Its technically a win, but in reality its a victorious battle that has likely cost us the war. Now everyone who voted for this anemic pile of shit can go back to his/her constituents and brag about how they fought the tyranny of the NSA. This "victory" is going to prevent a more meaningful reform bill from gaining any traction in the future. Meanwhile, the NSA gets >99% of what they want.
What would be an acceptable level of data collection in your opinion? I've heard a lot about what people think is wrong, but what would the intelligence landscape look like if you had your way? Has the EFF stated what they would find acceptable?
I like the way it worked before the Patriot Act: want to search someone's property? Get a warrant. Want to tap someone's phone? Get a warrant. Want to collect whatever private information? Get a warrant with the target's name on it.
Maybe. That's one of the problems, that the NSA is trying to get everything that hasn't explicitly been labeled as private to be considered public - from phone metadata to emails stored in the cloud.
Although that said, they read ALL emails, and have said [0] that they require no authorization or warrant to listen to your calls, read your text messages, and read your email. So no, without explicit reigning in, those things the GP lists are not all as they once were.
The NSA does not need a warrant to track people outside the USA which is more or less it's job. It can then trade that information with a foreign governments for there collection of US suspects without a warrant.
From 1946: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement "For example, the British newspaper The Independent reported back in 1996 that the U.S. National Security Agency "taps UK phones" at the request of the British intelligence agency MI5, thus allowing British agents to evade restrictive limitations on domestic telephone tapping.[53]"
I believe you that the NSA might provide intelligence to its partners about foreign nationals that those partners could not lawfully collect themselves.
I'm wondering if NSA can actually procure intelligence about US citizens from its partners.
It's a well established rule that private party's can hand the U.S. government information of there own free will without issue. The issue is the government can't request specific information, but a wink wink system of bulk data sharing should be perfectly legal.
Beyond that point, I have no idea if there is some exemption that lets them request specific information.
Nowhere in that article does it appear that GCHQ actually asked NSA to tap UK citizens' private communications. Is it buried under one of the other links?
Instead it appears that NSA had gathered data relating to UK citizens (under NSA's existing legal authorities) and that the GCHQ then asked for that data to be shared with it.
UK law is incredibly surveillance-friendly compared to the USA so I'd be surprised if there were even a reason for GCHQ to ask NSA to do surveillance on GCHQ's behalf; GCHQ could much more easily do it directly.
But NSA-sourced data could still be useful for GCHQ, which would make sense that GCHQ asks for it when it's been collected, for the same reason Germany's BND was found to be sharing data with NSA (in BND's case, because they wanted NSA to share their own data with BND).
No data should be collected without a warrant, this look so much like how communist countries during cold war were spying on its own citizens. What makes it even worse is that thanks to advanced technology far more information can be collected about us.
In your world, are police officers allowed to call in license plate numbers to see if the car of the person they just pulled over is registered to an escaped armed criminal? May the government tune radios to public airwaves? Or is it just electronic communications which are special?
Anything a normal person would assume is private should be treated that way.
License plates? That's why they are for, you register your car with DMV or similar institution in your country for the sole purpose of matching you with the car.
So keeping database of all license plates that match drivers, perfectly ok, but scanning automatically license plates and building map of your daily routes, that is going too far. Where I frequent is my private business.
Public airwaves? Yes, the keyword is "public", assuming the communication is not encrypted. If it is encrypted then it means it should be private.
Criminals can use encryption? Doesn't matter, it is still private. If we allow to go that route, next thing you know we will have implants in our heads transmitting what we are thinking.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -- Benjamin Franklin
pretty sure he meant any data obtained via methods which would be illegal for a private citizen to utilize should require a warrant. So no national security letters or breaking into secure facilities to place taps ect.
> pretty sure he meant any data obtained via methods which would be illegal for a private citizen to utilize should require a warrant.
Oh, so the solution is easy then; just make tapping phones legal for everybody again! It might also make those guys with their police scanners happy.
While we're at it, they can bring back party lines for landline telephone use and save some money, or let weev out of prison, and in the meantime the NSA and FBI can gobble up all of our communications.
I think that all types of personal information, even metadata, should require a warrant in order to collect it. A warrant issued by the normal legal system, as opposed to a secret court.
As far as the landscape of intelligence. That's a very good question. The NSA is an incredibly large organization with a wide variety of projects. I think for the most part the organization's mission is pretty noble. I just also happen to think that they went off the rails at some point and started doing misguided, counterproductive things that should be illegal.
I don't have an entire plan drawn out for the restructuring of the NSA, but I do think that Bruce Schneier made some very sensible suggestions for true reform.
This is a much more interesting question than the one that usually gets asked, IMO.
I'd be okay with mass collection of metadata, as long as searches through that data had to be limited, audited, and focused on a specific topic for a specific active investigation. And if there were a trustworthy access control and auditing process to make sure there were no more LOVINT leaks, and none of that bullshit that the FBI pulled on MLK jr.
However, I don't think I would trust any agency to not find a way around that, in time. The power is too great, it's too tempting, and administrations change. Therefore, in our real world, I don't support mass un-targeted perpetual data collection, at all.
The only real long-term solution is to keep moving toward decentralization and encryption everywhere, making it close to impossible for anyone to conduct mass or targeted surveillance. Even if we assume the NSA (U.S. National Security Agency) follows orders, there are still 190+ other NSAs (Nation-State Actors) doing their own thing - not to mention the private and quasi private entities running the infrastructure. If someone can peep, someone will peep.
The founding fathers took care of that one for the EFF and the rest of us. Get a warrant. Get a warrant before rummaging around in people's digital effects. Here's the Supreme Court from last term: " A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives."
By the way the same question applies to the intelligence agencies. What level of freedom is acceptable in their opinion. I've heard a number of easily disprovable talking points in favor of continued expansion of this full-employment-act for intelligence "analysts," but what would people's ability to freely express themselves look like if the intelligence community had its way?
