawful foreign surveillance targets appear to have been used as a pretext to gather intel on a domestic target; I can see Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barret joining the more liberal wing of the court to find it violates 4A in its practical application, even if not in facially.
Very good points. Not to stray, but fruit of the poisonous tree is a bit different than the past. It's not something that can ONLY be read in public records if you really look for it in response to an outcome that didn't go [your] way, but it's also something that has multiple mediums of release now. An "oops" picture of a warrant-backed search zoomed just a little too far out and making it to the public eye, a body cam video doing the same, disinformation being thrown to draw attention to the fruit (sor
Public domain will be cited (Score:1)
After all, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft et al have trawled and trolled through your personal data, documents, emails and now your own devices to generate customised advertising, desktops, notifications, and suggestions to your writing styles.
Your data is not yours anymore, and has not been since cloud services were allowed to be the default standard - and now, switching to Linux is not the answer either, just because it is more transparent does not mean the end user has more control over their data, it just me
Want to know (Score:5, Interesting)
Who has consistently voted against the Patriot Act and all these spy measures since their inception?
Come on, guess. But you won’t like my answer.
Bernie Sanders.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, am OUTRAGED by your answer!