221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm sure they'll stop immediately...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/07/404898259/federal-court-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal
The National Security Agency's practice of collecting data about Americans' telephone calls in bulk goes beyond what Congress intended when it wrote Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
The three-judge panel was asked to consider whether the program violated the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel punted on the constitutional claim, deciding the program was simply not authorized by federal law.
One of the big reasons it is hard to discern congressional intent in this case, the court wrote, is because the bulk collection program has been shrouded in secrecy. So it cannot "reasonably be said" that Congress OK'd "a program of which many members of Congress — and all members of the public — were not aware."
The court concludes that it has no qualms about taking this step because if Congress wants to "authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously."
The NSA's collection of phone metadata came back into the spotlight after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that shed light on the program.
One of the first leaked documents was a secret court ruling that ordered Verizon to hand over the telephone metadata of all its customers. Metadata does not mean the content of calls. Instead it means things like time, phone numbers and duration of calls.
Update at 9:57 a.m. ET. Echoes Some Members Of Congress:
NPR's David Welna, who covers national security for the network, tells us the ruling echoes what some members of Congress have been saying. David reports:
"This ruling dovetails with what one of the lead authors of the Patriot Act – former House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner – said last week about section 215: 'I can say in no uncertain terms that Congress did not intend to allow the bulk collection of Americans' records. The government's overbroad collection is based on a blatant misreading of the law.'
"The House Judiciary Committee last week approved a revision of Section 215 that bars bulk data collection under that provision. Sen. Majority leader McConnell has a bill pending that would extend Section 215 without changes until 2020."
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
I think the appeals court bottled this big time. If this is not a violation of the US constitution, then I don't know what the hell is.
The text could not be clearer. Here it is for non-US folk:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm not a lawyer, but mass collection of people's phone data, regardless of whether they had committed crimes, or were suspected of committing crimes, is a violation of the unreasonable searches and seizures part of the amendment.
47145
Post by: Tsilber
The most simple and realistic solutions is for people to simply throw away their cell phone.. I know of no one who was bothered by this and actually did the one thing that is non contestable to solve the problem, throw away your cell phone.
Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone? But instead of the simple solution, most people have become so attached to their cell phones they will argue "well we shouldn't have to get rid of our cell phones". And you may be right, or 100% right, but in the end no one can take any huge steps or make any difference to prevent something like this happening again unless you toss your cell phone away, or get a prepaid cell phone.
Are we really surprised by what any of our Government agencies do anymore?
And before anyone makes any what ifs or hypothetical, my comment is in regards to the cell phone issue alone.
I myself think its wrong they do it, but it doesnt bother me enough to want to file law suits, or start some crusade, or give away my cell phone. Honestly if they here me talking on the phone about how I would kill the false emperor of man kind, and side with Abaddon the next time he wages war, than so be it.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Throwing away a cell phone isn't a 'realistic solution' considering the importance of cell phones in modern life.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tsilber wrote: The most simple and realistic solutions is for people to simply throw away their cell phone.. I know of no one who was bothered by this and actually did the one thing that is non contestable to solve the problem, throw away your cell phone.
Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone? But instead of the simple solution, most people have become so attached to their cell phones they will argue "well we shouldn't have to get rid of our cell phones". And you may be right, or 100% right, but in the end no one can take any huge steps or make any difference to prevent something like this happening again unless you toss your cell phone away, or get a prepaid cell phone.
Are we really surprised by what any of our Government agencies do anymore?
And before anyone makes any what ifs or hypothetical, my comment is in regards to the cell phone issue alone.
I myself think its wrong they do it, but it doesnt bother me enough to want to file law suits, or start some crusade, or give away my cell phone. Honestly if they here me talking on the phone about how I would kill the false emperor of man kind, and side with Abaddon the next time he wages war, than so be it.
You also have to throw away all computer devices including the computer in your car.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Most governments tend to forget that they are servants of the people and not the masters.
True, it's not a perfect world, but nobody should have to throw away their cell phones.
I doubt if Andrew Jackson would have put up with this level of intrusion 
47145
Post by: Tsilber
The importance of Cell phones in modern life is a 2 part, arguable defense. A i own my own business and would do fine without having a cell phone, and what you consider a modern life, may not be what others consider a modern life...
But i do understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree to the extent of the conveyance factor. But the world does not work a "certain way"... Its ones own life to choose how to live and what to want, accept, tolerate, or disallow.
Frazzle, good points.. But as my post said I was referring solo to cell phones. As that is the primary source of Data that is unblockable. A computer has a blockable asset, 15 minutes on google or youtube will show you how to prevent a lot of what was referred to in those documents. Now I do not speak to my cars computer, so not sure what they will find out about me from that, let alone if I have anything illegal in my car at any time...
And I agree, Andrew Jackson and many others of the past would not stand for it, yet they would do something about from a position of influence and power. Our Justice system, politicians loyalties, and Government institutions have swayed far from the path of what was right and justice.
I guess other than throwing away your phones, wait for the Zombie apok, The San Andreas fault or yellowstone to erupt and wipe off 50% of our population, or some other mass doomsday tale to come true, so we can push the reset button.
Was it wrong? Sure, does it disrupt your way of life in anyway? We can argue it, and point to every law, Constitutional right, or past historical figure to make reference to, however to what end? To what end result? Throw away your cell phone is the only sure way, anything short is accepting its the fact of the matter. Honestly, lifes to short to worry about things like this, far greater concerns in the Country that effect you day in and day out, if you must worry, worry about those things.
18698
Post by: kronk
If women couldn't buy short skirts, they wouldn't get assaulted.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
34390
Post by: whembly
There's a lot of "yeah, but..." going around these days...
As to the OP:
Good.
Can we finally kill the Patriot Act? Just let it expire...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Frazzle, good points.. But as my post said I was referring solo to cell phones. As that is the primary source of Data that is unblockable. A computer has a blockable asset, 15 minutes on google or youtube will show you how to prevent a lot of what was referred to in those documents. Now I do not speak to my cars computer, so not sure what they will find out about me from that, let alone if I have anything illegal in my car at any time...
How are you going to block the computer in your car? In your TVs?
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
 Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
James Madison had never written a constitution before in his life until you know when, but it never stopped him from picking up his quill.
I'm not a lawyer, thank God, but that doesn't mean I can't express a view on the law, or even the US constitution.
18698
Post by: kronk
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
I'm not a doctor, but snorting 3 lines of cocaine before flying a plane across the country is probably a bad idea.
16387
Post by: Manchu
By all means, express your views. But perhaps preface them as described above.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Tsilber wrote:Whats really more important, your constitutional rights or having a cell phone?
My cell phone. It provides practical value to me, while my constitutional right in this case provides nothing more than an abstract philosophical argument about privacy. That doesn't mean that the government is right, but the effect of this kind of mass data collection on the average person is negligible.
37231
Post by: d-usa
If people would just burn down their homes or get a different hotel room every couple weeks then they wouldn't have to worry about unconstitutional search warrants.
Just saying... Automatically Appended Next Post:  kronk wrote: Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
I'm not a doctor, but snorting 3 lines of cocaine before flying a plane across the country is probably a bad idea.
I'm not a porn star, but 4 inches is average. I promise!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
Bout sums that one up.....
Anyhow, yeah as in the OP and Do I Not Like That's comments... I would be pretty damn worried if the courts had decided it was cool to be violating the constitution.
1464
Post by: Breotan
 Frazzled wrote:How are you going to block the computer in your car? In your TVs?
Bah! Too easy.
First...
Second...
91
Post by: Hordini
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
You don't usually see "I'm not a particle physicist, but," but I'm pretty sure I've seen people preface things with "I'm not a scientist, but".
A question though: Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of completely bogus opinions out there and a lot of misunderstanding of the law by non-lawyers, but do you really think someone necessarily has to be a lawyer in order to have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion about a legal issue and then write about it?
In addition, there are plenty of other professions that take a great deal of education, knowledge, training, or experience to enter into, but even in those cases that doesn't always mean that someone outside the profession can't be educated about the subject and discuss it with at least a modicum of credibility. Although in fairness, we do probably see "I'm not a lawyer, but" more often than "I'm not [insert other profession], but," around here.
Or were you just referring to this particular thread? 
241
Post by: Ahtman
I don't think he said only lawyers can have opinions, just that he doesn't care for the opener "I'm not a lawyer...". If you are going to say something or opine just do so, no need to say what you aren't.
I'm not a lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.
I think all the redheads should be executed.
See? It doesn't really need the preamble.
Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that.
I may be just a simple country lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Ahtman wrote:I don't think he said only lawyers can have opinions, just that he doesn't care for the opener "I'm not a lawyer...". If you are going to say something or opine just do so, no need to say what you aren't. I'm not a lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed. I think all the redheads should be executed. See? It doesn't really need the preamble. Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that. I may be just a simple country lawyer but I think all the redheads should be executed.
I didn't say have an opinion, I said have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion. There is a difference. 
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Hordini wrote:do you really think someone necessarily has to be a lawyer in order to have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion about a legal issue and then write about it?
That really depends on what you mean by "reasonable." Being a lawyer is certainly not sufficient to make a definitive proclamation about the constitutionality of a law (you need to be at least five Supreme Court Justices to do that) ... and yet that is exactly what the poster to whom I responded did. But I don't get the feeling you really had that extreme example in mind. Still, I need more information about what you mean by "reasonable." It seems most people think "constitutional" and "what seems good to me" are one and the same. But that's hardly the basis for a reasonable opinion about the law. And of course one doesn't need a juris doctorate (much less to be a practicing attorney) to think and write about law coherently; there are certainly other ways to study law in this country just as you can be educated about particle physics without earning a Ph.D. Ahtman wrote:Unless you are simple country lawyer, then you can preface anything with that.
Yer Onner, I don't know spit about no lawyerin' but ... See also, "I'm just a caveman ..."
19370
Post by: daedalus
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
I can practice particle physics without the BAR.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Browning Automatic Rifle?
Sounds less fun.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Huh. I thought it was an acronym for something. Apparently not, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.
Also: It's totally less fun.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I thought so; either that or you just felt like inappropriately YELLING that part of your sentence for comic effect.
5470
Post by: sebster
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
I'm not an internet pundit, but I think you make a very good point there.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Car...you got me.
TV...you now need a converter for the new digital system. Guess what the converter has...Yep COMPUTER CHIPS SENDING MICROWAVES INTO MY BRAIN!!! Good thing I read about this protective helmet online. Its just like magneto's but much cheaper, made from handy grocery store products. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imagine practicing physics with the BAR. 
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
So all that time I spent downrange, and those firefights I got into count towards a physics degree?! Where's my PhD.... I should be Dr. Ensis Ferrae at this point!!
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So all that time I spent downrange, and those firefights I got into count towards a physics degree?! Where's my PhD.... I should be Dr. Ensis Ferrae at this point!!
Those are "projectile physics", not "particle physics". How much time did you spend with explosives? Those might count.
5394
Post by: reds8n
So can Snowden go back to the USA now then ?
Without getting arrested/whatever.
34390
Post by: whembly
 reds8n wrote: So can Snowden go back to the USA now then ?
Without getting arrested/whatever.
No.. still broken laws.
Had he taken up actual legal whistleblower status... that'd be a different story.
91
Post by: Hordini
Manchu wrote: Hordini wrote:do you really think someone necessarily has to be a lawyer in order to have enough education, knowledge, or experience to form a reasonable opinion about a legal issue and then write about it?
That really depends on what you mean by "reasonable." Being a lawyer is certainly not sufficient to make a definitive proclamation about the constitutionality of a law (you need to be at least five Supreme Court Justices to do that) ... and yet that is exactly what the poster to whom I responded did. But I don't get the feeling you really had that extreme example in mind. Still, I need more information about what you mean by "reasonable." It seems most people think "constitutional" and "what seems good to me" are one and the same. But that's hardly the basis for a reasonable opinion about the law. And of course one doesn't need a juris doctorate (much less to be a practicing attorney) to think and write about law coherently; there are certainly other ways to study law in this country just as you can be educated about particle physics without earning a Ph.D.
Okay, thank you for clarifying. I think we agree. By reasonable I meant primarily reasonable with at least some credible justification, but without having a juris doctorate.
73999
Post by: Haight
Manchu wrote:By all means, express your views. But perhaps preface them as described above.
So without a legal degree of some sort you can't proffer opinion on laws without a self deprecating preamble ? That's bizarre to me.
Show of hands in this thread if you have a legal degree ?
I have three, so I can chime in. 
back on topic:
Glad they ruled this way, next up get rid of the Patriot Act.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Haight wrote: Manchu wrote:By all means, express your views. But perhaps preface them as described above.
So without a legal degree of some sort you can't proffer opinion on laws without a self deprecating preamble ? That's bizarre to me.
Show of hands in this thread if you have a legal degree ?
I have three, so I can chime in.
back on topic:
Glad they ruled this way, next up get rid of the Patriot Act.
Manchu and I literally just discussed this. If you look at what he and I posted you'll see that that's not what he's saying.
73999
Post by: Haight
Hordini wrote: Haight wrote: Manchu wrote:By all means, express your views. But perhaps preface them as described above.
So without a legal degree of some sort you can't proffer opinion on laws without a self deprecating preamble ? That's bizarre to me.
Show of hands in this thread if you have a legal degree ?
I have three, so I can chime in.
back on topic:
Glad they ruled this way, next up get rid of the Patriot Act.
Manchu and I literally just discussed this. If you look at what he and I posted you'll see that that's not what he's saying.
Except that what he says int he clarification is not, literally, what he said in reference to what i quoted ; he said that if people aren't lawyers they shouldn't open up with "i'm not a lawyer" but rather "I lack the education to speak on this topic"
That's a pretty bold statement. Clarification or no.
Also physics and law are a bit different. Science and Math tend to be less subjective than something like Law. Sure theories evovle (and listen, i'm not a scientist, so if i'm wrong here, i'm all ears!) - law evolves, changes, over time. Sometimes drastically. Sometimes so drastically that laws get overturned due to irrelevance or changing social norms. The sciences tend to be, once out of hypothesis territory - so possibly Physics isn't the best example - a lot more concrete once proven. So a proven theory and an upheld law .... a proven theory unless something REALLY drastic takes place in the scientific community remains a proven theory. A law, even if upheld, 100 years later can be completely overturned.
But that shouldn't require anyone to have formal legal training to form opinions and talk about it and opening up with "I dont have the education required to speak on this".
Just so there's no confusion, this is the exact post i was responding to (which i quoted a comment in reference to it, but not it directly):
Manchu wrote:Ugh. Why is it that you never read, "I'm not a particle physicist, but" statements on the internet? Instead of writing, "I'm not a a lawyer, but" folks should just write "I don't have the education, knowledge, training, or experience to write about this issue, but."
What do we infer from that other than if someone lacks Legal education, knowledge, training, or experience, then they don't know enough to write about the issue ?
Most people don't have those things, but most people have opinions on laws. That's why i found the suggested (and what i quoted) preamble bizarre.
91
Post by: Hordini
Well, that's why I asked him for clarification. And if you're only looking at that post by itself, then yes, I suppose you could infer that - but again, not to speak for him, but based on his clarification that doesn't appear to be what Manchu is really trying to say.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The law is a specialized body of knowledge. It is absurd to follow disclaiming that knowledge by declaring legal conclusions. And yet it is nevertheless a common practice and an irritating one. If people were to say aloud or write out that they are completely ignorant about the subject on which they are about to opine, they may find it is more suitable to pose a question rather than pronounce a judgment.
1464
Post by: Breotan
reds8n wrote: So can Snowden go back to the USA now then ?
Without getting arrested/whatever.
Nope. Unless he gets lucky with jury nullification, he's due to be old and grey when he gets out of prison even with minimum sentencing.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Manchu wrote:The law is a specialized body of knowledge. It is absurd to follow disclaiming that knowledge by declaring legal conclusions. And yet it is nevertheless a common practice and an irritating one. If people were to say aloud or write out that they are completely ignorant about the subject on which they are about to opine, they may find it is more suitable to pose a question rather than pronounce a judgment.
What does any of this have to do with the actual topic?
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Now i'm not a mod, but we seem to have gotten slightly derailed here.
Back on topic: good on the appeals court.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Treating this as an honest question: Whether the NSA's program violates the Fourth Amendment is not a foregone conclusion despite uninformed sentiment. The Second Circuit did not accidentally approach its ruling from a non-Constitutional perspective.
73999
Post by: Haight
Manchu wrote:The law is a specialized body of knowledge. It is absurd to follow disclaiming that knowledge by declaring legal conclusions. And yet it is nevertheless a common practice and an irritating one. If people were to say aloud or write out that they are completely ignorant about the subject on which they are about to opine, they may find it is more suitable to pose a question rather than pronounce a judgment.
Okay, this I get, and now makes sense. This in and of itself would make a great thread. There's a legal term for it - the logic of advocacy and / or ethics of advocacy, but as such, is probably now OT in this thread.
I hope you didn't think i was taking shots, I just found the statements interesting and worth pursuing into discussion.
.... BTW, i almost 100% agree with the sentiment as stated above. There's tons of threads on the law and legal conclusions on this site that i bow out of once we hit the nadir of legal logic passing over into "personal opinion being proffered as legal logic".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Treating this as an honest question: Whether the NSA's program violates the Fourth Amendment is not a foregone conclusion despite uninformed sentiment. The Second Circuit did not accidentally approach its ruling from a non-Constitutional perspective.
Yup.
I was preparing to turn the conversation towards this tangent, but Manchu clarified his thoughts to such a degree that it's not now necessary.
It was not OT, it was developing a tangent which has now not panned out.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Treating this as an honest question: Whether the NSA's program violates the Fourth Amendment is not a foregone conclusion despite uninformed sentiment.
Note that there are two separate questions here: whether or not the government has found some loophole or "reinterpretation" of the fourth amendment that technically allows this (a question that requires a lot of legal knowledge to answer) and whether or not the NSA program should be found to violate the fourth amendment (a much simpler question that anyone can answer). Even if the answer to the first question is "yes" it just proves that the government has so thoroughly undermined the fourth amendment that even blatant violations like the NSA program are somehow "legal".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Rather than constitutionality, or legality generally, I think your second question has to do with whether people feel comfortable with what the NSA is doing. People are substituting a legal conclusion ("that's unconstitutional") for an emotional sentiment ("I don't like that"). It's perfectly legitimate to argue that the government should not do things you don't like; it's just not a legal argument and it has nothing to do with what is or isn't constitutional.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Rather than constitutionality, or legality generally, I think your second question has to do with whether people feel comfortable with what the NSA is doing. People are substituting a legal conclusion ("that's unconstitutional") for an emotional sentiment ("I don't like that"). It's perfectly legitimate to argue that the government should not do things you don't like; it's just not a legal argument and it has nothing to do with what is or isn't constitutional.
No, I don't think that's accurate at all. There are clearly things that people are uncomfortable with, but have to concede are legal. The issue that people have with the NSA program is that it's blatantly a violation of the intent of the fourth amendment, and if a court says "this is constitutional" it will just be evidence that the government has so thoroughly undermined the fourth amendment's protections (TOUGH ON CRIME! TERRORISM!!!!) that even the most blatant violations can still find some kind of loophole to be "legal".
16387
Post by: Manchu
The NSA program is actually not "blatantly unconstitutional" except where "unconstitutional" is used to express some non-legal sentiment. Whether there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue is as the Second Circuit extensively concedes a very thorny legal issue.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The NSA program is actually not "blatantly unconstitutional" except where "unconstitutional" is used to express some non-legal sentiment.
What about it is constitutional? It's a warrantless search with no probable cause. The only reason this is even up for debate at all is that the government has made a consistent effort to undermine our fourth amendment rights and replace it with "no warrantless searches, unless the police really want to do it".
Whether there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue is as the Second Circuit extensively concedes a very thorny legal issue.
Of course there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, that's why the government had to order phone/internet companies to hand it over instead of just looking at public information. The only reason anyone wouldn't expect privacy is that we all know that the government doesn't care one bit about the legality of its searches as long as they say "terrorism" enough times, and so your "private" information is only private if the government voluntarily allows it to be.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The Fourth Amendment only applies to unreasonable searches/seizures. Corporate data policies are not prima facie evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
5534
Post by: dogma
I'm pretty sure Lego could figure out where you live. Hell, if I knew your real name I could easily do the same with little effort. Welcome to the internet, and all the complicated legal issues associated with it.
 Peregrine wrote:
...that's why the government had to order phone/internet companies to hand it over instead of just looking at public information.
That statement doesn't make sense to me. What is the distinction between public and private information?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Manchu wrote:The Fourth Amendment only applies to unreasonable searches/seizures. Corporate data policies are not prima facie evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
There was a case during the Prohibition that would go against what you're saying.... There was a rum runner up in Seattle who was for a time, a Detective on the force. Seeing the money being made in booze he started doing that on the side, and via phone taps was ultimately caught and sent to prison. While imprisoned his lawyers appealed, until finally the Supreme Court determined that ALL wire taps needed the same level of warrants and procedure as any other search/seizure method, and his case was overturned.
So, in my eyes, the NSA doing what amounts to the same exact thing, is just as unconstitutional as the wire-taps in the 1920s, even if we're talking different technology.
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
After re-reading some of these posts, I think the following should happen:
Dakka should build a time machine and go back and tell James Madison that he can't write the US constitution because he's not an expert on constitutional law
They should also tell George Washington he can't be a General because he was never promoted above the rank of Colonel, when he served in the militia.
They should Alexander Hamilton not to set up a federal reserve because he'd never ran a bank before in his life
and the founding fathers shouldn't declare independence, because none of them had ever done that before, either.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The Fourth Amendment only applies to unreasonable searches/seizures. Corporate data policies are not prima facie evidence of a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This isn't a corporate data policy we're talking about, it's the federal government giving a direct order (with the threat of legal consequences for refusing) to hand over the data despite the companies wanting to keep it private. Automatically Appended Next Post:  dogma wrote:I'm pretty sure Lego could figure out where you live. Hell, if I knew your real name I could easily do the same with little effort. Welcome to the internet, and all the complicated legal issues associated with it.
But what does that have to do with anything? Getting my name out of the phone book is not even close to the same as the government showing up with a court order and demanding that you hand over information about me.
That statement doesn't make sense to me. What is the distinction between public and private information?
There isn't a perfectly clear one because different members of the public have access to different information, but here's a good general rule: can the average person get access to this information without breaking any laws or investing a completely unreasonable amount of effort? So, for example, my address is public information because anyone can get from easily-available sources, and I have no reasonable expectation that it will be otherwise*. The metadata on my cell phone use, on the other hand, is private information because the average person has no access to it outside of implausible scenarios like "win the lottery, buy the cell phone company, and read the data". That's why the government had to show up with legal threats and say "give us Peregrine's cell phone metadata" instead of just google searching "Peregrine's cell phone metadata" and reading the search results. Without the threat of fines/prison time/etc to force the cell phone company to hand over the information against their will they would have no way of getting it.
*I do, of course, have a reasonable expectation that people will not behave badly with that information and send me spam/call in a fake "hostage situation" at my address/show up in person to harass me/etc.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
But what does that have to do with anything? Getting my name out of the phone book is not even close to the same as the government showing up with a court order and demanding that you hand over information about me.
If I got your name out of a phone book I would at least also have your area code, the confluence of those two things is basically gold when you have internet access and a few minutes of free time. Honestly I'm surprised some enterprising soul hasn't started data mining social networks and selling the information to concerned parties... oh, wait.
Anyway, the point is that the government has so many ways to work around a strict interpretation of the 4th, with respect to data, that getting angry over the fact that it know's who you called is kind of ridiculous.
Peregrine wrote:
There isn't a perfectly clear one because different members of the public have access to different information, but here's a good general rule: can the average person get access to this information without breaking any laws or investing a completely unreasonable amount of effort?
I wanted to send my ex-girlfriend a surprise birthday present a few years back. I didn't know her address, but I knew she was living with her mom and that her mom went through a rather nasty divorce several years before she met me. I searched court records and bam, address. That took less than 5 minutes.
Peregrine wrote:
Without the threat of fines/prison time/etc to force the cell phone company to hand over the information against their will they would have no way of getting it.
You're speaking about Verizon, right?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
dogma wrote:If I got your name out of a phone book I would at least also have your area code, the confluence of those two things is basically gold when you have internet access and a few minutes of free time.
But my area code is something that's easy to get if you know anything about me. If you really cared enough you could figure it out based on my posting history here (which stores I've commented on, etc). You aren't forcing access to information, you're just passively observing things that are out there for anyone to see and using your own skill at drawing conclusions from information to figure out the answer.
Anyway, the point is that the government has so many ways to work around a strict interpretation of the 4th, with respect to data, that getting angry over the fact that it know's who you called is kind of ridiculous.
Well yeah, that's the problem, the government has consistently undermined the fourth amendment protections we're supposed to have. And the data in question isn't just a list of people you've called, it includes things like the length of the call, the location it was made from, etc. There's no way to get that information without either forcing the cell phone company to provide it, or tapping into the phone network to listen to it.
I wanted to send my ex-girlfriend a surprise birthday present a few years back. I didn't know her address, but I knew she was living with her mom and that her mom went through a rather nasty divorce several years before she met me. I searched court records and bam, address. That took less than 5 minutes.
Yes, but that's because court records are public information. Anyone who wants to see them can go to the courthouse and read them (or even read them online, depending on the location and how old the records are) without having to prove that they "need" to/show proper credentials/etc. The same is not true of cell phone metadata, which is completely inaccessible unless you show up with a court order and the threat of jail time for refusing to provide it.
You're speaking about Verizon, right?
And others. The government asked for the information, some (all?) companies refused, so the government got a secret order from a secret court and took it by force.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
But my area code is something that's easy to get if you know anything about me. If you really cared enough you could figure it out based on my posting history here (which stores I've commented on, etc). You aren't forcing access to information, you're just passively observing things that are out there for anyone to see and using your own skill at drawing conclusions from information to figure out the answer.
So you're fine with most of PRISM? Or, rather, you're fine with private entities collecting (and selling) your data, so long as the government doesn't collect your data directly?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I'm not going to answer that because "most" is incredibly vague, "fine with" is not the same as "constitutional", and we don't even know everything about PRISM. If you want an answer on that subject you'll need to clarify which parts of PRISM you're asking if I approve of, and whether you're talking about "I think this is good policy" or "I think this is illegal".
Or, rather, you're fine with private entities collecting (and selling) your data, so long as the government doesn't collect your data directly?
That's an entirely different question that has nothing to do with this topic.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
This sums up how I feel:
I do think it's interesting that people on either side of the political spectrum are both pissed off about this and extremely happy.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Yes it is. As you point out:
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it isn't. A corporate data policy issue would be "should google sell my search history to advertising companies". The issue here is "should the federal government be allowed to force companies to hand over this data". The reason their data policy ("keep this private") is relevant is that it establishes that the government did in fact force them to hand it over.
16387
Post by: Manchu
What I mean is, it is the policy of the company not to make the data public. That corporate policy is not prima facie evidence of the consumer having a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the information.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:What I mean is, it is the policy of the company not to make the data public. That corporate policy is not prima facie evidence of the consumer having a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the information.
How is it not? If I know that my phone company is not making it public, and no other company in the industry makes their equivalent data public, then why wouldn't I have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Traditionally, a person does not have an expectation of privacy for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection regarding information they voluntarily disclose to third parties.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Traditionally, a person does not have an expectation of privacy for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection regarding information they voluntarily disclose to third parties.
Nonsense. If this were true then the government would have the right to listen to the phone conversation itself, not just read the metadata, since by definition there is a third party involved. And a similar argument would apply to virtually everything, and the fourth amendment might as well not exist at all.
16387
Post by: Manchu
It seems you have never heard of the third-party doctrine. And yet even so it exists and is quite well-established in US law.
So far as I know, speaking over the telephone lines has never been construed by a court to be voluntarily disclosing information to the telephone company.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:It seems you have never heard of the third-party doctrine. And yet even so it exists and is quite well-established in US law.
It exists, but it's a bad policy (though a very convenient one if you want to be able to ignore the constitution) in 2015. I'll let someone with a lot more legal knowledge than you handle this one:
"More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks."
So far as I know, speaking over the telephone lines has never been construed by a court to be voluntarily disclosing information to the telephone company.
But it should be, to be consistent with the idea that metadata is disclosed to a third party. A phone conversation is nothing more than digital data passing through the phone company's computer systems, if the identity of the person you're calling is considered "disclosed" then why should the digital data right next to that piece of information be treated any differently?
(Now, I'm not arguing that phone conversations should be considered disclosed. They shouldn't, and neither should the metadata associated with them.)
16387
Post by: Manchu
Justice Sotomayor's concurrence in Jones is dicta.
The content of a call is no more disclosed to the telephone company than the content of a letter is disclosed to the USPS. The identities of the caller and the person they are trying to call are disclosed to the telephone company, however, just as the address of the sender and intended recipient of a letter are disclosed to the USPS.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The content of a call is no more disclosed to the telephone company than the content of a letter is disclosed to the USPS.
Only by law, not in functional terms. The contents of a letter are not disclosed because they're in a sealed package and nothing at USPS has access to the contents of the package. The contents of a phone call are "disclosed" to the phone company because they are sent as digital data through the phone company's computer systems. There is no sealed "package" around the data. The only reason why the call data is protected and the metadata isn't is that phone calls and mail are old concepts and have precedents protecting them, while metadata is a new thing invented in the era of "we can do whatever we want as long as we say 'national security' first".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Metadata is not new. Phone numbers, the time calls are placed, etc., have always been metadata in obvious contrast to the content of the call. A consumer must disclose both her telephone number and the number she is dialing to the company in order to make the call. It is not necessary, however, for the telephone company to record the call. Unless the telephone company lets it be known that it records all calls made by its customers, the customers therefore probably have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the content of the calls they make.
This kind of clarifies that perhaps the issue is that the telephone companies keep metadata records at all. I suppose they might argue such records are necessary to provide service, in terms of analyzing call traffic, etc. I don't know enough about telecommunications to meaningfully speculate.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:It is not necessary, however, for the telephone company to record the call.
So something is only disclosed if it is recorded in a permanent form?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Certainly not.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
So then what length of storage is required for something to be "disclosed"?
16387
Post by: Manchu
None, it is immaterial.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Then the contents of the phone call is "disclosed" along with the metadata.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, as explained above, the caller voluntarily discloses the metadata to the phone company in order to make the call. But the content of the call itself is not necessary to establish the connection. Therefore, the content of the call is not voluntarily disclosed. Now we might imagine a telephone company that makes using its services contingent upon recording customer calls. Arguably, a customer that places a call with that company has no reasonable expectation of privacy in that call.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:No, as explained above, the caller voluntarily discloses the metadata to the phone company in order to make the call. But the content of the call itself is not necessary to establish the connection.
Of course it's necessary, because a cell phone call is not a direct link between two phones. It is literally impossible to have the call without giving the voice data to the cell phone company. Example:
Right now I decide to call someone. My cell phone sends {block of data} to the nearest tower, where it is processed by the phone company's computer system and appropriate things are done with and in response to it.
A few seconds later the other person has accepted the call, and we start talking. My cell phone sends {block of data} to the nearest tower, where it is processed by the phone company's computer system and appropriate things are done with and in response to it.
Why is one block of data "disclosed", while the other isn't? You already said that there is no minimum storage requirement for it to be considered "disclosed", so why isn't the second block's presence in the memory of the tower's computer considered "disclosure"?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Do you really not understand the difference between having to tell the phone company who you want to call and telling the phone company what you want to say to that person?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Do you really not understand the difference between having to tell the phone company who you want to call and telling the phone company what you want to say to that person?
There is no difference. They're both just blocks of data transmitted to a computer system and processed automatically. It isn't 1900 anymore, you don't call the phone company and ask a person to connect you to whoever you want to talk to.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Manchu wrote:Do you really not understand the difference between having to tell the phone company who you want to call and telling the phone company what you want to say to that person?
The problem is though, with that first bit of information, it is all to easy, with the right "stuff" to gain access to the second bit of information.
If you send a letter via snail mail, yes you are disclosing the to and from, but no one has the ability to know exactly what is inside, based solely on the markings of the outside. This is not true with a phone call sent via cell phone. If you have either the "To: or the "From:" information, there's a whole lot you can do with it
16387
Post by: Manchu
The difference is obvious. When you dial a number, you are requesting that the phone company connect your number with another number. In order to make this request of the phone company, you must disclose the numbers in question to the phone company. What you say to the party or parties to whom the telephone company connects you is not said to the telephone company.
It is the difference between speaking to the phone company and speaking to the person you are trying to call.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:it is all to easy, with the right "stuff" to gain access to the second bit of information
Sure but that is irrelevant. The police obviously have the technology to listen in on calls but cannot constitutionally do so absent a warrant based on probable cause.
Just to be clear, what is at issue in this case is not the content of calls.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:In order to make this request of the phone company, you must disclose the numbers in question to the phone company.
And to talk to someone through a cell phone you have to disclose the voice data you wish to be transmitted.
What you say to the party or parties to whom the telephone company connects you is not said to the telephone company.
Yes it is. Cell phones are not a direct person to person connection, to use them you have to each send your respective voice data to the phone company. It is literally impossible to use a cell phone to talk to someone without doing so.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Again, the analogy of mail is apt: The addresses on the envelope are written by the sender to be read by the USPS. It is not merely a question of the USPS being capable, if they are so willing, to read the addresses. The sender explicitly intends to convey that information to the USPS. That is a voluntary disclosure; in other words, information directed by the sender to the USPS. The contents of the letter, by contrast, are directed to the recipient and NOT the USPS. The same is true of a telephone call. The information necessary to place the call is directed to the phone company. The content of the ensuing conversation is NOT, even though it is conveyed by and through infrastructure owned by the company.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it isn't, because the physical function of the two systems is completely different. When you send a letter by USPS the envelope is never opened. When you send voice data through a cell phone system the "envelope" is opened, its contents are read and processed by the computer, and then the data is sent to another computer where it is packaged up again and then broadcast to the person you're talking to.
The only reason the analogy is "apt" is that it provides a convenient excuse for warantless searches. The voice data is off-limits because of precedent, but if you can reclassify some data associated with it and create an analogy with some other stuff that can be obtained without probable cause you can ignore those pesky constitutional restrictions that might get in the way of stopping "terrorists".
The information necessary to place the call is directed to the phone company.
Only to the same degree that the voice data itself is. In normal operation the "destination" metadata is processed exactly the same way as the voice data is, without ever involving a human. So if sending a destination phone number to a computer is "disclosing" the information then so is sending voice data to the same computer.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The distinction between a communication to the phone company and to the recipient survives the technological contrivances. The request to connect is made to the company, not to the recipient of the call. Likewise: whether the ensuing conversation upon a successful connection is transmitted via wires or otherwise, that content is still directed to the parties to the call, of which the telephone company is not one. Now, if phone companies start advertising that their services are conditional upon your consent that they listen in, that is of course another matter.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The distinction between a communication to the phone company and to the recipient survives the technological contrivances.
Only because it's useful if your goal is to remove fourth amendment protections from the data you want to read.
Likewise: whether the ensuing conversation upon a successful connection is transmitted via wires or otherwise, that content is still directed to the parties to the call, of which the telephone company is not one.
Who cares about the primary audience for a particular piece of data? If I tell you a message and say "could you pass this on to that guy over there" then I've still disclosed the contents of the message to you, even though you aren't the person I'm direct the message to.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Again, the analogy of mail is instructive. Literal letters are sent in envelopes. Cell phone calls can be said to have figurative envelopes. For the purposes of this discussion, an envelope is nothing more than a line between information one expects to be public and information one expects to be private. The line of the figurative envelope is demarcated by the caller's intention. The caller intends to communicate some information to the telephone company in order to place the call. The caller intends to communicate other information to the recipient of the call and not the phone company, no matter how the company has decided to make that possible in terms of business and technology. The line between the former and the latter is the figurative envelope. The caller is not trying to tell the telephone company to tell his mother he said happy mother's day. But he does intend to tell the telephone company what his mother's telephone number is so that it can connect him to her, or given the exigencies of technology send these figurative envelopes of data back and forth between them.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Except it isn't, because they're fundamentally different systems.
When I mail a letter I place the private contents within a sealed envelope, and I write the address on the outside of the envelope. I expect that the address information will be read by humans, because that's how mail is delivered. I have clearly disclosed the address on the letter, and can't reasonably claim that I didn't expect humans to read it.
When I make a phone call I have no such expectation with any part of the data. I expect that the voice data will be processed by an automated computer system and sent to the other person, and I expect that the phone number data (the address equivalent) will be processed and used by an automated computer system without ever involving a human. I do not expect humans to read any part of this data in normal operation of the system.
The ONLY reason the phone number data is treated like a human-read address instead of machine-processed voice data is that certain government organizations want the ability to read phone number data without first establishing probable cause.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Don't confuse literal and figurative envelopes. The USPS cannot (generally speaking) see the contents of a literal letter without physically opening the envelope. Neither can the phone company hear your call without listening in. It is irrelevant that the voice data and the metadata are transmitted via the same infrastructure; there is a line between on the one hand the data the phone company customarily must access (that particular data necessary to route the call), just like the information written on the outside of an envelope, and on the other hand the data that makes up the call itself, which is analogous to the letter inside of the physical envelope.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Neither can the phone company hear your call without listening in.
Nor can they "hear" the "address" data without listening in. At no point in the normal operation of the system does a human see the phone number you're calling.
there is a line between on the one hand the data the phone company customarily must access (that particular data necessary to route the call), just like the information written on the outside of an envelope, and on the other hand the data that makes up the call itself.
And, as I keep telling you, there isn't from a functional perspective. Both sets of data are processed by automated computer systems without any human involvement. If the automated system processing the phone number data counts as "disclosing" then the same processing on the voice data should count as "disclosing". The only reason to treat them differently is if you've conceded that there's no way you can get warrantless searches of the voice data, but you think you might be able to get warrantless searches of the phone number data if you can confuse the court enough with bad analogies.
16387
Post by: Manchu
It is not a matter of the telephone company being allowed to listen in on the address data. They are not listening in at all; the caller is explicitly and intentionally communicating that information to the company. This is a clear voluntary disclosure: A knowingly says X to B. Now the content of the call is completely different: A is no longer talking to B but rather to C. And what A is saying to C is not the same kind of information as X, i.e., the kind of information B needs to connect A and C. A is certainly not telling B to tell C anything, either. Now, perhaps B has the means to listen in on what A and C are talking about but B customarily is not allowed to do so, therefore A has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call, at least as to what the government could demand B to provide.
To clarify, X was never protected by the Fourth Amendment because it is a voluntary disclosure to a third party. That was not made up by government lawyers to mystify judges into allowing the NSA to conduct unconstitutional searches/seizures.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:It is not a matter of the telephone company being allowed to listen in on the address data. They are not listening in at all; the caller is explicitly and intentionally communicating that information to the company.
They're also communicating the voice data. Both are sent to and processed by the same computer system.
Now the content of the call is completely different: A is no longer talking to B but rather to C.
No you aren't. You're talking to B and asking them to pass the message on to C. Cell phones are not a direct link between two people.
16387
Post by: Manchu
It really does not matter if the data all goes to the same place. Only some of that data is being voluntarily disclosed to the telephone company: it is the data the caller intends to give the company in order to place the call. It does not matter that the voice data is passed through the infrastructure owned by the company; as I explained, the callers does not say to Verizon, please tell my mother I wish her a happy mother's day. When he says happy mother's day to his mom on his cell phone, that data goes somewhere before coming out of his mom's phone. But he is not talking to Verizon. For Verizon to hear what he was saying, it would have to listen in, which is customarily impermissible. This is in contrast to the other data being received and transmitted as part of the call, which is explicitly directed to Verizon (not mom) and therefore constitutes a voluntary disclosure to Verizon.
It seems like your confusion stems from conflating the telephone company with the communications infrastructure it owns.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Only some of that data is being voluntarily disclosed to the telephone company:
Only because your definition of "disclosed" has nothing to do with the physical reality of the situation.
It does not matter that the voice data is passed through the infrastructure owned by the company; as I explained, the callers does not say to Verizon, please tell my mother I wish her a happy mother's day.
Nor do you say to Verizon "please connect me to my mother". So if the computer system's processing of the voice data does not count as "disclosing" the information to Verizon then neither does the computer system's processing of the phone number data.
For Verizon to hear what he was saying, it would have to listen in
Same thing for the phone number data. For Verizon (where "Verizon" is defined as "the human employees of Verizon", not "a computer owned by Verizon") to hear the phone number data they have to listen in. In normal operation of the system this does not happen.
It seems like your confusion stems from conflating the telephone company with the communications infrastructure it owns.
No, I know perfectly well that there is a difference. The point you keep missing is that you're only disclosing the phone number data to the infrastructure, not to any human employee of the company. So if giving one piece of data to the infrastructure counts as "disclosing" it then the same should apply to giving another piece of data to the infrastructure.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The infrastructure is just the medium. It is not an actor to whom information can be disclosed. When you make a call you voluntarily disclose the phone number of the person you are trying to reach to your carrier whether or not eyes of flesh ever read that number. The company may "read" or not read or do whatever else it likes with that information (including recording it) within the bounds of its contractual obligations and the law. Customarily, it may not "read" or listen in on information not disclosed to it (i.e., the content of calls) without regard to the fact that such information is received and transmitted via infrastructure it owns.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The infrastructure is just the medium. It is not an actor to whom information can be disclosed.
Then the phone number data is not disclosed, and should not be available without probable cause.
Customarily, it may not "read" or listen in on information not disclosed to it (i.e., the content of calls) without regard to the fact that such information is received and transmitted via infrastructure it owns.
Except you've already said that corporate data policies are not proof that something can be assumed to be private. If a corporate data policy that phone number data sent to its infrastructure will not be read by humans is not enough then why should a corporate data policy that voice data sent to its infrastructure will not be read by humans any different?
16387
Post by: Manchu
The phone number is disclosed because dialing it is a request to the company to place the call.
It is not the company's policy or agreement with its customers that it will not listen in on their calls that concerns the law, at least not in the first place. Rather, it is the fact that the customers have not voluntarily disclosed the content of their calls to the carrier.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The phone number is disclosed because dialing it is a request to the company to place the call.
Only if you define an automated computer system in the cell phone infrastructure as "the company". If you instead define it as a human employee of the company then no such disclosure is required.
Again, this is the key difference between cell phones and mail. When you mail a letter you have two separate pieces of information: private information in a sealed envelope that is never seen by a human, and address/postage/etc information on the outside of the envelope that is read by humans as a necessary part of mailing the letter. When you make a cell phone call there is no human/no-human difference in how the information in the call is used. The voice data is handled exactly the same way as the metadata, and none of it requires a human to ever "read" it. When you mail a letter you can not reasonably claim that you did not expect a human to read the address information. When you make a cell phone call you can reasonably make that assumption.
Rather, it is the fact that the customers have not voluntarily disclosed the content of their calls to the carrier.
You have voluntarily disclosed them, if sending a block of data to the infrastructure counts as "disclosing" it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Sending data through telecommunications infrastructure is not the same thing as voluntarily disclosing that data to the company that owns the infrastructure. The only part of that data you are voluntarily disclosing to the company is the portion the company needs to in order to transmit the other portion, the content.
91
Post by: Hordini
Peregrine wrote:You have voluntarily disclosed them, if sending a block of data to the infrastructure counts as "disclosing" it.
What if the voice data is encrypted? You could theoretically encrypt the voice data, while leaving the metadata unencrypted.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Encryption is irrelevant. The voice data is inside of the figurative envelope for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment (as to government demands on the carrier); the portion of the data merely transmitted via the infrastructure owned by the company which is not disclosed to the company.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Sending data through telecommunications infrastructure is not the same thing as voluntarily disclosing that data to the company that owns the infrastructure.
Then neither is sending address data to the infrastructure. If a computer processing one piece of data does not count as "disclosure" then neither should that same computer processing a different piece of data.
And I notice that you just ignored the point I made about humans reading a piece of data (the address on an envelope) and an automated machine processing a piece of data without ever involving a human (the phone number). But I guess you'd rather talk about metaphorical "envelopes" and bad analogies that conveniently happen to provide a way to get around the fourth amendment.
16387
Post by: Manchu
As I already explained, it does not matter whether a human employee of the company ever reads the data voluntarily disclosed to the company by its customers. The information was still disclosed to the company. That has no bearing on the legal fact that the customer may transmit information via the company's infrastructure without disclosing it to the company.
91
Post by: Hordini
Manchu wrote:Encryption is irrelevant. The voice data is inside of the figurative envelope for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment; the portion of the data merely transmitted via the infrastructure owned by the company which is not disclosed to the company.
Well, I think Peregrine's point was that by sending the information via an open channel through the cell phone infrastructure, it's the same as disclosing it as you would the metadata that the cell phone company needs to complete the call. A good analogy might be writing a letter, putting an address and stamp directly on the letter (no envelope), and mailing it. It should still get to the recipient but you probably can't reasonably expect that it won't be read in some form or fashion, even if it's just to find the recipient's address.
If you encrypt the voice data, it's similar to putting a letter in an envelope before mailing it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Peregrine's point is legally incorrect: transmitting data is not the same thing as disclosing it. This is why it is unconstitutional for the police to use wire taps without warrants.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Peregrine's point is legally incorrect: transmitting data is not the same thing as disclosing it.
Which is fine. The point I'm making is that if transmitting data is not disclosing it then cell phone metadata is not disclosed. And if the law says otherwise it's only because the government has been doing their absolute best to undermine any pesky fourth amendment protections that might get in the way of "stopping terrorism". Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:As I already explained, it does not matter whether a human employee of the company ever reads the data voluntarily disclosed to the company by its customers.
Why not? The fact that a human is expected to read the address information on an envelope is the reason why that information is considered to be disclosed and not protected by the fourth amendment.
The information was still disclosed to the company.
Only in the exact same way that the voice data was disclosed. Both are transmitted by radio to the same cell phone tower and processed ( IOW "read") by the same computer. And you've already said that the company's data privacy policies ("we aren't going to read this part of the data you send us") are not relevant.
91
Post by: Hordini
Manchu wrote:Peregrine's point is legally incorrect: transmitting data is not the same thing as disclosing it. This is why it is unconstitutional for the police to use wire taps without warrants.
Yes, I understand that. I was curious as to what he would say about encryption, though.
It's also possible to transmit voice data through media (such as cell towers) without them being able to actually listen to the voice data being transmitted. It can be done with other kinds of data as well. They would still need the metadata to be able to complete the call though. So I think you (Manchu) are probably right. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Only in the exact same way that the voice data was disclosed. Both are transmitted by radio to the same cell phone tower and processed ( IOW "read") by the same computer. And you've already said that the company's data privacy policies ("we aren't going to read this part of the data you send us") are not relevant.
The voice data doesn't necessarily have to be read in order to be transmitted. The metadata does.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Hordini wrote:The voice data doesn't necessarily have to be read in order to be transmitted.
Yes it does, if you're defining "read" to include "a computer moved it from one memory location to another, performed operations on it, and used the results to execute instructions in its program".
(If you aren't defining "read" that way then the metadata isn't read either.)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:What I mean is, it is the policy of the company not to make the data public. That corporate policy is not prima facie evidence of the consumer having a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the information.
But giving that information to the government IS prima facae evidence of a search. Such search is illegal without a warrant.
5394
Post by: reds8n
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/08/u-s-government-designated-prominent-al-jazeera-journalist-al-qaeda-member-put-watch-list/
note ..
The document cites Zaidan as an example to demonstrate the powers of SKYNET, a program that analyzes location and communication data (or “metadata”) from bulk call records in order to detect suspicious patterns.
The document cites Zaidan as an example to demonstrate the powers of SKYNET, a program that analyzes location and communication data (or “metadata”) from bulk call records in order to detect suspicious patterns.
In the Terminator movies, SKYNET is a self-aware military computer system that launches a nuclear war to exterminate the human race, and then systematically kills the survivors.
According to the presentation, the NSA uses its version of SKYNET to identify people that it believes move like couriers used by Al Qaeda’s senior leadership. The program assessed Zaidan as a likely match, which raises troubling questions about the U.S. government’s method of identifying terrorist targets based on metadata.
It appears, however, that Zaidan had already been identified as an Al Qaeda member before he showed up on SKYNET’s radar. That he was already assigned a watch list number would seem to indicate that the government had a prior intelligence file on him. The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, is a U.S. government database of over one million names suspected of a connection to terrorism, which is shared across the U.S. intelligence community.
The presentation contains no evidence to explain the designation.
Skynet.
.. really ?! 
16387
Post by: Manchu
Peregrine wrote:The point I'm making is that if transmitting data is not disclosing it then cell phone metadata is not disclosed.
That is still incorrect. Simply transmitting data over some infrastructure is not necessarily a voluntary disclosure of that information to the owner of the infrastructure, the telephone company. The portion of that transmitted data that the caller intends to communicate to the telephone company, that is the information that the telephone company requires in order to place the call, is voluntarily disclosed to the company by the caller. (Nor is it necessary that some employee of the company ever actually read that data.) Even if the content of the call is transmitted by the same infrastructure, the content is not directed to the company. This information is therefore not voluntarily disclosed to the company by the caller. Hordini wrote:The voice data doesn't necessarily have to be read in order to be transmitted. The metadata does.
Whether the information is "read" (either in the literal sense by an employee of the telephone company or in the figurative sense by some component of its telecommunications infrastructure) is immaterial. The key factor here in determining to whom the caller makes a voluntary disclosure is determining to whom the information is directed. It could not be simpler: the question is, who tells who what? In order to make a call, the caller must direct some information (such as the telephone number of the intended recipient) to the telephone company. The caller does this knowingly, intentionally, and freely. This is a voluntary disclosure. Whether anyone at the company ever reads that data does not matter. Think of it this way: you voluntarily disclose to me any information in a letter you send to me, whether or not I ever actually read the letter. Frazzled wrote:But giving that information to the government IS prima facae evidence of a search. Such search is illegal without a warrant.
Incorrect -- you are skipping the crucial element of a reasonable expectation of privacy. If a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information searched, then the police do not require a warrant to search it (because it is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes).
221
Post by: Frazzled
If thats incorrect, then why does the FBI have to have a warrant to get the same information from the same companies?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Hordini wrote:
What if the voice data is encrypted? You could theoretically encrypt the voice data, while leaving the metadata unencrypted.
In a way it is. If you look at the various infrastructure systems, every phone number has an IMEI number or some other "fingerprinting" identifier attached to it. This is how phones connect and communicate even across networks. This is why someone like the Government having a list with your phone's fingerprinting data is so potentially dangerous.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:If thats incorrect, then why does the FBI have to have a warrant to get the same information from the same companies?
To what case law are you referring?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Please provide case law on your part that the FBI may pull phone records without a warrant.
16387
Post by: Manchu
You made the claim that the FBI needs a warrant to collect cell phone metadata therefore you bear the burden of supporting that claim with case law.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:You made the claim that the FBI needs a warrant to collect cell phone metadata therefore you bear the burden of supporting that claim with case law.
Incorrect. I just need to point to the 4th Amendment. Back to you counselor. If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong and weep a little more about the loss of our freedom.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, simply pointing to the Fourth Amendment does not back up your claim that the FBI needs a warrant to look at cell metadata. If no search has occurred, then Fourth Amendment protections cannot apply. A search occurs when the government accesses information in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you don't have that expectation, there is no search and no need for a warrant.
So, again, on what legal basis did you make that quite specific claim that the FBI needs a warrant to access cell metadata? Are you just making up stuff to provoke a response?
19370
Post by: daedalus
C'mon guys.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leahy-grassley-press-administration-use-cell-phone-tracking-program
According to this letter sent to Holder about the Stingray program, it appears that the FBI's policy is to get a warrant before deploying. At least, at this time, in those cases.
(I'm not even going to get into all those other sticky issues about Stingray, but there's that at least)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:No, simply pointing to the Fourth Amendment does not back up your claim that the FBI needs a warrant to look at cell metadata. If no search has occurred, then Fourth Amendment protections cannot apply. A search occurs when the government accesses information in which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you don't have that expectation, there is no search and no need for a warrant. So, again, on what legal basis did you make that quite specific claim that the FBI needs a warrant to access cell metadata? Are you just making up stuff to provoke a response?
Federal Criminal Procedure discussions. Admitted that seems like centuries ago. After all there were only 27 stars on the flag then. EDIT: Evidently the issue is contentious and in the courts currently: "What About the Constitution? The court held that it did not need to reach the ACLU’s constitutional claims because of its statutory holding. Nevertheless, it noted that the ACLU’s Fourth Amendment claim presented "vexing issues" and that the "seriousness of the constitutional concerns" informed its statutory analysis. Chief among these vexing issues is the so-called third-party doctrine. Just this week, the Eleventh Circuit issued a disappointing decision holding that the third-party doctrine eliminates cell phone users’ Fourth Amendment rights in historical cell phone location information. The doctrine is before the courts in Smith v. Obama, the Fourth Amendment challenge currently before the Ninth Circuit in which EFF and the ACLU are co-counsel, and Klayman v. Obama, currently under submission in the D.C. Circuit, in which EFF argued as amicus. Hopefully those courts will pick up on the Second Circuit’s "constitutional concerns" and hold that the third-party doctrine does not shield the phone records dragnet. We’d like to see similar rulings in our other cases that involve phone records collection, including Jewel, First Unitarian, and Human Rights Watch v. DEA." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/eff-case-analysis-appeals-court-rules-nsa-phone-records-dragnet-illegal
16387
Post by: Manchu
For example, we understand that the FBI’s new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Emphasis added. The Fourth Amendment requirement that the government obtain a warrant to conduct a search is not subject to exceptions carved out by law enforcement agency regulations or policies. The FBI argument is therefore they do not need to obtain a warrant to gather this kind of information. Smith overturned Olmstead (1928) in 1979. And even if you claim to have only been familiar with Olmstead, the FBI would certainly not require a warrant to collect metadata under that case, which held that warrantless wiretapping was NOT a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
See my edit. Evidently the issue is very much in the courts right now.
5534
Post by: dogma
Peregrine wrote:
That's an entirely different question that has nothing to do with this topic.
That is wholly false. Whether or not the State can purchase data from 3rd parties is quite important with respect to the matter.
16387
Post by: Manchu
We already know, from Smith v. Maryland, that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information we voluntarily disclose to third parties. What lobbyists are trying to convince the courts of today is that the scope of information we voluntarily disclose to telephone companies is so extensive that government access of that information should be considered a search anyway. This is a very problematic line of reasoning -- but lobbyists like to file amicus briefs because it is easier for them to legislate from the bar than to convince enough members of Congress to act, which would be the appropriate (although difficult) way to protect information we voluntarily disclose to telephone companies. Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Whether or not the State can purchase data from 3rd parties is quite important with respect to the matter.
Correct. Logically, we cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in records that a person may sell.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If the phone company sold transcripts of the calls for a few would you consider that as well?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Would I consider it what?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm sorry I wasn't clear, was I. Its a broader question.
In my question lets accept that courts have interpreted that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a person's home and their phone conversations, correct?
So the question is, what if the government uses private entities to obtain that information, circumventing the warrant process. Is it still subject to warrant? If not, philosophically (and not legally) should the government be able to do that?
16387
Post by: Manchu
I'm not sure I understand your question so I will resummarize the government's argument and we can go from there:
In order to use cell phones, we voluntarily disclose certain information to companies. We have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information we voluntarily disclose to third parties (in this case, the companies). If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, there cannot be a search for Forth Amendment purposes. A government demand for that information we voluntarily disclosed to the telephone companies therefore does not constitute a search as to us for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The government therefore does not need a warrant to obtain that information.
The government is not circumventing the requirement to obtain a warrant because there is no such requirement as to the information in question.
Does that answer your question?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:I'm not sure I understand your question so I will resummarize the government's argument and we can go from there:
In order to use cell phones, we voluntarily disclose certain information to companies. We have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information we voluntarily disclose to third parties (in this case, the companies). If there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, there cannot be a search for Forth Amendment purposes. A government demand for that information therefore does not constitute a search as to us for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The government therefore does not need a warrant to obtain that information.
The government is not circumventing the requirement to obtain a warrant because there is no such requirement as to the information in question.
Does that answer your question?
Its close but my question has moved to searches that are agreed by both parties to require warrants currently-hence my shift to calls involving actual discussions.
So to restate:
hypothetical: what are the legal and philosophical implications of the government using 3rd parties to obtain information that it would normally require a search warrant for?
1. Search of (whatever) requires a validly obtained warrant.
2. Government goes to Company A which can get said information for a fee.
3. Can the govenrment do so and avoid the warrant process? If so, what are the philosophical implications of that?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Okay, to clarify, you are talking only about information NOT voluntarily disclosed to a third party, right?
So -- as I have extensively described ITT, the content of a call is customarily not voluntarily disclosed by either the caller or the person she is calling to the telephone company.
Can the government obtain a record of the call from the telephone company without a warrant?
No. Because the content of that call was not voluntarily disclosed to the third-party telephone company, obtaining that information is a search. The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct that search.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Okay, to clarify, you are talking only about information NOT voluntarily disclosed to a third party, right?
Correct Manchu, or at best its unknowing. Your points are intriguing. Are they based on your view or case law? Now to your reply-how is the IDing on the call list voluntary? (this is a question not a criticism).
16387
Post by: Manchu
In order to place a call, you have to tell the telephone company the number you intend to reach. That is a voluntary disclosure.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:In order to place a call, you have to tell the telephone company the number you intend to reach. That is a voluntary disclosure.
Gotcha. Interesting...(strokes beard like old contracts professor used to do).
16387
Post by: Manchu
Now, what happens if telephone companies make using their services conditional upon costumers consenting to call recording? Note, I'm not saying this is market-viable. Let's just assume the companies all got together and agreed to do this and no credible competitor emerged to take advantage of its unpopularity. In that case, I think the content of the call would also count as voluntarily disclosed to a third party and therefore the government could obtain the call recordings without a warrant or even arguably conduct warrantless wire taps.
But of course, that's not the issue facing us. The issue is, cell phones, social media sites, etc., currently collect a lot of data about us that we voluntarily disclose. The scope of this information is becoming so comprehensive that some believe it necessarily implicates our privacy for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
It isn't problematic at all, unless you think that the fourth amendment is an annoying obstacle that should be limited as much as possible instead of important protection for our rights. Reclassifying cell phone metadata as private information and requiring probable cause to access it just means that the government has to have credible evidence of a crime before they start searching. It does nothing to interfere with legitimate investigations.
As for the rest, you continue to be wrong about the physical reality of how cell phones work. Your "address on an envelope" metaphor is useful for persuading the courts to allow searches without probable cause, but that's all.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Congress certainly has the power to enact legislation that would require the government to get a warrant in order to obtain cell phone metadata. But the case law does not support a ruling to that effect. Peregrine wrote:you continue to be wrong about the physical reality of how cell phones work
No, the issue is that you do not understand the difference between a company and the computers it owns. Only some of the data sent to the company's computer is directed at the company itself.
94999
Post by: DrNo172000
Peregrine wrote:
It isn't problematic at all, unless you think that the fourth amendment is an annoying obstacle that should be limited as much as possible instead of important protection for our rights.
lol did you just basically argue that your reasoning is sound unless Manchu hates 'Murican FREEDOM!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Manchu wrote:
Can the government obtain a record of the call from the telephone company without a warrant?
No. Because the content of that call was not voluntarily disclosed to the third-party telephone company, obtaining that information is a search. The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct that search.
What about, as I've been saying... If it's "legal" for the Gov't to buy the phone "fingerprint" records without a warrant, why do they even need the phone company for much of anything at that point? As a previous poster has already mentioned, the FBI (and other agencies) have DRT boxes, Stingrays and the like (there are quite a few more systems that work on the same principle, but to cover my own arse, I'll leave them unmentioned) and they can use them for intelligence gathering... What's to stop an agency like the DEA or FBI, who deal in a lot of criminal activities to record the conversations for themselves, submit a warrant after the fact and make their move, after someone has already self-incriminated themselves because they had a reasonable right to privacy?
Personally, I think that far too many Federal Agencies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with ANY information about citizens that could be considered at least sensitive, if not private. Obviously, I am in favor of reclassifying metadata from phones and electronic means as being "private" for the very scenario that I outlined above.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 DrNo172000 wrote:lol did you just basically argue that your reasoning is sound unless Manchu hates 'Murican FREEDOM!
Keep in mind that Peregrine is arguing what he thinks the law should be. I am just explaining what the law is. @Ensis Ferrae Generally speaking, you can only sell what you own (which is different from what you possess). Telephone companies arguably do own cell phone metadata records. But the government has no interest in buying them when it is entitled to collect them in bulk for free by law (which is what the government unsuccessfully argued Congress authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act). Law enforcement agencies clearly can and probably do listen in on people's cell phone conversations. That, while certainly outrageous because it is illegal, is not really the key point. The most crucial thing is whether the government is allowed to use information obtained via surveillance to pursue a criminal conviction. They can only do that if the surveillance was undertaken pursuant to valid warrant.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
From a reliable source
WASHINGTON — In an unprecedented shift in legal proceedings, the NSA has overturned the US Court of Appeals’ decision that the mass collection of telephone metadata is illegal, DB has learned.
This comes in the wake of nearly two years of legal debate, which began when whistleblower Edward Snowden really wanted to visit Moscow but couldn’t afford the trip.
“This double-reversal is unique for two reasons,” said Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee to the Southern District of New York who originally had voted in 2013 that the program was legal. “First, this is a unique program with unique national security implications. And second, the NSA is not part of the judicial branch of the United States government. This makes it very unusual that they would weigh in on the matter, never mind deliver a legally-binding ruling.”
The NSA’s ruling was initially met by outrage, with several members of the ACLU protesting outside the White House. One spokesman, Carla Brown, was seen in front of local cameras delivering a scathing message.
“The brutality of our Big Brother government, has gone on long enough!” she shouted into multiple microphones. She continued to encourage the people to “rise up against tyranny,” but was interrupted by a man in a suit who whispered something in her ear.
“Never mind,” Brown said, after wiping sweat from her brow. “Forget everything I just said. I need to go erase my phone records. And my emails. Oh gak. Oh gak.”
The NSA released its own statement yesterday, after which many of the arguments against the decision mysteriously began to disappear.
“You should not fear your benign overlords,” a new NSA spokesman whose name nobody could remember and who was also wearing swirly eyeglasses, said in a public statement. “The All Seeing Eye is your friend. Trust your friend. Believe in your friend.”
Cameras then showed all the members of the press conference nodding in unison.
“As for district judge Vernon Broderick, who ruled against the program,” the unnamed spokesman continued, “we understand that you are entitled to your opinion and respect your expertise as a member of the United States legal system, but there is no real potential harm to the citizens’ privacy from the collection of phone metadata. We also understand that you may not want anyone to know that number (606) 245-2999 called number (508) 295-8581 at 7:08 PM on April 6th.”
CORRECTION: The editors of Duffel Blog regrettably reported all of this article in error. The NSA does not actually exist, and there is no proof that any of our phone numbers called any 900 numbers at any time. All hail the Eye.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Manchu wrote:
Can the government obtain a record of the call from the telephone company without a warrant?
No. Because the content of that call was not voluntarily disclosed to the third-party telephone company, obtaining that information is a search. The Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain a warrant based on probable cause to conduct that search.
What about, as I've been saying... If it's "legal" for the Gov't to buy the phone "fingerprint" records without a warrant, why do they even need the phone company for much of anything at that point? As a previous poster has already mentioned, the FBI (and other agencies) have DRT boxes, Stingrays and the like (there are quite a few more systems that work on the same principle, but to cover my own arse, I'll leave them unmentioned) and they can use them for intelligence gathering... What's to stop an agency like the DEA or FBI, who deal in a lot of criminal activities to record the conversations for themselves, submit a warrant after the fact and make their move, after someone has already self-incriminated themselves because they had a reasonable right to privacy?
Personally, I think that far too many Federal Agencies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy with ANY information about citizens that could be considered at least sensitive, if not private. Obviously, I am in favor of reclassifying metadata from phones and electronic means as being "private" for the very scenario that I outlined above.
Agreed.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
What's sad is that really doesn't sound very far from the truth any more.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote: DrNo172000 wrote:lol did you just basically argue that your reasoning is sound unless Manchu hates 'Murican FREEDOM!
Keep in mind that Peregrine is arguing what he thinks the law should be.
I am just explaining what the law is.
@Ensis Ferrae
Generally speaking, you can only sell what you own (which is different from what you possess). Telephone companies arguably do own cell phone metadata records. But the government has no interest in buying them when it is entitled to collect them in bulk for free by law (which is what the government unsuccessfully argued Congress authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act).
Law enforcement agencies clearly can and probably do listen in on people's cell phone conversations. That, while certainly outrageous to some because it is illegal, is not really the key point. The most crucial thing is whether the government is allowed to use information obtained via surveillance to pursue a criminal conviction. They can only do that if the surveillance was undertaken pursuant to valid warrant.
Unless that information is used against you in nonlegal ways, lets say intensive audits of everyone you called over the last year, that sort of things.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No, you're defending the law. Explaining what it is would be saying "this is what the courts have ruled, it's obviously stupid and doesn't reflect the physical reality of how cell phones work, but it's the ruling we have to live with".
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Unless that information is used against you in nonlegal ways, lets say intensive audits of everyone you called over the last year, that sort of things.
That speaks to an issue far larger and much more ominous than Fourth Amendment protection of cell phone metadata.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote: Frazzled wrote:Unless that information is used against you in nonlegal ways, lets say intensive audits of everyone you called over the last year, that sort of things.
That speaks to an issue far larger and much more ominous than Fourth Amendment protection of cell phone metadata.
true dat. Some guy on a gun board was talking about making up arm bands with "Jade Helm Official Observer," "Secret UN trooper," and "Black Helicopter Pilot" on it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:No, the issue is that you do not understand the difference between a company and the computers it owns. Only some of the data sent to the company's computer is directed at the company itself.
And you're inventing this magical difference that has nothing to do with the physical reality of the situation. Both sets of data are directed at the company's infrastructure, not any human employee of the company. If the company's infrastructure reading the radio signal from your phone and executing connect(666-666-6969, 123-456-7890) counts as "disclosure" then so should the company's infrastructure reading the radio signal from your phone and executing send_data({block of voice data}, 666-666-6969, 123-456-7890). Both pieces of data are sent to the same infrastructure and processed in the same way.
Also, even if you grant the absurd "directed at" vs. "passing through" argument the voice data is also directed at the company. For example, the company's automated billing system might use the voice data to determine how much bandwidth you've used and how much money to charge you for the call. And it will of course be reading the entire contents of the voice data, both to process it for sending to the other person and to watch for things like the "end of call" notification. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:That speaks to an issue far larger and much more ominous than Fourth Amendment protection of cell phone metadata.
But cell phone metadata is an important part of that issue. If the metadata is protected by the fourth amendment as it should be then mass auditing of everyone you called over the past year is impossible.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Peregrine wrote:No, you're defending the law. Explaining what it is would be saying "this is what the courts have ruled, it's obviously stupid and doesn't reflect the physical reality of how cell phones work, but it's the ruling we have to live with".
First -- explaining what the law is never requires a politically motivated gloss like "and it's a stupid law." Second -- nothing about how cell phones work, at least that you have brought up ITT, contradicts the third-party doctrine. I think there are two issues here that make us uncomfortable: (1) we still expect to exert some kind of control over personal information that we voluntarily disclose and (2) the amount of personal information we voluntarily disclose is vast in scope and can be easily collected and recorded. The current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence does not offer a way forward for protecting the personal information we voluntarily disclose. But Congress could enact laws that do as much. Peregrine wrote:Both sets of data are directed at the company's infrastructure, not any human employee of the company.
Obviously incorrect. The data is transmitted through the infrastructure. One portion of the data, the data necessary to place the call, is directed at the company. The content of the call is in no way directed to the company. Peregrine wrote:If the metadata is protected by the fourth amendment as it should be then mass auditing of everyone you called over the past year is impossible.
Not really. The kind of corruption Frazzled invoked is well beyond caring about Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:Second -- nothing about how cell phones work, at least that you have brought up ITT, contradicts the third-party doctrine.
Only because you insist on ignoring the physical reality of how cell phones work. Instead of trying to force cell phones into fitting your "letter at the post office" metaphor you need to specify what exactly counts as "disclosure" and then check if the relevant piece of data meets that standard. If you set the standard for disclosure low enough to include the metadata then you also include the voice data. If you set the standard for disclosure high enough to exclude the voice data then you also exclude the metadata.
The content of the call is in no way directed to the company.
Only because your definition of "directed" is based on an incorrect post office metaphor and has nothing to do with how the voice data is actually handled.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I understand that the metadata and the voice data are "handled by" the same telecommunications infrastructure. But that is not relevant to the legal question of to whom the data is being voluntarily disclosed. The caller is only voluntarily disclosing to the telephone company the data necessary to place the call.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The caller is only voluntarily disclosing to the telephone company the data necessary to place the call.
You keep saying this over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. However you define "disclosed"* either the metadata and voice data are both disclosed, or they are both not disclosed.
*Unless of course you define "disclosed" as "giving the phone number data but not the voice data", as you seem to be doing.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Again, the legal concept of "voluntary disclosure" is not the same thing as the mechanical act of transmitting data. Therefore, it is immaterial that the metadata and voice data are mechanically transmitted in the same way. The key legal distinction is who is talking to whom. Part of a call involves the caller talking to the phone company, making a request to place a call to a certain number at a certain time, etc. The rest of the call is the content, which is the caller talking to the party or parties on the receiving end of the call.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:The key legal distinction is who is talking to whom.
And in both cases you're talking to an automated machine in the cell phone tower.
Part of a call involves the caller talking to the phone company, making a request to place a call to a certain number at a certain time, etc. The rest of the call is the content, which is the caller talking to the party or parties on the receiving end of the call.
Which is based on a "post office" metaphor that has nothing to do with how cell phones actually work. The only reason to apply the metaphor is if your goal is to "prove" that the metadata should be available without probable cause. If your goal is to accurately apply the protections of the fourth amendment then you don't get the metadata.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I mentioned this to Hordini and maybe you missed it. A puts a note under B's door. A has voluntarily disclosed the information contained in the note to B whether or not B ever reads that information. Similarly, it does not matter that a computer (figuratively) "reads" the phone number the caller dials. By dialing the number, the caller has voluntarily disclosed it to the telephone company because the company needs that information to place the call -- whether or not any human employee of the company ever (literally) reads the number.
The infrastructure is just a box into which and out of data travels. Some of the data that goes into that box is meant for the company that owns the box; some of it is not.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:I mentioned this to Hordini and maybe you missed it. A leaves a note on B's door. A has voluntarily disclosed the information contained in the note to B whether or not B ever reads that information.
And that is why the voice data is disclosed, under that standard of "disclosed".
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, because that is not what is going on when one places a call.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:No, because that is not what is going on when one places a call.
Except it is. You're leaving a note on the phone company's door and asking them to forward it to someone.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, when you place a call you are asking a company to transmit voice data back and forth over its infrastructure.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Manchu wrote:No, when you place a call you are asking a company to transmit voice data back and forth over its infrastructure.
And, as with the note on the door, the process of transmission requires handing the "note" to them. This is not a sealed envelope like the letter at the post office.
16387
Post by: Manchu
It is very much like a sealed envelope. All the data goes into a box. The box can distinguish one type of data from another, including which type of data the caller directs to the telephone company in order to place the call and which data is not directed at the telephone company, like the voice data (i.e., what is "inside" and "outside" of the "envelope"). The figurative "envelope" in this case is simply the line between what one is telling the company on the one hand and the content of the call on the other.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
No it isn't, because it's missing an essential element: the seal.
The box can distinguish one type of data from another, including which type of data the caller directs to the telephone company in order to place the call and which data is not directed at the telephone company, like the voice data (i.e., what is "inside" and "outside" of the "envelope").
Except you already said that corporate data policies are irrelevant, much like the fact that whether or not the person reads the note on their door. The box currently does different things with different types of data, but that's no different than the recipient of the door note deciding it's spam and throwing it away without reading it. You still gave the phone company the voice data, they just voluntarily decided not to read it.
The figurative "envelope" in this case is simply the line between what one is telling the company on the one hand and the content of the call on the other.
And, as I keep telling you, there is no difference between the two. You're telling both pieces of information to the company, they're just taking different actions with the difference pieces of what you tell them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I don't think the seal is very important to our metaphor. in terms of literal envelopes, the seal is important primarily to make sure the contents are not misplaced. If the seal happens to come undone while a letter is in transit, that is not a voluntary disclosure of the contents to the USPS or anyone else. Furthermore, telephone lines have never been "sealed." The practice of wire tapping demonstrates this. The ability of some third party to "get into" the figurative "envelope" is not the measure of one's reasonable expectation of privacy. The key factor, in terms of the third-party doctrine, is the voluntary disclosure. The carriers, as their designation implies, carry data across their infrastructure. Just because the carrier has potential access to that data doesn't mean anyone has voluntarily disclosed it to them. By contrast, the information necessary to place the call is voluntarily disclosed to them -- it must be, in order to make the call.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
out of curiosity, has anyone who thinks the NSA is spying on them ever bothered to read the FISA Act or EO 12333? furthermore, do you realize that this "Bulk" collection isn't your conversations but is instead "meta" data? this is basically phone numbers, cell tower information and that nonsense (which your phone company is already recording anyway). Also, your location isn't located like you think it is. Every spy movie where your phone is tracked to the extent that the bad/good guys can locate you to within a foot or two is wrong. If you don't believe me go take a few classes on cell towers and the usage of CDMA and other styles of cell phone data use.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Have you read any of the 6 pages of discussion?
As to your points; 1. NSA has proven time and again that it doesn't particularly care for anything that limits or prohibits their ability to spy on US citizens. They are afterall, the "National Security" Agency, and they've shown a knack for hand waving away violations.
2. Yeah, it's bulk data. The problem is what a person can do with metadata, as has already been discussed at some length.
You are correct in that you can't really get to within a foot or two, but you can most definitely get within a couple meters. One of the many jobs I had in the army during my time in Iraq was operating some of the systems previously mentioned in this thread.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Have you read any of the 6 pages of discussion?
As to your points; 1. NSA has proven time and again that it doesn't particularly care for anything that limits or prohibits their ability to spy on US citizens. They are afterall, the "National Security" Agency, and they've shown a knack for hand waving away violations.
2. Yeah, it's bulk data. The problem is what a person can do with metadata, as has already been discussed at some length.
You are correct in that you can't really get to within a foot or two, but you can most definitely get within a couple meters. One of the many jobs I had in the army during my time in Iraq was operating some of the systems previously mentioned in this thread.
Well sir, not trying to call you out but you are in fact a liar. I did similar work for the USMC and the closest you can get with CDMA or GSM is about 1-2 city blocks. And that is only in densely populated areas where cell phone towers are everywhere.
And what exactly are you afraid of with Bulk meta data? are you really worried that the government is monitoring your time lag between when a call is made and when it is answered?
16387
Post by: Manchu
In her Jones concurrence, Justice Sotomayor expressed some concerns about GPS tracking that overlap to some extent with the issue of cell phone metadata: In cases involving even short-term monitoring, some unique attributes of GPS surveillance relevant to the Katz analysis will require particular attention. GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. The Government can store such recordsand efficiently mine them for information years into the future. And because GPS monitoring is cheap in comparison to conventional surveillance techniques and, by design, proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement practices: limited police resources and community hostility.
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government’s unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring—by making available at a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track—may alter the relationship between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society.
Citations omitted.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
 Ghazkuul wrote:And what exactly are you afraid of with Bulk meta data? are you really worried that the government is monitoring your time lag between when a call is made and when it is answered?
You do realize that metadata can be used as evidence in criminal cases, right?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Peregrine wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:And what exactly are you afraid of with Bulk meta data? are you really worried that the government is monitoring your time lag between when a call is made and when it is answered?
You do realize that metadata can be used as evidence in criminal cases, right?
Not to mention that it's also more telling and dangerous than actual content in a lot of ways.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Simple solution manchu ready....dont turn on your phones GPS! or god forbid if you really worried that the US government is tracking your movements through petsmart you can always just turn it off when your not using it to find your buddies home because you can't remember directions to save your life :-p
16387
Post by: Manchu
Peregrine wrote:You do realize that metadata can be used as evidence in criminal cases, right?
Including as of now, at least arguably, metadata collected without any warrant.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Peregrine wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:And what exactly are you afraid of with Bulk meta data? are you really worried that the government is monitoring your time lag between when a call is made and when it is answered?
You do realize that metadata can be used as evidence in criminal cases, right?
And you do realize that in all matters relating to criminal cases in which meta data would be used the police can just get a warrant to pull your phones records from your phone company or from your actual phone itself......so doesn't matter slightly.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ghazkuul wrote:Simple solution manchu ready....dont turn on your phones GPS!
I would prefer the admittedly more complicated solution of Congress enacting legislation to establish that such information can only be obtained by the government pursuant to a valid warrant.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Manchu wrote: Peregrine wrote:You do realize that metadata can be used as evidence in criminal cases, right?
Including as of now, at least arguably, metadata collected without any warrant.
To use any meta data in a court case the lawyers would have to reveal their sources for the information, if said information was not gained by the lawful use of a Warrant the data is inadmissible in the court case.
19370
Post by: daedalus
GPS is especially outrageous because it requires active transmission of otherwise locally collected data back to some third party. You could create a GPS client that is just as functional with respect to maps and have absolutely zero communication to any remote entity. It's a one-way system at it's core.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
My Google Fu is off. Anyone heard of any terrorist getting nailed from metadata collection? As in being caught before the crime the NSA can be directly connected to 
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 daedalus wrote:GPS is especially outrageous because it requires active transmission of otherwise locally collected data back to some third party. You could create a GPS client that is just as functional with respect to maps and have absolutely zero communication to any remote entity. It's a one-way system at it's core.
Ground Positioning Device?
Edit
I might have over read this topic Dae.....gist of it?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ghazkuul wrote:the police can just get a warrant to pull your phones records from your phone company or from your actual phone itself......so doesn't matter slightly
The police must convince a judge they have probable cause to obtain specific information in order to get that warrant. A warrant is a constitutionally-established protection. The difference between the police having to obtain a warrant to search one suspect's phone metadata on the one hand and not needing a warrant to access everyone's phone data on the other hand is impossible to overestimate.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Manchu wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Simple solution manchu ready....dont turn on your phones GPS!
I would prefer the admittedly more complicated solution of Congress enacting legislation to establish that such information can only be obtained by the government pursuant to a valid warrant.
To use any of the information that is stored the analyst working on your information would have to seek a Warrant. Otherwise the data is literally just stored and forgotten about. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:the police can just get a warrant to pull your phones records from your phone company or from your actual phone itself......so doesn't matter slightly
The police must convince a judge they have probable cause to obtain specific information in order to get that warrant. A warrant is a constitutionally-established protection. The difference between the police having to obtain a warrant to search one suspect's phone metadata on the one hand and not needing a warrant to access everyone's phone data on the other hand is impossible to overestimate.
If you tried to view a US persons meta data without a Warrant you would lose your security clearance and face an internal review. Trust me, their aren't enough analysts in the world to monitor even 1/100th of a city, nobody is actively searching your information for S&G
16387
Post by: Manchu
 Jihadin wrote:Anyone heard of any terrorist getting nailed from metadata collection?
The NSA originally claimed that 54 terrorists attacks had been stopped because they collect cell phone metadata. That number has shrunk over time and now stands at basically zero.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
I can't get into specifics beyond saying that META data is useless except when used with secondary intelligence. Such as HUMINT or SIGINT working a specific mission.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Figure as much. I wasn't all that impress by them when I got nailed to do 45 days there (NSA) while I was sitting on my butt waiting treatments at Ft. Meade when I was there recovering.
Nope I do not know Snowden and no I do not know Manning.
Edit
Was detailed out to them. They're not all that damn bright
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ghazkuul wrote:To use any of the information that is stored the analyst working on your information would have to seek a Warrant.
That is not what the NSA and FBI have argued. Ghazkuul wrote:If you tried to view a US persons meta data without a Warrant you would lose your security clearance and face an internal review.
That's all well and good but honestly I don't care what an agency's policies are if there is not clear legal protection beyond that policy, which is currently not the case. Ghazkuul wrote:Trust me, their aren't enough analysts in the world to monitor even 1/100th of a city, nobody is actively searching your information for S&G
But it could be done and currently it could be done without a warrant and the resulting information could be used against me or any one else as evidence at court.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its a key "word" alert to gather the info
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ghazkuul wrote:I can't get into specifics beyond saying that META data is useless except when used with secondary intelligence. Such as HUMINT or SIGINT working a specific mission.
Then you clearly don't understand how metadata can be used as evidence. If you've called a "suspicious" person then maybe you're guilty of a crime too. And hey, your phone was turned off (probably to disable any attempts to track your location) at around the time a murder was committed, so that's really making you look bad. Have fun spending the next few months trying to defend yourself in court, and you'd better hope the investigation doesn't turn up anything else that looks suspicious.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Jihadin wrote:
Figure as much. I wasn't all that impress by them when I got nailed to do 45 days there (NSA) while I was sitting on my butt waiting treatments at Ft. Meade when I was there recovering.
Nope I do not know Snowden and no I do not know Manning.
Edit
Was detailed out to them. They're not all that damn bright
LOL my friend, you never got past the SCIF Guards, all you saw was the front office with secretaries and BS. They keep all their cool stuff hidden away in the dungeons. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I can't get into specifics beyond saying that META data is useless except when used with secondary intelligence. Such as HUMINT or SIGINT working a specific mission.
Then you clearly don't understand how metadata can be used as evidence. If you've called a "suspicious" person then maybe you're guilty of a crime too. And hey, your phone was turned off (probably to disable any attempts to track your location) at around the time a murder was committed, so that's really making you look bad. Have fun spending the next few months trying to defend yourself in court, and you'd better hope the investigation doesn't turn up anything else that looks suspicious.
And again i pointed out that the cops already have access to that regardless of whether or not the NSA is operating the way it has in the past. All the cops have to do and the FBI for that matter is get a Warrant, and it is not that hard for them to do that. And heres the best part, everything you just said is called "circumstantial evidence" and holds about as much water in court as a sieve.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote:
Figure as much. I wasn't all that impress by them when I got nailed to do 45 days there (NSA) while I was sitting on my butt waiting treatments at Ft. Meade when I was there recovering.
Nope I do not know Snowden and no I do not know Manning.
Edit
Was detailed out to them. They're not all that damn bright
LOL my friend, you never got past the SCIF Guards, all you saw was the front office with secretaries and BS. They keep all their cool stuff hidden away in the dungeons.
With a Top Secret I got further then that. Hence I got volunteered for gopher work there.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ghazkuul wrote:And you do realize that in all matters relating to criminal cases in which meta data would be used the police can just get a warrant to pull your phones records from your phone company or from your actual phone itself......so doesn't matter slightly.
No, you're completely missing the point of how this works. If metadata is not protected by the fourth amendment then no warrant, the police can just take the metadata for all cell phone activity in the US and search it to see if there's anything suspicious. If a warrant is required then the police first have to establish a reasonable belief that you're guilty of a particular crime and that your metadata is potential evidence. There's a huge difference between having to identify a specific target for a search and searching everyone just to see if you can find anything.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ghazkuul wrote:And again i pointed out that the cops already have access to that regardless of whether or not the NSA is operating the way it has in the past. All the cops have to do and the FBI for that matter is get a Warrant, and it is not that hard for them to do that.
And again: Manchu wrote:The police must convince a judge they have probable cause to obtain specific information in order to get that warrant. A warrant is a constitutionally-established protection. The difference between the police having to obtain a warrant to search one suspect's phone metadata on the one hand and not needing a warrant to access everyone's phone data on the other hand is impossible to overestimate.
Ghazkuul wrote:And heres the best part, everything you just said is called "circumstantial evidence" and holds about as much water in court as a sieve.
Incorrect.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Jihadin wrote:
Ground Positioning Device?
Edit
I might have over read this topic Dae.....gist of it?
I believe it's Global Positioning System, at least with respect to civvy acronyms. Yours of course may vary. It's based upon satellites broadcasting their position in orbit. That part is pretty obvious and you probably know it. The thing is, that's radio being sent to your device receiving it. You don't HAVE to respond to anything to make use of it. In fact, the satellites don't care and probably couldn't receive a transmission from you from ground anyway if they wanted to, at least, not from something that you can safely stick in your pocket. For an example, see the Garmin units from the 90's. I don't know if GLONASS (the Russian GPS) works the same way, but that's how ours works.
Google et al have you send your location to them, and then they run the algos server side to (track you) give you your locations/targeted ads. You could have a client that instead gets the node map with cost for each node (distance to traffic intersection) and makes the best decision for the area, still giving you reasonable time estimates without actually giving the goodies away. This way costs admittedly more bandwidth, but at the end of the day, that's not the reason it's done that way.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ghazkuul wrote:All the cops have to do and the FBI for that matter is get a Warrant, and it is not that hard for them to do that.
Except it is hard, because you have to establish probable cause first. If you don't need a warrant then you can simultaneously search every single person in the US without having to identify any particular target of the search. Needing a warrant won't save you if the police have picked you as the target of their investigation, but it can stop you from becoming a target in the first place.
And heres the best part, everything you just said is called "circumstantial evidence" and holds about as much water in court as a sieve.
You really don't understand how criminal trials work. And even if the evidence is weak and you aren't convicted you still had to pay your lawyers, sacrifice a lot of your time, lose your job because nobody wants to hire a potential murderer, etc.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Manchu wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:To use any of the information that is stored the analyst working on your information would have to seek a Warrant.
That is not what the NSA and FBI have argued. Ghazkuul wrote:If you tried to view a US persons meta data without a Warrant you would lose your security clearance and face an internal review.
That's all well and good but honestly I don't care what an agency's policies are if there is not clear legal protection beyond that policy, which is currently not the case. Ghazkuul wrote:Trust me, their aren't enough analysts in the world to monitor even 1/100th of a city, nobody is actively searching your information for S&G
But it could be done and currently it could be done without a warrant and the resulting information could be used against me or any one else as evidence at court.
#1: False, the NSA and FBI have argues that they need the ability to store the data, to review it needs the Warrant. Again, GO READ FISA and EO 12333
#2: Their is a very clear legal protection, its is that the information is INADMISSIBLE IN COURT if a warrant was not used in the collection of the information.
#3: No it literally could not be done. The NSA would need to expand itself about 100 fold and it still wouldn't be big enough to track even a percentage of America. Therefore along with the reasons given in #2 the information could not be used as evidence in court unless a search warrant was issued allowing the police to gather that information....which they could get from your phone company easily enough.. and food for thought, your phone companies have actively sold persona information in the past to private businesses. Maybe its not the government you should be worried about :-p
50512
Post by: Jihadin
LEO's......even the DoJ do not have access to NSA intell.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Jihadin wrote: Ghazkuul wrote: Jihadin wrote:
Figure as much. I wasn't all that impress by them when I got nailed to do 45 days there (NSA) while I was sitting on my butt waiting treatments at Ft. Meade when I was there recovering.
Nope I do not know Snowden and no I do not know Manning.
Edit
Was detailed out to them. They're not all that damn bright
Ahhh nice, you came across as Grunt type and usually that holds Secret at best.
LOL my friend, you never got past the SCIF Guards, all you saw was the front office with secretaries and BS. They keep all their cool stuff hidden away in the dungeons.
With a Top Secret I got further then that. Hence I got volunteered for gopher work there.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Jihadin wrote:LEO's......even the DoJ do not have access to NSA intell.
In theory. But if we establish that cell phone metadata is not protected by the fourth amendment then they don't need access to the NSA's work, they can just get their own copy of the metadata.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
One of the reason I got nailed to go to NSA. I have access to GTN (Global Tracking Network) while they do not.
Edit
Its not just cell phone transmissions they collect though
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I don't think you understand what "literally" means. Tracking every single person in the US is a problem of computing power once you have unrestricted access to the information you need. It might not be possible right now, but as available computing power continues to increase the number of people you can track increases as well. Eventually you reach a point where "track everyone in the US" is a $0.99 app on the latest iThing.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
So no gak here I am, sitting at the ol' computer searching for a news article from a specific local newspaper for a school assignment due tomorrow morning and I come across this:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2015/05/11/3786478/new-law-requires-warrants-for.html
for the TL;DR crowd... the State of Washington has now passed a law that states that if police agencies wish to use a Cell Simulator, such as those talked about at length ITT, they must get a warrant first.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you understand what "literally" means. Tracking every single person in the US is a problem of computing power once you have unrestricted access to the information you need. It might not be possible right now, but as available computing power continues to increase the number of people you can track increases as well. Eventually you reach a point where "track everyone in the US" is a $0.99 app on the latest iThing.
I don't think you understand what literally means, because I just used it correctly. Their are not enough analysts in the world to monitor even a small fraction of the Cell phone network. yes a computer can track all sorts of fun things and store meta data, but that data IS USELESS unless an analyst is utilizing it. So like I said, IT LITERALLY CAN NOT BE DONE.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Ghazkuul wrote:#1: False, the NSA and FBI have argues that they need the ability to store the data, to review it needs the Warrant. Again, GO READ FISA and EO 12333
Neither FISA nor EO 12333 are NSA or FBI documents and so cannot support your statement. We have actually already discussed the FBI's position ITT. And the whole thread is only happening because of the NSA's argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Ghazkuul wrote:#2: Their is a very clear legal protection, its is that the information is INADMISSIBLE IN COURT if a warrant was not used in the collection of the information.
You would know if you had bothered to read this thread that according to the third-party doctrine, individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to a third party and therefore obtaining such information does not constitute a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and therefore obtaining that information does not require a warrant. As I have mentioned several times ITT, it isn't only the government I'm worried about.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Manchu wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:#1: False, the NSA and FBI have argues that they need the ability to store the data, to review it needs the Warrant. Again, GO READ FISA and EO 12333
Neither FISA nor EO 12333 are NSA or FBI documents and so cannot support your statement. We have actually already discussed the FBI's position ITT. And the whole thread is only happening because of the NSA's argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Ghazkuul wrote:#2: Their is a very clear legal protection, its is that the information is INADMISSIBLE IN COURT if a warrant was not used in the collection of the information.
You would know if you had bothered to read this thread that according to the third-party doctrine, individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to a third party and therefore obtaining such information does not constitute a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and therefore obtaining that information does not require a warrant. As I have mentioned several times ITT, it isn't only the government I'm worried about.
ok dude you officially just broke my interest in trying to debate you. EO 12333 Is also known as EXECUTIVE ORDER 12333 as in, the president of the united states. FISA and EO12333 spell out how intelligence agencies such as the NSA can target US and Foreign citizens. Since you clearly didn't bother to even remotely look into those documents and instead are spouting off nonsense I am done. continue with your random internet fear mongering without bothering to look up the facts.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ghazkuul wrote:I don't think you understand what literally means, because I just used it correctly. Their are not enough analysts in the world to monitor even a small fraction of the Cell phone network. yes a computer can track all sorts of fun things and store meta data, but that data IS USELESS unless an analyst is utilizing it. So like I said, IT LITERALLY CAN NOT BE DONE.
You really don't understand how this works. The metadata is a database of locations/phone numbers/etc. You can save everything and search it for "interesting" items like "people in the area of X crime" or "making phone calls from store parking lots after normal business hours" when you have a crime to solve. Or you can make a program that monitors the database in real time for "interesting" events and highlights them for a person to review. The fact that you can't have each person in the US followed 24/7 by their personal intelligence analyst is irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote:FISA and EO12333 spell out how intelligence agencies such as the NSA can target US and Foreign citizens.
You do realize that there's a difference between the police and the intelligence agencies, right?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Ghazkuul wrote:
#3: No it literally could not be done. The NSA would need to expand itself about 100 fold and it still wouldn't be big enough to track even a percentage of America. Therefore along with the reasons given in #2 the information could not be used as evidence in court unless a search warrant was issued allowing the police to gather that information....which they could get from your phone company easily enough.. and food for thought, your phone companies have actively sold persona information in the past to private businesses. Maybe its not the government you should be worried about :-p
No. With a closet full of servers in significant (Tier 1/2 networks and places like google/facebook), private lines, and significant (by current standards) data center somewhere, or a couple even scattered around the country, they could do it pretty easily. The most significant limitation is knowing what to look for to get useful information from it.
Big Data is easy. Finding the needle in a haystack is where the money is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote:I don't think you understand what literally means, because I just used it correctly. Their are not enough analysts in the world to monitor even a small fraction of the Cell phone network. yes a computer can track all sorts of fun things and store meta data, but that data IS USELESS unless an analyst is utilizing it. So like I said, IT LITERALLY CAN NOT BE DONE.
Why do you assume analysis has to be done by a human being?
Okay, I work for a major news organization. We're not the AP, but we're on par with the AP. We deal with many gigabytes of data being sent in a single day. I can tell you tomorrow morning about what areas today have the most news trending, who the data is coming from, and the most common topics being discussed, and I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm not touching a keyboard to make any of this happen. I could probably tell you sooner if I was inclined to dig my laptop out, but I don't work for free. I can do this with about $30k worth of servers, and my laptop. Now scale the budget a couple orders of magnitude.
16387
Post by: Manchu
@Ghazkuul The President does not have the authority to either make or interpret the law. He can only direct agencies as to how it should be enforced. Those policies and regulations are not the same thing as legal protections. It's funny that you accuse me of not bothering to look up "the facts" when I demonstrably know them and you apparently do not (despite so much of it already being conveniently posted ITT). EO 12333 nowhere requires an actual warrant; it purports to delegate to the Attorney General the power to approve surveillance within the US that would normally require a warrant where the Attorney General determines there is probable cause that the target is a foreign power or agent thereof (for example, a US citizen or resident that the NSA suspects to be a terrorist contrary to FISA; thank goodness for FISA and the Patriot Act /sarcasm). Which is to say, the only probable cause invoked is (1) not judicially ratfied (required for a valid warrant) and (2) does not even appertain to the search in question but rather to a characteristic of the target. Oh and here is the Second Circuit summary of the parties' respective positions on the constitutional issue of warrants: Appellants contend that the seizure from their telephone service providers, and eventual search, of records of the metadata relating to their telephone communications violates their expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in the absence of a search warrant based on probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the records. The government responds that the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment are not implicated because appellants have no privacy rights in the records.
(emphasis added) ... which, incidentally, we have been thoroughly discussing for days now ITT ...
4001
Post by: Compel
Isn't the end result of all this going to be someone writing up an American equivalent to RIPA and that will be that?
18698
Post by: kronk
Ghazkuul wrote:Simple solution manchu ready....dont turn on your phones GPS!
Ladies! Don't wear short skirts and you won't get assaulted! Simple solution, really!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
kronk wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Simple solution manchu ready....dont turn on your phones GPS!
Ladies! Don't wear short skirts and you won't get assaulted! Simple solution, really!
How would Sam and Dean track each other if GPS's on their cells were off 
51394
Post by: judgedoug
It really annoys me when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about interrupts an interesting conversation between professionals.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Professionals are predictable. Its the amateurs you have to watch out for
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Y'know, Im watching the Xfiles right now and the NSA appeared....
Someone on the episode said spying on your own people is wrong....to an NSA agent.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Congress has changed some things, but there is still some time to collect some data until the law goes into effect:
U.S. Appeals Court Overturns Decision That NSA Metadata Collection Was Illegal
A three-judge panel for a U.S. appeals court has thrown out a lower-court decision that sought to stop the NSA from continuing to collect metadata on phone calls made by Americans.
The lower court ruling had found that the practice was unconstitutional.
In some ways, this decision is much less important now that Congress has passed a law that changes the way metadata is collected by the government. If you remember, after a fierce battle, both houses of Congress voted in favor of a law that lets phone companies keep that database but still allows the government to query it for specific data.
The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia still decided to take on the case, because that new program doesn't begin until 180 days after the date that law was enacted (June 2, 2015).
Until then, and as a result of this decision, the NSA is allowed to continue with its metadata collection program.
The court reversed a decision by Judge Richard Leon and sent it back to him for further proceedings.
This court did not make its decision on Constitutional terms; instead, it ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to receive a preliminary injunction. The court sent the case back to Judge Leon to see if the plaintiffs could cobble up more evidence showing they are being directly targeted by the bulk collection program.
The complication there is the U.S. government has in the past refused to turn over that evidence, claiming it is secret.
|
|
