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 United States enumerates and protects BASIC HUMAN RIGHT for ALL PEOPLE, not just US Citizens. I don't know from where it originated the fallacy that the US Constitution applies only to US Citizens on US Soil. The Constitution prohibits the US violating the basic human rights of ALL PEOPLE, no matter where they are or of what nation they are a citizen.
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.
Then the US government violates the US constitution on a massive scale, every day again.
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.
Yahoo Scan By US Fell Under Foreign Spy Law Expiring Next Year
Happy to help!
Then the US government violates the US constitution on a massive scale, every day again.
s/Then t/T/
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, what else is new? I expect that about half the people wailing about this particular violation see nothing at all wrong with translating "shall not be infringed" as "shall be infringed if it scares me".....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
No it fucking doesn't.
Here's the first phrase in the constitution:
"We the People of the United States"
Not everyone, not people IN the US, but people OF the US.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Considering Snowden and that guy the FBI caught recently I would say that the potential enemies to NSA is also anyone who is NSA.
That's the section that says who is writing the constitution and why, not who rights apply to.
The Constitution prohibits the US violating the basic human rights of ALL PEOPLE, no matter where they are or of what nation they are a citizen.
Only on US territory. In both U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez and Odah v. U.S, the courts have held that non citizens outside the US, do not enjoy constitutional protections.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Let's not forget Yahoo's wonderful account creation process. Until a few years ago, one could create unlimited numbers of accounts. When the news of hundreds of millions of accounts being hacked was announced, there were no doubt some people who wondered: how many of my accounts are included in that, and what percent of those 500 million accounts are my accounts.
I wish Microsoft had bought Yahoo for $40 Billion. It would have drained Microsoft's resources to do more evil. And the cultural as well as technical clash would have been entertainment for years and years.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
When you start writing something like that, you can expect the government to cut you off in mid sen
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
It's not just secret courts.
Secret Courts
Secret Laws
Secret Interpretations of Laws
Secret Court Orders
Secret Warrants
Secret Arrests (in the middle of the night)
Secret Evidence (that the defense does not have access to)
Secret Trials
Secret Convictions
Secret Prisons
Secret Um . . . we call it . . . Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Maybe he can given one more term in office.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Whoa, don't let everyone know that. The US government first pretended the constitution didn't apply to black people, then to foreigners, next it was convicts, then it was anyone who happened too be to poor to hire a lawyer and lastly anyone the government decided was thought to be a terrorist.
But I'm sure the constitution will always apply to my white males friends so I'm not worried.
(I'm just staying safe up here in Canada and letting the USA act as a cautionary tale for us remaining democracies)
Then the courts fucked up. The letter and spirit of the law are crystal clear. Inalienable human rights are inalienable, for humans.
The same 702 that was set to expire in 2012? The same 702 that was enabled by the House and Senate in late December and signed by Obama on December 30, 2012, two days before expiration? The same one that many of us protested back in 2012? The same one that the government must be sure we've all forgotten by now so it can be quietly renewed next year by whatever muppet is installed as President? The one that was promised to target furriners only? The one in that bill there?
Well, color me surprised. And if this is news to anyone, then someone needs a Gingko enema.
The letter and spirit of the law also says that the courts are solely responsible for its interpretation.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
Actually, the case in question was apparently a group of foreign individuals who would always identify their messages with a particular signature phrase, described as "highly unique" to the group in question.
Yahoo was directed to capture only messages that matched that signature, and turn those over to the government, resulting in a high probability that only the foreign targets' messages would be collected by the investigators. That high probability, even if imperfect, is good enough to pass any legal or ethics review, because the investigation is actively trying to comply fully with the law.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Yahoo was directed to capture only messages that matched that signature, and turn those over to the government, resulting in a high probability that only the foreign targets' messages would be collected by the investigators.
That's the current story. Like many of these stories, this one may turn out to be untrue or only a partial truth. Maybe they actually showed some respect for the rule of law, as out of character as that may seem given past and recent revelations.
Numerous other programs such as the ones revealed by Snowden do grossly violate the civil rights of US citizens so my comment, even if it may not be true in this individual case, stands.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The United States enumerates and protects BASIC HUMAN RIGHT for ALL PEOPLE, not just US Citizens. I don't know from where it originated the fallacy that the US Constitution applies only to US Citizens on US Soil. The Constitution prohibits the US violating the basic human rights of ALL PEOPLE, no matter where they are or of what nation they are a citizen.
Citation please? It's a nice idea, but if what you are saying were true, the U.S. would never be able to be at war with another country.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
a group of foreign individuals who would always identify their messages with a particular signature phrase, described as "highly unique" to the group in question
Was it "E. Pluribus Unum"? Or "Yes, Mister President"?
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
That was only to cover the CIA and NSA in other nations. Or the GCHQ helping the NSA in the USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Fully US domestic protections should have been fully court protected.
The legal community, NSA, other agencies all understood what the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... found and did.
Domestic protections never went away under color of law, findings or secret courts.
All domestic protections have total supremacy over any color of law collection efforts.
What can the wider public do when they are been spied on domestically under color of law by gov, mil and brand?
Feed the collection system junk. Just keep using the internet in amazing ways that fill the US collection systems with so much data that any collection is a joke.
Create accounts with diametrically opposed habits and shopping. Searches and terms, funny to very boring and then back to very interesting.
If big brands want to collect for big gov, create amazing fictional emails. Long paragraphs, flowing about the next whistleblower, going to the press, meeting contacts to collect data. Make it geographically and account holder believable. i.e. science or crypto or party political to fit the account holders wider fictional searchers and online persona.
Log into your own drafts from a really unexpected ip range. Read and alter. Close the account. Start a new one later.
If a big brand and big gov like content, enjoy the protected freedom of speech to create some marketing fiction with your own free account.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
It is still a criminal offense when seen from other countries. Basically, it shows again that an American-based company is not trustworthy.for storing any data at all.