Appeals Court rules NSA bulk collection of domestic data is illegal

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**Jihadin**

Its a key "word" alert to gather the info

**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.

**Ghazkuul**

Jihadin wrote:
Manchu wrote:
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.

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.

**Jihadin**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Manchu wrote:
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.

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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**Jihadin**

LEO's......even the DoJ do not have access to NSA intell.

**Ghazkuul**

Jihadin wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Manchu wrote:
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.

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.

**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.

**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

**Peregrine**

Ghazkuul wrote:
#3: No it literally could not be done.

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.

**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.

**Ghazkuul**

Peregrine wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
#3: No it literally could not be done.

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.

**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.

Ghazkuul wrote:
Maybe its not the government you should be worried about

As I have mentioned several times ITT, it isn't only the government I'm worried about.

**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.
Ghazkuul wrote:
Maybe its not the government you should be worried about
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.

**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?

**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.

**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 ...

**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?

**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!

**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

**Manchu**

Compel wrote:
someone writing up an American equivalent to RIPA

I certainly hope not!

**judgedoug**

It really annoys me when someone who doesn't know what they are talking about interrupts an interesting conversation between professionals.

**Jihadin**

Professionals are predictable. Its the amateurs you have to watch out for

**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.

**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.