return to table of content

No new boss at NSA until it answers questions on buying location, browsing data

sgift
76 replies
2d3h

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?

pyuser583
25 replies
2d1h

Not that it makes much of a difference for me, since I'm not an US citizen

The NSA exists to spy on non-citizens, so it affects you more.

nehal3m
22 replies
2d

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.

Dalewyn
21 replies
2d

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.

phpisthebest
15 replies
2d

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

bane
6 replies
2d

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.

phpisthebest
5 replies
1d22h

I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control

> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

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.

bane
4 replies
1d20h

Why doesn't it?

phpisthebest
3 replies
1d20h

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

bane
2 replies
1d

But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.

dragonwriter
1 replies
1d

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.

bane
0 replies
13h13m

The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world

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?

Dalewyn
6 replies
2d

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.

morkalork
5 replies
1d23h

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"?

orochimaaru
4 replies
1d21h

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.

salawat
3 replies
1d20h

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.

orochimaaru
2 replies
1d20h

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.

phpisthebest
0 replies
1d19h

> If you commit crimes outside the US I don't think you can be tried for it in the US.

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...

Dalewyn
0 replies
1d18h

But does it extend to private citizens?

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 ..."

oyashirochama
0 replies
1d3h

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.

dataflow
1 replies
1d22h

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home

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...

hedora
0 replies
1d16h

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.

barrysteve
1 replies
1d22h

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.

autoexec
0 replies
1d15h

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.

NickC25
0 replies
1d23h

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.

vasco
0 replies
1d23h

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.

tareqak
0 replies
1d22h

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.

api
19 replies
2d2h

But that would mean going against companies and we can't have that now, can we?

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.

master-lincoln
18 replies
2d2h

But private companies do not have the legal option to invade your home or use physical force on you.

injeolmi_love
5 replies
2d2h

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.

ericmay
3 replies
2d1h

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.

injeolmi_love
2 replies
2d1h

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.

ericmay
1 replies
1d18h

I don’t think I argued that there weren’t limits to property rights. Did I?

Unlike private households and businesses, public companies only exist due to licenses from the state.

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.

injeolmi_love
0 replies
1d15h

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.

kevin_thibedeau
0 replies
2d1h

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.

jjtheblunt
4 replies
2d2h

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.

FirmwareBurner
1 replies
2d1h

Some IOT devices definitely do scan your network automatically to look for other compatible members of the ecosystem.

oyashirochama
0 replies
1d3h

A reason why VLANing is important.

rolph
0 replies
2d

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.

jjtheblunt
0 replies
1d17h

Downvotes for a valid question?

yterdy
3 replies
2d1h

They can use the cops against you. Ask Kim Dotcom (whatever else you think of him).

CamperBob2
2 replies
2d1h

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.

yterdy
0 replies
2d1h

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.

injeolmi_love
0 replies
2d

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.

kube-system
0 replies
2d1h

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.

generic92034
0 replies
2d1h

Yet.

ben_w
0 replies
2d

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.

joe_the_user
13 replies
1d23h

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

cscurmudgeon
12 replies
1d22h

In a world where democracies have enemies, how do you not have govt secrets?

eurebus
9 replies
1d21h

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.

nvy
4 replies
1d21h

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.

candiddevmike
3 replies
1d20h

If the NSA has broken them, they probably aren't the only ones. By keeping that a secret they're actually endangering national security.

tzs
0 replies
1d2h

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?!

oyashirochama
0 replies
1d18h

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.

nvy
0 replies
1d1h

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.

matrix87
0 replies
1d20h

Security through obscurity is inferior to security through transparency

According to what exactly?

marcus0x62
0 replies
1d20h

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.

cscurmudgeon
0 replies
1d18h

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.

barrysteve
0 replies
1d13h

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.

remram
1 replies
1d15h

You can't suspend democracy when you have enemies. That's just losing.

cscurmudgeon
0 replies
20h8m

Thankfully, having secrets is not suspending democracy.

jerpint
9 replies
2d3h

This is very likely common practice by many other governments

master-lincoln
7 replies
2d2h

what makes you think so?

AnimalMuppet
6 replies
2d2h

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.

suoduandao2
2 replies
2d1h

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.

bannedbybros
1 replies
2d1h

voluntary empire

lmao ycomb.

suoduandao2
0 replies
2d1h

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

roamerz
0 replies
1d23h

Yeah, I know. It hasn’t worked out that way.

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.

chiefalchemist
0 replies
2d

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.

Terr_
0 replies
2d

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

saagarjha
0 replies
2d

Doesn't mean we need to accept it here.

sandworm101
1 replies
1d22h

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.

barrysteve
0 replies
1d22h

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.

ixwt
1 replies
2d2h

So, the most probable outcome is that this will delay the process for a few weeks at most until congress just pushes it through.

Tell that to all of the high ranking military positions that Senator Tuberville is still holding up months later.

tssva
0 replies
2d1h

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.

slicktux
0 replies
2d

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??

cyanydeez
0 replies
1d22h

yeah, this is a sideshow compared to just enforcing better privacy controls.

tomohawk
35 replies
2d4h

How about passing a law explicitly covering the kind of information being collected and sold as actually being private, and against the law to share with anyone without a warrant?

cm2187
17 replies
2d4h

Intelligence agencies' very role is to break laws.

insickness
9 replies
2d3h

That's not true at all. Intelligence agencies can't just do whatever they want. They are beholden to the people just like every other government agency. They can be granted power to do things that ordinary people can't, but that doesn't mean they are above the law.

umanwizard
2 replies
2d3h

Yes they can do whatever they want and no they’re not beholden to anyone. When has the NSA ever been held accountable for their illegal spying on US citizens?

insickness
0 replies
1d16h

Right, I'm not saying that they don't break the law. They do. But technically, their role is not to break the law. There ostensibly is oversight but it obviously doesn't work well enough.

AnimalMuppet
0 replies
2d2h

They're beholden to Congress funding them, if nothing else.

cedws
2 replies
2d3h

The NSA has literally broken laws, lied about it, and gotten away with it.

wkat4242
1 replies
2d3h

Technically not, they just had secret courts rubber stamp for them.

In the most technical sense it's legal though of course it subverts the entire idea of the justice system by having a court in your pocket.

pseudalopex
0 replies
1d19h

Wrong.[1][2] And what law and court do you believe authorized James Clapper to lie to Congress?

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8567089/nsa-patriot-act-ruling

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-b...

kube-system
0 replies
2d

I think the parent is referring to foreign law. Which all intelligence services break as a part of their purpose, to spy.

Although that statement is just an oversimplification of the situation. The government should follow domestic law even if it breaks foreign law by design.

krapp
0 replies
2d2h

They can and they do. Look at the history - they routinely kidnap, torture, assassinate, spy on citizens, support all kinds of illegal activity and make unscrupulous deals with terrorists and tyrants. Every now and then they slip up and the government has to pretend to give a damn and they go through a show of righteous anger and then once the heat is off and constituents are satisfied the intelligence agencies go right back to doing what they were doing anyway.

The government doesn't want intelligence agencies reined in by anything but American interests. They want those agencies to be free do commit whatever evil is deemed necessary to further those interests, laws and Constitution be damned. The NSA is still spying on everyone. The CIA still runs torture camps around the world. Nothing changes. Snowden didn't change anything. Assange didn't change anything. Wyden isn't going to change anything.

The ability of the American people to hold their government to account in any meaningful way is a facade. Americans live under the oligarchy of corporations and the military industrial complex, not any kind of functional democracy. The American people, despite their guns and breathless evocations of the Founding Fathers, are not in control.

adhesive_wombat
0 replies
2d3h

Indeed. Being granted exclusive powers that would otherwise be illegal must always be given the respect it deserves: use of powers only when and as far absolutely necessary and reporting of and punishment of transgressions, intentional or not.

There is nothing more morally corrosive than a law enforcement agency betraying the trust represented by their powers.

9dev
3 replies
2d3h

An intelligence agency’s role is gathering intelligence on malevolent entities that threaten a country in some way. Not more, not less—but their role certainly isn’t breaking laws per se, or amassing data on the general public to engage in pre-policing. No matter how much certain parties may advocate for that, a democracy cannot exist in a surveillance state, and anyone convinced of that has lost democratic legitimacy.

cm2187
2 replies
2d3h

They equally gather information on friendly democracies, bribe or blackmail people, hack computers, they are involved in trade negotiations, watch what all the parties are doing in civil wars, etc. It's not a good guys vs bad guys, good vs evil thing. They are a limited exception to democratic governments abiding to the rule of law. They are hired thugs, "our thugs". And I am not disputing that they are necessary. Just that it is a bit naive to think people whose job it is to break laws all day long will abide to another law. That's why they tend to be scandals rich organisations.

OfSanguineFire
0 replies
2d2h

Gathering information on friendly democracies, or watching what all the parties are doing in civil wars, is not a violation of US law. Espionage between states is rarely a violation of the law of the state that is doing the espionage. The “friendly democracies” on which the US spies, are in turn gathering information on the states they consider friendly democracies.

9dev
0 replies
2d3h

What is considered malevolent is obviously dependent on the perspective, but we cannot accept agencies without any oversight or control, that will always lead to a shadow government. Which leads me to my point: we need to be extra vigilant when it comes to the mandate of intelligence agencies.

phkahler
1 replies
2d3h

To the extent that maybe it is, it should be other countries laws. Nobody has the authority to grant such law breaking permission (without a warrant). When you break the rules establishing a system, you no longer have that system, but a free for all.

The US constitution in particular aims to protect the people from government overreach. See the original amendments and read them in that light.

cm2187
0 replies
2d3h

Even from a pure legalistic point of view, US laws have extraordinary extra territorial reach. I believe if a bribe occurs between two foreigners in a foreign country, the mere fact that they used USD for payment brings it within US jurisdiction. And certainly if a US citizen is involved.

konschubert
0 replies
2d3h

I think they are explicitly exempt from certain laws. This doesn’t mean they are above the law.

And maybe they break the law and keep getting away with it. But this doesn’t mean that’s how they are meant to work.

umanwizard
5 replies
2d3h

The NSA doesn’t follow the law, so why would that matter?

tempodox
2 replies
2d3h

And when questioned, they lie to courts and Congress with impunity.

SV_BubbleTime
1 replies
2d1h

Clapper and Brennan should absolutely be in jail. Instead, they are still treated as respectable authorities by our media.

creer
0 replies
1d14h

Which most likely is part of the problem. There is no major outcry about any of this. It's a mere inconvenience to agencies, congress, courts, press, etc - nobody seems to care much about it.

rtpg
1 replies
2d3h

People say this but probably underestimate how much the NSA at least pretends to follow the letter of the law compared to intelligence services in almost any other nation on the planet.

Them following the law is entirely downstream from Congress doing things like what Wyden is doing. Their existence is predicated on congressional satisfaction, and many congresspeople are at least fellow travellers to the practical frustrations many people on this site have with the NSA. It's never enough, but it's _something_.

Meanwhile plenty of countries just have their intelligence services tucked away, out of the spotlight, and with barely any legal framework to bind them.

autoexec
0 replies
1d14h

Them following the law is entirely downstream from Congress doing things like what Wyden is doing. Their existence is predicated on congressional satisfaction

The director of the NSA outright lied to congress while under oath and has faced zero consequences for it. There is zero meaningful oversight in the US and congress is absolutely powerless to do anything but bitch and moan about it publicly just like the rest of the American people. That was what drove Snowden to finally leak what he knew. He saw that congress had no means of knowing what was happening and therefore they couldn't do anything to stop it.

Not even the president can do anything about the NSA. Obama campaigned on ending the mass surveillance of the American people. Presidential candidates tell a lot of lies while trying to get elected, and Obama was an effective orator, but he was also a civil rights attorney and taught constitutional law. I believed he meant what he was saying when he said that the NSA was ignoring the law whenever it was convent for them, and that he would oppose any bill that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies that were handing over American's data to the NSA illegally.

Of course, once he got into office everything changed and he very quickly spoke out in favor in the NSA, he vastly expanded their powers to spy on Americans, and he granted immunity to those same telecom companies. I figure that means that once he was elected the NSA showed Obama some super secret information that convinced him that violating the constitution was necessary or perhaps he was shown exactly how much dirt they had on him and his family and he was threatened to fall in line.

Either way, it doesn't appear that anyone at any level of government can oppose the NSA in a meaningful way.

GuB-42
5 replies
2d2h

These data are probably legally collected and sold, as mentioned in page 573 of the terms and conditions users have agreed with.

TacticalCoder
4 replies
2d2h

... as mentioned in page 573 of the terms and conditions users have agreed with

Except that it's not how EULA do work. If it's made illegal by law (which GP suggess), then lawyers writing these EULAs can write anything they want in fineprint: it's not superseding the law.

GuB-42
3 replies
2d1h

You can't make this blanket illegal. For example, if you buy something online, the seller will need to share your address with the delivery company, unless they do the delivery themselves, with is impractical most of the times. So you can make laws regarding the transfer of personal information, but these are bound to be really complicated, just look at GDPR.

beAbU
2 replies
1d23h

But that's not the same? The online retailer is /giving/ my address to the courier. Without it the retailer nor the courier will be able to give me the service/product I'm paying for.

I think it's perfectly fine to make ‐reselling‐ of personal data blanket illegal. Since it's my data, I might have consented to giving the data to someone for some purpose. However, they absolutely have no implied consent that they can sell that data to someone else, no matter what their EULA says. If they want to sell it, then I need to get a dividend of that sale revenue, since it's my data.

This is not a physical good that's changing owners. It will always be irrevocably linked to /me/. That's what makes it valuable. So the owner of that data will forever and always be me, no matter who "bought" it. Exactly the same way that buying a digital game does not make me an owner of that copy, but merely the owner of a perpetual-yet-revokable license to play the game on my sanctioned console.

GuB-42
1 replies
1d22h

So, take any service that connects buyers to sellers: eBay, Craigslist, AirBnB, realtors, etc... They are essentially in the business of trading personal data, so that the buyer and seller can get in contact and complete the transaction. It is even more obvious in dating sites/apps.

...but that's not the same you might say. That's right, but how do you put that into law? You need actual rules, "don't be evil" is not enough. There are hundreds of cases where sharing personal data is "right" and expected, and hundreds of cases where it is "wrong". You want to allow the "right" usage and ban the "wrong" usage. And then you have lobbies trying to explain why they are on the right side and their opponents are on the wrong side, and then you will have lawyers who are really good at finding loopholes, and in the end, what you get is something like GDPR with all its complexities. You can't really escape it.

pessimizer
0 replies
1d19h

These examples are no good. It's unnecessary to put into law that if someone explicitly hires you to share particular information with some set of people, you're allowed to. You're not only allowed to, you're required to, because that's the business arrangement you've made.

You're making an "it's all so complicated" argument, but not pointing out any actual occasion in which it might be complicated.

There are hundreds of cases where sharing personal data is "right" and expected, and hundreds of cases where it is "wrong".

This is as close to a direct citation of the law of averages that I've seen in a long time.

And then you have lobbies trying to explain why they are on the right side and their opponents are on the wrong side,

"Everybody is going to complain anyway..."

lawyers who are really good at finding loopholes

The problem is lobbyists that are very good at adding loopholes.

in the end, what you get is something like GDPR with all its complexities. You can't really escape it.

When you want to pass a law limiting what companies can do with data without the user's consent, but don't really want to limit what companies are doing in any way, you end up with weird, baroque definitions of data and consent.

If you're never willing to risk profits, or to make certain businesses completely unsustainable, then every regulation must come accompanied with either a trivial method for large enough companies to ignore it, or must be paired with a completely unrelated regulatory giveaway.

gred
4 replies
2d3h

My guess is that this will probably require a Constitutional Amendment to shore up the fourth amendment (call it 4A++).

insickness
3 replies
2d3h

It won't. There are already laws in place, like the California Consumer Privacy Act, which governs how user data is handled.

phkahler
1 replies
2d3h

And HIPPA.

nathanaldensr
0 replies
2d2h

*HIPAA

stjohnswarts
0 replies
2d3h

California law never supercedes federal law unless it's even more strict.

georgeg23
10 replies
2d3h

The main source that sells a continuous cross-platform civilian tracking dragnet (probably to the NSA) is Peter Thiel's company Palantir.

Thiel is at the center of so much other sci-fi military industrial complex stuff, it's scary.

georgeg23
7 replies
2d2h

Update, actually NSA is a confirmed customer.

https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/11/leaked-palantir-doc-reveal...

The company's name is derived from The Lord of the Rings where the magical palantíri were "seeing-stones," described as indestructible balls of crystal used for communication and to see events in other parts of the world

goblinux
6 replies
2d2h

The INSANE thing to me about naming your company Palantir after the artifact from Middle Earth is the story behind the seeing stones.

By the Third Age - when the events of the Lord of the Rings take place - several of the Palantiri (plural) are lost. The danger of using the stones was twofold: 1) not all the stones were accounted for, you couldn’t know who was listening in and 2) Sauron had one of the stones.

A dark lord who wanted to rule the world in fire and ash and darkness had this surveillance tool and used it to corrupt the other known users of the seeing stones, Denethor and Sauroman. That was the plot structure of these stones. Aragon and Merry/Pippin were able to use them against Sauron, who thought the hobbits with Aragorn might be Frodo. But again, to me this shows the danger of making decisions based on spying technology. Sauron committed his forces against Gondor because his intel told him and it led to his eye being distracted from Frodo/Sam/Gollum sneaking over the mountains and into Mt. Doom.

Why you would name your surveillance company after that is beyond me. To me it would be like getting aboard a plane run by Icarus airlines or naming the next big boat/plane/rocketship Titanic.

gordian-mind
3 replies
2d2h

This is just a nerdy reference to the activity of gathering intelligence.

But again, to me this shows the danger of making decisions based on spying technology.

Having more information is rarely a bad thing for making decisions. So that was probably not the point.

notpushkin
0 replies
2d1h

Having more information is rarely a bad thing for making decisions

In some cases it leads to pretty bad things though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdiagnosis

And more generally, the more information you gather, the more extraordinary processing you have to put in place to get anything useful out of it.

marcosdumay
0 replies
2d

If your enemy (and the US seems to place absolutely everyone on this category nowadays) has the power to insert information at will into your spying device, it will always be much, much worse than useless.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF
0 replies
2d1h

Having more information is rarely a bad thing for making decisions.

It’s a bad thing commonly enough that it has a name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

The caution in the tale is that attention paid to what is known might distract from what is unknown.

marcosdumay
0 replies
2d

Ok, I read your post and though "no way, there has to be an Icarus Airlines out there"... And well, I could find 2:

https://airlinehistory.co.uk/airline/icarus-airlines/

Icarus Airlines, known as Greece’s first airline, was formed in 1930 but went bankrupt within months

That history seems fitting. And this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icaro_Air

Icaro Air was an airline based in Quito, Ecuador. Its main base was Mariscal Sucre International Airport, Quito.

That one operated for 4 decades.

If large space transporters ever become popular, there's no way there won't be a few named Titanic. People like those names, and the context doesn't hit as quickly as the awe.

MSFT_Edging
0 replies
2d2h

Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale

Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus

https://twitter.com/AlexBlechman/status/1457842724128833538?...

skummetmaelk
1 replies
2d2h

Thiel is the closest we have to a comic book villain honestly. I find it incredible that he mostly manages to stay under the radar. Maybe it's just because all Musk's antics are easier to cover.

wazer5
0 replies
2d1h

Also under-covered are that both Musk and Thiel are deeply involved in the Republican's plans for a new Strategic Defense Initiative.

kevin_thibedeau
8 replies
1d21h

CUI is not classified information, as its name indicates, but it should, generally speaking, be protected with access controls and not widely disseminated. Wyden is clearly not a fan of this labeling, which he described as a "made up designation with no basis in law." CUI was created by an executive order from President Obama in 2010.

This is the bigger problem. Classified documents have a mandatory declassification date that is only overridden in special circumstances. CUI can last indefinitely because it's an extra-legal construction designed to stay outside the classification system.

goodluckchuck
6 replies
1d19h

Classification doesn’t derive it’s legal existence from statute. It’s the POTUS’s inherent authority to maintain (and disclose) state secrets under the constitution and separation of powers doctrine. Congress has limited authority to regulate this executive power.

zmgsabst
5 replies
1d12h

Where is that power defined in the constitution?

I’m unaware of the “state secret” clause in the executive section, while Congress is explicitly granted the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.

Regulating classification sounds like “making rules for the government”.

goodluckchuck
4 replies
1d12h

You’re misreading that line.

It’s referring to rules for how the military is governed, and for how the military is regulated. So the rules control the military’s government, and the military’s regulation.

It’s somewhat fair, that the words “state secrets” do not appear, but I would hope we could agree that any sovereign state would have to be anle to keep secrets, particularly in the realm of military, war, diplomacy, law enforcement investigations, espionage, etc. It’s a power the executive must have and “ The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Of course, the Legislature and Judiciary also have the inherent right to keep secrets. The Supreme Court keeps their deliberations secret, because they feel they need to. Congress keeps some meetings secret. None of that falls into the classification system.

zmgsabst
3 replies
1d9h

Where you lose me is declaring it’s a power that the executive must have without legislative authorization. (And similarly, the other branches.)

Where does that come from?

goodluckchuck
2 replies
1d5h

It comes from the history and tradition of the terms as they were used at the time of the founding. Keeping secrets has always been something a king would do.

Consider the alternative. What if the legislature declined to provide authorization? If they decided not to approve a treaty, the nation could survive and the POTUS could still generally do their job. If the legislature denied the POTUS the right to keep secrets, it’d be utterly impossible to fulfill the duties of the office. If - per congressional mandate - he had to truthfully answer reporters questions about out nuclear capabilities and procedures, or explain to a wartime enemy his plans, reveal the identities of spies… These are all things that are so anathema the duties of the executive office that you can’t honestly say someone holds the executive power if they don’t have control over these things.

But, yeah, you’re completely fair in the fact that in constitutional law many of the most important aspects aren’t spelled out in great detail and can be up for honest debate.

goodluckchuck
1 replies
1d3h

I did want to clarify that the executive privilege allows the POTUS to keep and disclose secrets as desired, the classification system is also pretty necessary.

The President regularly needs subordinate executive officers, staff, etc. to know and keep secrets. The Executive Privilege is enough to help them keep the secrets if they’re willing, but sometimes subordinates want to leak secrets. If it’s wartime and they’re sharing secrets with the enemy, then that may be treason, but generally there wouldn’t be any criminal penalties for leaking secrets during times of peace, etc. The classification system exists to support the President. If he says to keep his secret and you don’t, the legislature says thats a crime.

IG_Semmelweiss
0 replies
3h50m

I dont thunk anyone is saying that govt must not have secrets

The pushback in this article (and in this thread) is against some kind of supra priviledge that you can default certain secrets to "default opt out" from standard secret rules

There is a problem with an entity that has the monopoly on violence also having a monopoly on state information

c0pium
0 replies
1d20h

That’s untrue, they have a mandatory declassification review date. The review can push the date back effectively infinitely through further reviews. The special circumstances, as you call them, are that the reviewer deems that information needs to remain classified.

worewood
6 replies
2d1h

So it's like a canary: the senator has the answer but wants to make it public.

If the answer was "no" then he wouldn't be pushing for it, so the answer is obviously yes, they are buying data of american citizens in bulk, warrantlessly

salawat
3 replies
2d

No. The Senator does not have the answer.

They couldn't ask the question if they'd already signed the appropriate contracts on which access to SCI or other classified info is underpinned, If they had, asking the question would amount to a tacit disclosure.

Other Senators who have signed those documents have confirmed as much. Once the IC gets burned by you, even if they don't press charges due to political impossibility, you don't get invited to those parties anymore.

lern_too_spel
2 replies
1d23h

Wyden is on the Senate Intelligence Committee. As such, he is guaranteed by law to have access to all intelligence activities. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/about

salawat
0 replies
17h53m

There is a difference between "guaranteed by law to have access to everything" and "has the prerequisite index and shape of data on hand with which to formulate queries capable of being answered such that access to the entire data space is possible".

The former is likely true. However, the lack of the latter, (which I assure you, is the case as SCI (Secret Compartmentalized Information) was developed specifically for that reason), sets an upper bound on the effective capabilities of anyone tasked with the job of oversight. You must be 10% smarter than that which you oversee to really do it effectively.

If you've ever chased down a memory leak, you'll understand what I mean. Senator Wyden cannot oversee the super secret Soylent Green program until somebody slips up enough to someone for word of a program that converts people to food to make it back to him to ask about.

Passport4-Lurk
0 replies
1d21h

"Under certain circumstances, the President may restrict access to covert action activities to only the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, and the House and Senate leadership. By law, even in these rare cases, all Committee Members will be aware of such circumstances and be provided a “general description” of the covert action information that is fully briefed only to the leadership."

I guess that depends on what "general description" means. Take Stellar Wind for example, as briefings were limited to the Gang of Eight. [1] I would like to know what the "general description" of that program was and what other members were informed of.

[1]: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/brief-history-programma...

bilbo0s
1 replies
2d

Even if that's true, the mitigation is not to sell it.

Even better, forbid its collection.

This is all theater. The answers are obvious and easy to legislate. Simply forbid the practice of collecting the data in the first place. But they won't. The fact is they want these companies to collect and aggregate our data. But recently privacy advocates have been asking for a ban on that practice. So the corrupt politicians are trying to distract the general populace with privacy theater in a desperate and pathetic attempt to alter the public gaze.

Enter this "no-action" on the NSA.

spacephysics
0 replies
1d22h

But I think there’s additional layers at play here.

Its less of the logistics of outlawing it, it seems this is more akin to “sunlight is the best disinfectant”

I wouldn’t be surprised if this senator doesn’t have the backing or the political capital to pull this off successfully (just submitting legislature vs withholding appointment)

I think anything that can be exposed to more mainstream viewers has a higher likelihood of getting “better” sooner. (“Better” being highly relative)

user3939382
6 replies
2d3h

I’d be surprised if they’re “buying browsing data” instead of just having a tap on all major ISPs and siphoning everything off directly, or compelling ISPs to do this with NSLs.

NemoNobody
1 replies
2d2h

They buy it so someone else has theoretically done all the nasty stuff to get it - they just take advantage of the opportunity.

Truthfully, the NSA should know at least as much about me as Google, or I don't know why it exists.

ilc
0 replies
1d22h

The NSA doesn't need to know what Google knows. It needs to know things beyond what Google knows.

It may have less information overall. But that information may be of much higher value.

It is not much data to know how other countries are encrypting their political or military data. And the amount of data in there may not be that high.

The value is... tremendous. Bulk data collection, gives an overall picture. But the details that make it real, that's the secret sauce of the NSA and CIA.

password4321
0 replies
2d2h

They get the data either way and it's all taxpayer funded.

forward1
0 replies
2d2h
bilekas
0 replies
2d3h

This. There is no need to purchase data, and also maybe a loophole legally when there is no need for a warrant when the traffic is passing through.

bearjaws
0 replies
2d2h

Why create new problems (that will cost you lawyer money) when you can just buy the data?

Apocryphon
6 replies
2d3h

Wyden for President.

Eumenes
3 replies
1d22h

This guy is wrong about every single thing, except government surveillance/spying. Example, he supported the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720) which criminalizes boycott and divestment activism by U.S. citizens against the State of Israel

0xDEF
1 replies
1d22h

US law forbids US government contractors from complying with foreign state sanctions and boycotts against Israel.

For example Lockheed Martin is not allowed to comply with Qatari and Turkish demands to boycott and sanction Israel.

Private US citizens and companies who are not government contractors can boycott Israel as much as they want.

You are probably confusing the law with some weird Texas law that also forbids government workers from boycotting Israel.

The EU has similar laws forbidding EU companies with complying with US/Israeli sanctions against Iran.

Eumenes
0 replies
1d21h

In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[88] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel.[89]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Israel

Apocryphon
0 replies
1d21h

Wyden for NSA director.

willy_k
0 replies
2d1h

Unfortunately, there’s only one candidate over 70 with a real chance.

uncletammy
0 replies
2d2h

I would quit my job tomorrow and move to Oregon to work on his campaign. No joke.

hereme888
5 replies
1d20h

You could say that I'm a "Republican", but I love reading articles where it's a Democrat doing things that are obviously correct. It shatters the divide that politics and media try to create.

That's why, while party platforms are vastly different in core values, I don't care to be grouped into any party but my own beliefs, judging actions and people individually, not collectively.

secfirstmd
4 replies
1d19h

As a European in a country with complex multi-party coalitions and most people voting across the party system every couple of years. This comment is just so weird.

appplication
3 replies
1d19h

We don’t have that luxury in the US. It’s not that voters don’t want it, it’s that there is no feasible way to get there (without structural change to our voting system). Sure, US voters like the above comment have generally developed strong political identities to one of the two parties. But there is no chance for any third party under the current system. It allows for overwhelmingly entrenched party lines.

Should you as a voter choose to vote for a third party candidate, you’re basically voting against your second choice and for your last choice. “Voting for a third party is throwing away your vote” is a very real phenomenon, to the point here it is an actively exploited political strategy to promote third party candidates with overlapping views to your opponent to siphon off votes. See Russian interference promoting the Green Party in 2016 as an example.

And sure you could wave your ideals around and say “but you absolutely must vote for what you think is right, that is how change happens”. But in reality, under the US system that’s how you end up ensuring the least palatable party (to you) ends up in power. There are thousands of elections every cycle, and we have overwhelming empirical evidence that third party candidates are completely inviable at basically all levels of government.

remram
1 replies
1d15h

This is such a wrong take. Sure, you have to vote for a single party, but that doesn't mean you can't support specific ideas no matter where they come from.

And not even that, mostly voting does nothing either, because winner-takes-all: the way to be heard is packing up and moving to another state. Make a blue state bigger demographically because voting blue in a red state does nothing (and vice versa).

appplication
0 replies
1d15h

I’m not sure I see how my comment is at odds with yours. As you point out, voting and ideological support are orthogonal concepts, if intertwined. I agree with you there.

As far as voting not mattering, it both does and it doesn’t. Your individual vote may not matter, but convincing large groups of people their vote does not matter does matter and has also been historically exploited as a voter suppression technique.

There’s a lot of game theory one could reason about optimizing your ability to participate in the US democracy, but unfortunately the outcomes of that exercise are generally quite depressing.

hereme888
0 replies
1d8h

Exactly.

In the US it's not as simple as "voting for what you think is right", but being strategic in using your one vote to cause the most impact.

Since a 3rd party candidate with no chance to win by polls is a waste of the vote, it becomes a game of "the lesser of two evils", "the greater of two goods", or something like that.

GartzenDeHaes
4 replies
2d3h

Complete nonsense. My uninformed guess is that they aren't buying from some political crony, so the crony's friend in the congress or senate (Ron Wyden probably) is rattling some cages.

yonaguska
1 replies
2d3h

Ron Wyden has been pretty consistent in his opposition to overreach of the 4th branch of govt for his entire political career. I don't think he's grifting. I'm usually very pessimistic about this stuff.

pbronez
0 replies
1d23h

We are fortunate to have Wyden.

yodon
0 replies
2d2h

My uninformed guess

Your description of your own comment is quite likely the most self-aware statement I've ever seen here on HN.

You would do well to read up on Ron Wyden's history, both as a senator and as a representative.

mardifoufs
0 replies
2d

Cronyism is when you fight for civil rights? What in the psyop is this argument

MichaelMoser123
2 replies
1d15h

wait, if the NSA needs to buy location data, does that mean they can't get it directly from the mobile phone carrier?

remram
0 replies
1d13h

They could get it with a warrant, buying it allows them to circumvent due process entirely.

autoexec
0 replies
1d14h

I suspect that they buy it from the phone carriers too.

worik
1 replies
1d21h

I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar . But if I understand the fourth ammendment protects you USA from government unreasonable search.

I say it a lot, the state is nolonger the main threat to your freedom. This data gathering, building detailed dossiers on AL, of us all, by faceless business operators is a genuine, immediate threat

It must be stopped

raincom
0 replies
1d21h

For every amendment, there are 'loopholes': third-party doctrine [1] is a legally sanctioned loophole around 4A.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

bananapub
1 replies
2d1h

it is absolutely amazing that this plus the "military facilities being mapped via Strava data" etc never lead to a serious discussion about privacy in general in the US. why does the government allow this commercial database to exist at all?

anticorporate
0 replies
2d

The government allows commercial spying to exist so they can buy the data. They would have all sort of legal hurdles collecting this data themselves, but they don't have to bother with it when the corporations collecting it are doing the dirty work for them.

ajross
1 replies
1d21h

I think Wyden is great, and broadly support the aim here. But the specifics just don't work for me. I mean, the argument presented by the article is that this is a fourth amendment violation: the government is conducting an unreasonable search by buying personal data.

But... sorry, that's batshit. Can there be ANY definition for "reasonable" more apt than "available for legal purchase on the public market"? If we don't want this stuff for sale, we should pass a law and get it out of the market.

Absent that, honestly? I think the NSA is one of the least threatening purchasers of this junk.

hannasm
0 replies
1d20h

It seems like the spirit of the 4th amendment could / should be applied to the corporations and big data brokers. The problem seems to be with how it's applied in practice, private entities are freely allowed to make insecure papers / effects (data) of their customers, claim it as their own property and then redistribute it.

If that was happening with physical property instead of digital data I don't think anyone would be confused about the legality of it.

0xDEF
1 replies
2d2h

[Deleted]

bitvoid
0 replies
2d2h

IIRC, FBI get a lot of their domestic surveillance data from the NSA.

mediumsmart
0 replies
1d12h

assassination DES NORAD Delta Force Waco, Texas SDI explosion Serbian Panama Uzi Ft. Meade SEAL Team 6 Honduras PLO NSA

jeffrallen
0 replies
1d21h

Wyden is maybe the best politician to ever come from Oregon. Thank you, Ron.