Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72738 > unrolled thread

ot - snowden, the short version

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-06 17:16 -0400
    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-06 20:50 -0400
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2015-04-06 20:13 -0700
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2015-04-06 20:14 -0700
        Re: ot - snowden, the short version dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-07 15:52 +1000
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-07 15:51 +1000
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-07 14:47 +0200
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 09:37 -0400
        Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 13:20 -0400
          Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 13:27 -0400
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 15:46 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-04-07 16:25 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 17:35 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-04-07 20:13 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-07 18:58 -0400
          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 03:11 +0000
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:34 -0400
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 23:56 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-08 09:31 +0200
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 12:51 +0000
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 10:27 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 10:49 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 15:59 +0000
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:37 -0700
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 14:12 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 11:19 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 11:47 -0400
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 12:57 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 18:09 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 13:56 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 19:02 +0000
                            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 16:50 -0400
                              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 22:00 +0000
                                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 19:56 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 21:14 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 21:32 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-08 14:11 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 14:24 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 16:57 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:35 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:37 +0000
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 21:25 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 21:45 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-09 09:26 +0200
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 12:44 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-09 10:06 -0400
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:25 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 17:57 +0200
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-08 19:05 +0000
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 21:49 +0000
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:33 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-09 13:23 +0100
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 12:46 +0000
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 11:23 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 16:32 +0000
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:46 -0700
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 18:08 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 14:09 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:52 -0400
                            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:46 -0400
                              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-04-08 17:57 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 20:05 -0700
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-07 11:30 -0400
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-04-07 10:29 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#72842

Tom Stiller:
> What's the greater obligation: contractual agreements or defending the
> constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

> Does the NSA's trampling of the constitution make them a domestic enemy
> of the constitution?

The NSA doesn't choose its targets. It operates in accordance with the
peoples' laws, enacted by the peoples' elected representatives. Within
those laws it strives to fulfill the mission given to it by the
National Security Council and other authorized bodies.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72844

In article <080420151027468641%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> > What's the greater obligation: contractual agreements or defending the
> > constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
> 
> Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
> and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
constitution.

> > Does the NSA's trampling of the constitution make them a domestic enemy
> > of the constitution?
> 
> The NSA doesn't choose its targets. It operates in accordance with the
> peoples' laws, enacted by the peoples' elected representatives. Within
> those laws it strives to fulfill the mission given to it by the
> National Security Council and other authorized bodies.

except for the constitution, which it ignores.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72846

In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <080420151027468641%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > What's the greater obligation: contractual agreements or defending the
>> > constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
>> 
>> Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>> and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>
>those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>constitution.

Ah, that's a bit like McCarthy's Committee on Un-American Activities
then. Whose first agenda item should automatically have been to wind
itself up, since forming the committee was itself an Un-American
Activity.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72852

In article <080420151559122788%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> Ah, that's a bit like McCarthy's Committee on Un-American Activities
> then.

Actually, that was a House committee; he was a senator, so it wasn't
his committee.

He did similar stuff, but not on that committee.

Did you know that Frank Zappa actually did piss on his grave?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72867

In article <080420150837205485%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <080420151559122788%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
> > Ah, that's a bit like McCarthy's Committee on Un-American Activities
> > then.
> 
> Actually, that was a House committee; he was a senator, so it wasn't
> his committee.
> 
> He did similar stuff, but not on that committee.
> 
> Did you know that Frank Zappa actually did piss on his grave?

I didn't know that, but it amuses me. Personally, there are other graves 
I'd piss on first.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72849

In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> I
> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
> 
> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
> constitution.
  Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
BTW). 

>
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72855

In article <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
> > > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
> > 
> > those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
> > constitution.
>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
> BTW). 

<https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment>
  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.

they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
there might be something of interest contained within it even though
there is no reason to do so now.

in other words, everyone is a suspect for some not yet occurred crime.

also, what they're doing inhibits freedom of speech since people now
know they're being snooped.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72858

In article <080420151147142426%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
> collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
> there might be something of interest contained within it even though
> there is no reason to do so now.

At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support 
that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated 
to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s 
where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of 
privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because he voluntarily 
transmitted them to his phone company, and because it is generally known 
that phone companies keep such information in their business records.
   It is also well established that US laws only apply in the US and 
that as long as a legal (or at least not illegal) wiretap is in place, 
whoever calls that number is fair game (Goomba one has a tap on the line 
and Goomba two calls to report that the hit was successful. Both can be 
prosecuted on the basis of the call even though the paper work was on 
G1's phone). 
    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
at least not illegal). Thus if someone from the US calls terrorist 1 in 
the Middle East somewhere (or vice versa) this is generally can be used 
even against the local even if originated inside the US. Just as long as 
the tapped phone itself is not within the US). 

> 
> in other words, everyone is a suspect for some not yet occurred crime.
> 
> also, what they're doing inhibits freedom of speech since people now
> know they're being snooped.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72860

In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
>at least not illegal).

Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
are probably breaking local laws.

-- 
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72863

In article <080420151809588409%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
> >at least not illegal).
> 
> Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
> are probably breaking local laws.

US courts don't care about the local legality. They only look at US laws 
and if they apply or don't.
-- 
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.”
                       — Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72864

In article <WM-dnZFf6fZG9rjInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <080420151809588409%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
>> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
>> >at least not illegal).
>> 
>> Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
>> are probably breaking local laws.
>
>US courts don't care about the local legality. They only look at US laws 
>and if they apply or don't.

And I'm not talking about US courts. I'm talking about local law
enforcement.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72881

In article <080420151902518778%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <WM-dnZFf6fZG9rjInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >In article <080420151809588409%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
> > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
> >> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
> >> >at least not illegal).
> >> 
> >> Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
> >> are probably breaking local laws.
> >
> >US courts don't care about the local legality. They only look at US laws 
> >and if they apply or don't.
> 
> And I'm not talking about US courts. I'm talking about local law
> enforcement.

You lost me. Local law enforcement in the foreign country? Not sure why 
that matters since we were talking about what was legal (or at least not 
illegal) as far as US wiretaps.
-- 
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.”
                       — Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72885

In article <BKudnfHhNYUfCbjInZ2dnUU7-QednZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <080420151902518778%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
> Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <WM-dnZFf6fZG9rjInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
>> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <080420151809588409%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
>> > Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
>> >> Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
>> >> >at least not illegal).
>> >> 
>> >> Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
>> >> are probably breaking local laws.
>> >
>> >US courts don't care about the local legality. They only look at US laws 
>> >and if they apply or don't.
>> 
>> And I'm not talking about US courts. I'm talking about local law
>> enforcement.
>
>You lost me. Local law enforcement in the foreign country? Not sure why 
>that matters since we were talking about what was legal (or at least not 
>illegal) as far as US wiretaps.

I said, above, it depends where the tap is applied. Seems to me that an
international call could be tapped by the NSA outside the US, which I
think that you, above, assert is legal (if I've got the attributions
correct). What I'm saying is that while the US courts may have nothing
to say under such circs, the foreign jurisdiction may get interested
and start arresting NSA operatives. OK?

-- 
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without 
evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72891

In article <080420152200398922%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> I
> 
> I said, above, it depends where the tap is applied. Seems to me that an
> international call could be tapped by the NSA outside the US, which I
> think that you, above, assert is legal (if I've got the attributions
> correct). What I'm saying is that while the US courts may have nothing
> to say under such circs, the foreign jurisdiction may get interested
> and start arresting NSA operatives. OK?

   Yeah. Thanks for the clarification. The NSA is mostly signals and 
thus concentrated in a few areas. They don't do a lot of running around 
other countries (at least without some kind of treaty cover) like the 
CIA and other intelligence assets. So I don't know how real of a concern 
this is.
-- 
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.”
                       — Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72894

Tim Streater:

Kurt Ullman:
> >    In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
> >at least not illegal).

That is untrue. Firstly, the NSA does not do physical phone taps. We
have other agencies to handle that. Been watching too many movies with
armed NSA operatives doing black ops around the world, have you?
Further, it is illegal for the NSA to monitor the communications of
certain allied nations.

> Depends where the tap is applied. If it's applied outside the US, they
> are probably breaking local laws.

Those local laws don't matter to us. U.S. law requires the U.S.
government to perform espionage against foreign targets.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72897

On 15-04-08 21:14, Davoud wrote:

> That is untrue. Firstly, the NSA does not do physical phone taps. 

Actually thy do. They are the ones who connected to internet trunks and
got FISA warrants to connect to Google, Apple, Yahoo servers.

Remember that this have HUGE data centres that collect information in
the USA, and use data cxentres from its 5 eyes partners to collect info
elsewhere as well.

And when an american travels to Canada, CSE can spy on that american,
and when a canadian travels to USA, NSA spies on that Canadian, and then
the can exchange info.

This helps greatly with the "we don't target USA citizens" (unsaid:
"because we ask our partners to do that work for us".)

NSA has even warmer relationship with the UK's GCHQ where the later have
easier access to trans-atlantic cables to tap into communications.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72866

On 4/8/15 12:57 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <080420151147142426%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>   nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
>> collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
>> there might be something of interest contained within it even though
>> there is no reason to do so now.
>
> At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support
> that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated
> to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s
> where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of
> privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because he voluntarily
> transmitted them to his phone company, and because it is generally known
> that phone companies keep such information in their business records.
>     It is also well established that US laws only apply in the US and
> that as long as a legal (or at least not illegal) wiretap is in place,
> whoever calls that number is fair game (Goomba one has a tap on the line
> and Goomba two calls to report that the hit was successful. Both can be
> prosecuted on the basis of the call even though the paper work was on
> G1's phone).
>      In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or
> at least not illegal). Thus if someone from the US calls terrorist 1 in
> the Middle East somewhere (or vice versa) this is generally can be used
> even against the local even if originated inside the US. Just as long as
> the tapped phone itself is not within the US).
>
>>
>> in other words, everyone is a suspect for some not yet occurred crime.
>>
>> also, what they're doing inhibits freedom of speech since people now
>> know they're being snooped.

Though you were talking about phone calls, I was a bit surprised at 
Snowden's explanation in the interview that for e-mail the domestic 
restriction is full of holes.  Goomba one e-mails Goomba two from 
somewhere in the US.  Goomba two is also a resident of the US and 
receives the e-mail in the US.  If that e-mail gets routed through any 
foreign server on its journey from Goomba one to Goomba two it's fair 
game for the NSA.  Not sure what the percentages are but I'm guessing a 
fair percentage of e-mail is bouncing all over the globe before arriving 
at its destination.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72868

In article <6o2dncZ9zdaew7jInZ2dnUU7-KOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Kurt
Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
> > collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
> > there might be something of interest contained within it even though
> > there is no reason to do so now.
> 
> At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support 
> that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated 
> to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s 
> where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of 
> privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because he voluntarily 
> transmitted them to his phone company, and because it is generally known 
> that phone companies keep such information in their business records.

that was put i place long before anyone had any idea what could be done
with the information. those business records were for billing purposes
not to collect and analyze.

today, all sorts of metadata is now included in what's collected, along
with the contents of emails, which is well beyond what was originally
thought of back then, and along with the data mining capabilities that
didn't exist back then either, a rather accurate picture of someone can
be created.

that crosses the line.

>    It is also well established that US laws only apply in the US and 
> that as long as a legal (or at least not illegal) wiretap is in place, 
> whoever calls that number is fair game (Goomba one has a tap on the line 
> and Goomba two calls to report that the hit was successful. Both can be 
> prosecuted on the basis of the call even though the paper work was on 
> G1's phone). 
>
>     In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
> at least not illegal). Thus if someone from the US calls terrorist 1 in 
> the Middle East somewhere (or vice versa) this is generally can be used 
> even against the local even if originated inside the US. Just as long as 
> the tapped phone itself is not within the US). 

except they're wiretapping *all* calls, emails and much more,
regardless of origin or destination and without any reason to do so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72884

In article <080420151424207960%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> I
> that was put i place long before anyone had any idea what could be done
> with the information. those business records were for billing purposes
> not to collect and analyze.
> 
    Not so. In the Maryland case (again 1979) the telephone company, at 
police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to 
record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. The 
evidence was used in a criminal case, the dude was convicted and 
(eventually0 the Supremes said that was cool and there was no 
expectation of privacy. 

> today, all sorts of metadata is now included in what's collected, along
> with the contents of emails, which is well beyond what was originally
> thought of back then, and along with the data mining capabilities that
> didn't exist back then either, a rather accurate picture of someone can
> be created.
    Emails I can't speak to, but metadata is still okay according to the 
Supremes. The discussion of how well the law (especially case law) keeps 
with technology is another thread altogether. The fact remains that use 
of metadata is not considered to be an invasion of privacy under US law.
-- 
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
     but what they conceal is vital.²
                       ‹ Aaron Levenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72873

On 15-04-08 12:57, Kurt Ullman wrote:

> At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support 
> that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated 
> to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s 
> where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of 
> privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because

The problem is that the spy agencies refuse to make public their own
internal definition of "metadata".

Consider an email.

Strictly, the phone equivalent of "metadata" would be a record of an IP
address making a TCP connection to an IP servers at port 25.  (In
canada, the law states something to the effect of collecting what is
necessary to estanblish the connection).

BUT, if you want to know from whom and to whom the email message is
being sent, you have to capture the data being exchanged. And that
happend in 2 phases, the  SMTP handshake (application level) where you
specify MAIL FROM: and MAIL TO: , and then there is the DATA phase.

It *could* be argued that this initial handshake is necessary to
establish the email delivery. (although this is more data processing
than telecom).

That DATA phase  gets worse. None of that information is necessary for
the delivery of the message. However, NSA and friends will look into the
RFC822 header to look at the Subject:, and the From: and To: and other
textual data and they consider that "metadata".

Are they going to start to look at the actual content of messages to
scan for attachement names in case their spot "nuclear_bomb_plans.pdf" ?
They could still claim they don't look at your content, only "metadata"
since the attachement headers could be considered "medatata" by NSA and
friends.

Same for HTTP traffic. Strictly, they should only look at IP address
conecting to another IP address at port 80. And to see which web site
you are using, they have to look into the actual data being exchanged,
namely the HTTP request data which specifies the name of web site and
full URL including arguments etc. That request also includes any
attached files (such as when you upload a picture).

Do they consider that to be "metadata" ? I bet they do since it helps
them collect everything by defining everything as "metadata".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web