Slashdot Mirror
Technology, Not Law, Limits Mass Surveillance
holy_calamity writes "U.S. citizens have historically been protected from government surveillance by technical limits, not legal ones, writes independent security researcher Ashkan Soltani at MIT Tech Review. He claims that recent leaks show that technical limits are loosening, fast, with data storage and analysis cheap and large Internet services taking care of data collection for free. 'Spying no longer requires following people or planting bugs, but rather filling out forms to demand access to an existing trove of information,' writes Soltani."
We've been told that we've been protected from such things, a la the constitution...yet if you go back into history, it's never really been seen by the gov't as a 'limit' to their power...they just make up a 'reason' why they needed to do it. Reasons why it's legal to do so. We have not been historically protected...we've been historically monitored, invaded and exploited for one reason or another in the name of national security and 'fighting enemies'...oh, and marketing. Just because there's not a dictator behind the Securitate, doesn't mean it's not being done behind the scenes.
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
The fourth amendment seems pretty clear to me.
Unfortunately it's not when it comes to electronic communications.
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.
A phone call isn't clearly covered, and SCOTUS explicitly decided it wasn't in 1928, then reversed itself in 1967. That's also when they came up with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test, which I always thought was reasonable. Of course 1967 was an era when the court thought its job was to defend the Bill of Rights, rather than play nitpicking legal games to create as many loopholes as possible.
Don't bother trying to convince me that email, etc, should be covered by the 4th, as you'll be preaching to the choir. I don't give a damn what kind of legal games they play about you not owning the servers or storage medium. That's like saying that the 4th doesn't apply if you rent rather than own your home. My only point was that SCOTUS is free to play lots of games. My favorite is their recent Catch-22 nonsense, that you can't sue the government for a secret program violating your rights because you can't be sure they've been violated (of course not, it's a secret!). Maybe Snowden will release info on who has unlawfully been a surveillance target so they can sue.
Just like a swimming pool, keeping records that someone else might want is an attractive nuisance: people you don't want will go snooping around in them. And just like a swimming pool, it you that's liable when someone uses them without your permission.
At the moment, it's ISPs that find themselves having to cough up DHCP records to courts: give the criminals a week or two and they'll be writing exploits to get at Facebook, Google+ and your local video store, just like they've been doing for people who have lists of credit-card numbers.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
In any of the cases, we don't actually have anything to worry about.
Quite the opposite really; it means the ONLY thing this apparatus is effective at is selectively abusing people.
In other words it won't stop any crimes, but will be used to perpetrate them.
I wonder if you could sue the feds for spying on you, and use the lawsuit to get a subpoena against the federal agency in question. When the subpoena is inevitably challenged on grounds of national security, rebut that with the fact that your constitutional rights are provided by the constitution which supercedes any laws that make the information secret in the first place (supremacy clause).
Of course, this is doomed to failure since the feds have shown they'll do whatever the hell they want to anyway.
The Onion has a disturbing way of doing this.
It seems that advanced enough cynicism is indistinguishable from clairvoyance.
Um, you are sadly mistaken. If you show any signs of 'morality', you don't go anywhere in the NSA or CIA.
For example, back in 1945, the NSA started project Shamrock http://www.dailydot.com/politics/nsa-prism-shamrock-history-spying-telegraphs/ where they asked the major telegram companies to give them all telegrams sent or received oversea's, every day. No warrant, just a 'give this to us'.
Totally illegal, but not public knowledge at the time and the governments response was basically "hehe, oops, of course we never looked at telegrams sent between Americans".
Or Echolon. Google it.
The problems every security service seems to have are:
1) they have nobody to say "this is as far as you can go within the law" that isn't hand-picked to have an extremely minimalist attitude towards what should not be permitted
2) nobody goes to jail or is even criminally investigated when these programs become public knowledge. There may be a investigation by Congress or the Senate, maybe somebody retires or they don't get promoted anymore, with a report that says "We stopped doing these outrageous things long ago, weeks before it became public knowledge", but nobody ever goes to jail. Actually, no, the people that go to jail are the ones that report the wrongdoing, to make others not report other wrongdoing [which is the exact opposite of what your 'moral American' would want].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!