Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Scan By US Fell Under Foreign Spy Law Expiring Next Year (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A Yahoo operation in 2015 to scan the incoming email of its customers for specific information requested by the U.S. government was authorized under a foreign intelligence law, parts of which will expire next year, two U.S. government officials familiar with the matter said. The collection in question was specifically authorized by a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said the two government sources, who requested anonymity to speak freely. Yahoo's request came under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the sources said. The two sources said the request was issued under a provision of the law known as Section 702, which will expire on Dec. 31, 2017, unless lawmakers act to renew it. The FISA Court warrant related specifically to Yahoo, but it is possible similar such orders have been issued to other telecom and internet companies, the sources said. Section 702 of the FISA governs a program exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden known as Prism, which gathers messaging data from Alphabet Inc's Google, Facebook Inc, Microsoft Corp, Apple Inc and other major tech companies that involves a foreign target under surveillance. Another type of spying the authority allowed under Section 702 is known as "upstream," and allows the NSA to copy web traffic flowing along the internet backbone located inside the United States and search for certain terms associated with a target. "The NSA has said that it only targets individuals under Section 702 by searching for email addresses and similar identifiers," Senator Ron Wyden (OR-D) said in a statement to Reuters on Monday. "If that has changed, the executive branch has an obligation to notify the public."
I am sure Congress will extend it
The NSA is out to get enemies and potential enemies. That appears to have widened to anyone who isn't NSA. Hence your current problems.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
From the article:
"The collection in question was specifically authorized by a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said the two government sources"
Notice how Reuters just regurgitates the info they get from "anonymous government sources"? They don't even bother to cite the law, nor do they question it on Constitutional grounds. Anonymous sources say that the FISA court said it was OK, therefore it's OK? Thanks for the investigative journalism.
From The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"... 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 ..."
IANAL, but it would be impossible for the government to demonstrate "probable cause" to search the e-mail messages of every single Yahoo! user. The word "particularly" is also very relevant here as it contrasts to "general". It's illegal to issue a "general" warrant. The verbiage is very deliberate in meaning that the "particular" person or premises must be named in the warrant. "All Yahoo! e-mail users" or "All e-mail on Yahoo! servers" is not a "particular" description.
I'm not optimistic, but *maybe* there's a lawsuit here that will force a court ruling on this crap. If all Yahoo! e-mail users were affected, the government can't argue(as it has done successfully in the past) that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to sue.
The only thing FAA 702 covers... ...and its sole and entire reason for being:
Non US Persons outside the US.
Foreign intelligence targets don't magically imbue themselves with US Constitutional protections simply because their communications enters, traverses, or otherwise touches something within the United States.
But it is being used to collect data on domestic targets which puts it in breach regardless of how many foreigners it's used on/for.
The prohibition against general warrants would also apply.
Sorry, but "compelling national interest" is not sufficient reason to violate the restrictions on government power in the US Constitution. Nearly every tyrant and authoritarian regime through history thought, at least in the beginning, that what they were doing by violating the mutual agreement between government and the governed was good and necessary for their national interest and their people. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.