This won't guarantee answers, however. It does mean the NSA will either need to satisfy Wyden's request, or Congress will need to hold a procedural vote to push through the confirmation.
So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through. At least it shines a bit light on the whole charade. Not that it makes much of a difference for me, since I'm not an US citizen, but imho the easiest and best solution would be to stop private companies from gobbling up and selling private data. But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we?
The NSA exists to spy on non-citizens, so it affects you more.
I'm not sure that's the case. The first line of the article reads: Is the NSA buying up Americans' location and browsing data?
That's what's blocking instatement of a new director, so no, it won't have any effect on the data collected on foreigners.
Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on.
The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.
While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system
The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain.
It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US.
When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose.
Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity
As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.
I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.
I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control
No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.
Why doesn't it?
Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments.
If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all
But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.
The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.
I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be.
If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?
You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American.
In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location.
We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.
Is this the same line of reasoning that lead to things extraordinary rendition and black sites in GWOT? Non US citizens on non US land, thus the government can do whatever they want like detain people indefinitely and "enhanced interrogation"?
Yes. Those people and lands involved in the act are outside the purview of the US judicial system. Keep in mind I'm not discussing the morality of this. Just that whatever happens there cannot be brought to court in the US.
Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly.
It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will either summary judgement the case. Or leave it conspicuously unreviewed.
Or, at the end of the day, a Presidential pardon will be conferred at the appropriate/most convenient opportunity.
Or actions will just be undertaken with the understanding that the participants will be operating deniably, in which case it is quite literally the Government unilaterally deciding that breaking the law is the only way.
I can understand a federal employee being placed under this considering they are representing the US and said crimes are committed while acting on behalf of the US government. But does it extend to private citizens? If you commit crimes outside the US I don't think you can be tried for it in the US. You could be extradited to the place where you committed the crime. But I don't think the government can prosecute you in the US.
So, I do get what you're saying. If it were federal employees directly participating they can be prosecuted in the US.But if this is done through a web of contractors it will be hard to prosecute.
You can, on common example is Sex crimes, a US Citizen can (and have been) charged with violations of various sex crime laws for actives that occurred outside the US in courts INSIDE the US, even if the activity was not a crime in the nation the activity took place in. aka "Sex Tourism" [1]
You can also be tried for Foreign crimes such as bribery in the US if you were bribing a Foreign official this applies to business as well as government.
[1] https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-homeland-security-inve...
Yes.[1][2]
As far as the US is concerned, the Constitution is the supreme authority to which Americans can and will answer to and is protected by.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#U...
[2]: "[Bolton] added that the U.S. would do everything 'to protect our citizens' should the ICC attempt to prosecute U.S. servicemen ..."
It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships.
Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.
Not really. It's been inferred from the text by courts, but it's been a bit of a leap, and the Supreme Court can overturn the earlier interpretations at any time. "Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists."
[1] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...
Roe v Wade was based on a purported right to privacy (I don’t understand the legal contortions that link abortions to privacy).
When they overturned Roe v Wade last year they simultaneously overturned the previous rulings that established a (limited by international standards) right to privacy in the US.
The NSA does not reveal what technology it uses or how they use it. Snowden had to leak that information, for it to come to light.
The public has no way of knowing if the NSA follows the law and the theoretically available technology for the NSA to use, means it's extremely unlikely they have restrained themselves from gazing into your private life at home.
I think Snowden proved that the NSA does routinely spy on the American public and the fact that the director of the NSA outright lied to congress under oath and never faced any consequence for it shows that the public will never be allowed to know the truth and that congress will never be able to stop them.
The NSA as it exists is essentially the government telling you the 4th Amendment is just for show. The NSA takes broad measures under the blanket of "national security" and through its 5 Eyes partners, can pretty much do as it pleases, either with US Citizens, or foreign citizens.
EDIT: Former NSA directors have deliberately lied under oath to Congress about their activities and actions...with no penalty or rebuke. The NSA are above the law and constitution.
Yes but that is a fact of life for anyone that isn't a US citizen, to live under the good will of the largest army in the world which forces policy, laws, war etc on everyone else. That our comms are spied on is "just another" thing.
I'm actually pretty fond of the US, love to visit and the culture - but not realizing we're all just living under the US empire is a bit naive. The US does whatever it wants and everyone else just accepts. Basic things such as voting against the international criminal court and having law allowing it to invade The Netherlands if it ever prosecuted a US war criminal is a funny example, but there are many more.
And it also does good things for the world as well, it's not all good or all bad, but it is the largest empire in the world, with military bases all around, colonies all over the pacific, etc, we just don't talk about it like that usually.
However, if a conversation happens between a citizen and a non-citizen , then that conversation is recorded and archived to storage for indexing and querying.
Exactly. Surveillance capitalism is orders of magnitude more invasive than the NSA and does not answer to anyone. Regulations don’t even really work because they can just offshore anything shady or do it through fly by night data brokers.
But private companies do not have the legal option to invade your home or use physical force on you.
The big tech companies are not private; they are public companies that rely on state force to maintain their monopolies. Just as an example, intellectual property laws rely on the state for enforcement.
Idk. I like having property rights and so naturally that will extend to others and their homes and businesses else they won’t respect my property rights.
Leveling such a broad criticism against “big tech companies” isn’t helpful, especially when you personally (along with every American) is categorically guilty of the same.
There’s limits to property rights even among the most extreme voluntaryist political philosophers. Rothbard, a famous anarchocapitalist, wrote extensively about why property rights don’t extend to slaveowners.
Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state. These include limitation on liability, protection for many types of property, and much, much more. The protections even extend to securities regulations; since public companies aren’t privately owned, there is a misalignment between incentives of owners and managers. The state sides with the owners by using force on managers to prevent them from acting in their own self interest, and instead to act on behalf of the shareholder public.
The NAP cannot extend to public companies as they are not privately owned and can only exist when granted rights by the state. A lot of work has been done by libertarians on the topic of how monopolies are formed; it’s not due to private markets.
I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I?
There are a few problems with this. To start, private business and private households also exist due to licensure from the state. The distinction between public and private is a matter of technicality, not categorical difference. The monopoly that the state holds on the initiation of violence applies categorically to your ability to purchase a home and pay taxes, and it applies to large tech companies.
The second problem is that public businesses were as a matter of fact private before they were public. So instead of offering shares to the public on government regulated, public markets that anyone can participate in, they could just be private instead.
Humans can be born without a license, and frequently are. Same with private businesses. Public companies cannot exist without a license. Just because birth, household formation, and private business are heavily regulated in some times and places does not mean they always are. We humans were all stateless tribes once, and some of us still are.
Regarding your second issue, we’re in agreement. Yes it’s true under capitalism that with the heavy regulation of private individuals and firms, everything becomes the public sphere. Your house becomes a public place where your actions are subject to judgement.
Bigtech is not the main threat. They are the new kids on the block. There is no shortage of privately held data brokers that will provide data to intelligence services. They've been doing it since before the Internet existed.
You just made me wonder if those smart TVs have the ability to packet sniff what’s going on on the Wi-Fi networks in the homes in which they’re installed.
Some IOT devices definitely do scan your network automatically to look for other compatible members of the ecosystem.
A reason why VLANing is important.
from wikipedia
"HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel Introduced in HDMI 1.4, HDMI Ethernet and Audio Return Channel (HEAC) adds a high-speed bidirectional data communication link (HEC) and the ability to send audio data upstream to the source device (ARC). HEAC utilizes two lines from the connector: the previously unused Reserved pin (called HEAC+) and the Hot Plug Detect pin (called HEAC−).[51]: §HEAC-2.1 If only ARC transmission is required, a single mode signal using the HEAC+ line can be used, otherwise, HEC is transmitted as a differential signal over the pair of lines, and ARC as a common mode component of the pair."
HDMI Ethernet Channel (HEC)
HDMI Ethernet Channel technology consolidates video, audio, and data streams into a single HDMI cable, and the HEC feature enables IP-based applications over HDMI and provides a bidirectional Ethernet communication at 100 Mbit/s.[43] The physical layer of the Ethernet implementation uses a hybrid to simultaneously send and receive attenuated 100BASE-TX-type signals through a single twisted pair."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI
--------------------------------------------------
This gives me the impression that packet sniffs, and many other operations have been in play since HDMI 1.4,
possibly a subscription based desktop as a service, or game console as a service, could distribute this way, and leech off local LAN gateway, for heavy loads.
Downvotes for a valid question?
They can use the cops against you. Ask Kim Dotcom (whatever else you think of him).
That wouldn't happen without power delegated from the government. We leave capitalism and free enterprise behind when that happens, yet still insist on using the same terms to label the consequences.
See also patent trolls, predatory DRM and copyright enforcement, and (often) the creation and maintenance of harmful monopolies.
The government's power is delegated by the people (and, in particular, people with influence, i.e., money). The power of corporations to direct government force is therefore inextricable from the power of corporations writ large, and that is derived wholly from unrestrained or improperly-restrained capitalism/enterprise. The government loses the power to abuse the public so intensely when corporations lose the power to abuse government, at least within a capitalist framework.
Capitalism has always been a creature of the state. Kings gave licenses to private individuals to invest, operate, and run public companies. Nowadays it’s more complex but the first step to create any public company is still to apply for a license. Power and money have always flown both ways. I suggest you look into the Muscovy Company. Created in 1555 as the first joint stock company, it was highly influential politically and relied on its political connections to earn profits. Nothing has changed in this regard for corporations since.
For profit companies ultimately sell to anyone with money. Profit maximization ensures that if private companies can collect the data, everyone who wants it will have it.
Yet.
Unless so empowered by the state.
Most of them don't want to, and let the police and the bailiffs do that kind of thing for them in the relatively rare cases it matters, just like any other form of contracting or outsourcing.
I'm entire unfond of the NSA. The existence of secret agencies, especially on a large scale, make a mockery of democracy.
At the same, government by congressional hobbling and sabotage also makes a mockery of democracy through agencies not ceasing bad behavior but rather a continuous war between congress and agencies being normalized in a way that makes agencies actually more autonomous from congress. The "Washington Monument Syndrome" is just one piece of the problematic situation [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument_syndrome
In a world where democracies have enemies, how do you not have govt secrets?
Security through obscurity is inferior to security through transparency. Imagine if every interaction with the government; every contract, negotiation, communication was a matter of easily searchable public record.
Try sneaking a little graft in there and get laughed at in public. It'd be great.
The reason the NSA conducts its activities in secret have little to do with "a little graft" and everything to do with the fact you don't show somebody you've broken their ciphers unless you have to.
If the NSA has broken them, they probably aren't the only ones. By keeping that a secret they're actually endangering national security.
I'm having trouble seeing how that makes any sense.
When the Allies in WW2 broke Germany's Enigma cipher, are you suggesting that by not telling Germany that the Allies could now read a large fraction of Germany's military communication they were endangering their own national security?!
They won't show what they have access to and actively use against adversaries. They have "NSA approved cryptos" such as TACLANES hardware that other countries can use at government level with their own crypto bases. Civilian level encryption was never meant to be Government level, we were only lucky that AES and such was opened up by US law in the 1990s.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
If the NSA has broken whatever cipher suite the GRU uses, or the Iranian RG, or whomever, please explain how keeping that fact a secret endangers the USA?
Keep in mind they share info with the other Five Eyes and select other allied nations.
According to what exactly?
So if a foreign agent is providing us information about their government, that relationship should be in the public record? That seems like a really good way to ensure you have no human intelligence sources at all.
We should reveal every detail about our military's weapons systems so our adversaries can more easily build countermeasures against them?
It seems exceedingly unrealistic that any government, even a democracy, could keep no secrets at all and survive.
Sorry for any rudeness perceived:
1. Security through obscurity is different from secrecy. Not at all what we were arguing. You just pulled pop sci quotes from the crypo world.
2. > Imagine if every interaction with the government; every contract, negotiation, communication was a matter of easily searchable public record.
Democracies do have FOIA but it doesn't and shouldn't extend for foreign entities.
Security through obscurity is fine if everyone can do it.
Security for me, clarity into you, is a big problem. We should build unsurveillable homes.
You can't suspend democracy when you have enemies. That's just losing.
Thankfully, having secrets is not suspending democracy.
This is very likely common practice by many other governments
what makes you think so?
The United States is this limited government, with strict limits on what it's allowed to do.
Yeah, I know. It hasn't worked out that way. But do you think other governments, starting with fewer restraints, are doing less than the US? Or more?
I could see saying that the US is doing it in higher volume, because it's got more money to spend on government excess.
Incentives are a factor too though. The us needs to hold a mostly voluntary empire together, that requires a lot more intrigue than the average country.
lmao ycomb.
I mean relative to other empires in history. Maybe the Persian one comes close, maybe. I don’t like living in a client state but I’m under no illusions things would be better under the British or Spanish
This is where the writers of the Constitution missed the boat a little. With all of their smarts they probably could have written something in there to hold accountable those who would have any part in enacting a rule or law the violates the Constitution. Not a simple task at all but a worthwhile addition IMHO.
In this case, I don't believe the NSA actually broke the law. They purchased data that was on the open market. You don't need a court order to collect data when it's *that* convenient.
The buried lede here is: why is it legal to resell that data in the first place. (Hint: because it makes Intelligence Community's job 100x easier). This ultimatum for answers is simply theatre.
That makes me think of something I saw on HN yesterday [0] where the author was saying that a private right of action to sue in the courts was an important part of offloading power away from the US government proper.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38480187
Doesn't mean we need to accept it here.
Or we could all try to stop giving them our data. Cookie hygiene, vpns, randomizing metadata, ad blockers, not using Facebook, using a secure OSs, Tor ... there are things we can do to make their life harder. And to anyone who thinks this futile: that's what they want you to think.
Alienating yourself into a 'security' bubble while GCHQ is capturing ALL internet data and holding it for up to a year, is like trying to catch the bolted horse.
It's over, privacy is dead and so is a private bedroom. We need physical answers to surveillance, electronics are totally ruined.
Sooner or later we need off this planet, surveillance has trapped everybody.
Tell that to all of the high ranking military positions that Senator Tuberville is still holding up months later.
The reason Tuberville has been able to hold up the military confirmations is the large number and frequency of them. If there isn't unanimous consent the process of approving each individually would leave the Senate with no time to do anything else. If they want to move forward a single appointment through the process that can be done in a few weeks.
The Democrats may even try to use this to gain more support for the temporary rule change needed for mass approval of the military confirmations. They can say it isn't a partisan effort because they will use the rule change to override the hold of a Democrat.
Actually it would mean to go against the people…since corporations are people…and I mean that in a jurisprudence way. Being that is the case how could we limit a corporation, as non sentient entity, while still preserving individual liberty??
yeah, this is a sideshow compared to just enforcing better privacy controls.