This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Government's power over privacy

#1TheHortatorPosted 10/10/2011 5:00:53 PM
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_hands_wikileaks_volunteers_gmail_data_to_us.php

Gmail users got a hefty dose of reality today when it was revealed that Google handed over one user's private data to the U.S. government, who requested it without a search warrant.

The contacts list and IP address data of Jacob Apple****, a WikiLeaks volunteer and developer for Tor was given to the U.S. government after they requested it using a secret court order enabled by a controversial 1986 law called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, according to the Wall Street Journal. The law allows the government to demand information from ISPs not only without a warrant, but without ever notifying the user.


*Name censored due to some stupid GFAQs rubbish.
---
Lies.
#2Red XlVPosted 10/10/2011 6:54:40 PM
Some of GameFAQs' censored words are beyond bizarre. This is one of them.
---
A bad enough dude to save the President.
#3smitelfPosted 10/10/2011 7:36:15 PM
Yep, there is no privacy on the internet. This is unlikely to change because the majority of the public is too ignorant to understand the problem. Until then, the privacy conscious should treat the internet as a public place where anything they do can be traced, because that is the only legal guarantee we have.
---
Official Queen ***** of the Universe!
#4scigeek101Posted 10/10/2011 7:50:21 PM
The US postal service is actually much more private.

If you want to send something that you don't want others to find out about, snail mail is your best bet.

Although I think the law should be changed so that the government requires a warrant to ask for information like this.
---
Now that Bin Laden is dead let's go after Krazy Kim.
#5atmasabrPosted 10/10/2011 8:54:21 PM(edited)
First of all, I'm not sure what the difference is between one court order and another.

Second, this is about Wikileaks? Have we forgotten what they've done? They've leaked classified military and state department information which was obtained criminally, causing major damage to our national interests and quite possibly putting lives in danger. Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, have given no indication they intend to stop anytime soon, so its continued existence and activities are a present national security threat. Given that the United States is almost certainly responding to present attempts by Wikileaks associates to hack into or otherwise infiltrate classified information, I would expect that in at least some situations where the United States is investigating Wikileaks, we'd be dealing with the US trying to obtain information about ongoing national security threats, and the standards for obtaining information would be a little lower.

At least some sitautions, but certainly not all situations. The article shows that there are cases in which the US government has sought and obtained warrants. So it's using its powers selectively based on the situation. This is no problem at all. Don't associate with degenerates and you won't get treated like one.

One question remains: what is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act?

http://it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=privacy&page=1285

>>

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch119.html

"§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited"

Except that ISPs can do so if it falls within the normal scope of their duties/practices, and they can give the information to law inforcement "as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—

[Edit: I should also have bolded the references to FISA. This is an extremely narrow application, and exactly where it should apply.]

(A) a court order directing such assistance or a court order pursuant to section 704 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518 (7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required
"
---
Do your own research!
#6atmasabrPosted 10/10/2011 8:59:47 PM(edited)
§ 2518. Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

(1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication under this chapter shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction and shall state the applicant’s authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information:


Oh, GOD! My head hurts! THIS is what you're objecting to? Just read it.


(3) Upon such application the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting (and outside that jurisdiction but within the United States in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by a Federal court within such jurisdiction), if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that—

(a) there is probable cause for belief that an individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in section 2516 of this chapter;

(b) there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception;

(c) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;

(d) except as provided in subsection (11), there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire, oral, or electronic communications are to be intercepted are being used, or are about to be used, in connection with the commission of such offense, or are leased to, listed in the name of, or commonly used by such person
"


In short... the non-warrant court order requires probable cause that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, and there must be no other way to get the information other than electronically. The law enforcement officer must give information. Sounds a lot like a warrant to me.


"(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, who reasonably determines that—
(a) an emergency situation exists that involves—
(i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person,
(ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest, or
(iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime,
that requires a wire, oral, or electronic communication to be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained, and
(b) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered under this chapter to authorize such interception,


may intercept such wire, oral, or electronic communication if an application for an order approving the interception is made in accordance with this section within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred

This isn't an unusual set of provisions. Child protective services does that kind of stuff all the time. You need a court order to remove a child, but if it's an urgently dangerous situation and you don't have time to get a court order, you remove the child now.


In conclusion, there is nothing untoward about any of this. Even in situations in which the government states it does not need a warrant [Edit: excuse me, I mean a court order], it must have a court order within 48 hours. There is always judicial oversight, and law enforcement must be prepared to answer to it.
---
Do your own research!
#7willythemailboyPosted 10/10/2011 9:04:38 PM(edited)
Red XlV posted...
Some of GameFAQs' censored words are beyond bizarre. This is one of them.

Had he spelled appelbaum's name correctly, he wouldn't have to censor. As to why that is banned, I think it was something about that site posting stolen or plagiarized guides taken from GameFAQs, or maybe it was just a fad gone horribly wrong. AFAIK it stopped being relevant years ago, but there's never been a good reason to remove it from the banned list.
---
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.
#8TaiIs82Posted 10/10/2011 9:14:03 PM
The government only cares about privacy when abortions are involved.
---
Lover of free speech and America. Defender of life, winner on all counts. Oh, and it's a choice.
Top 1% of 261. 6 recoveries, 51 shut ups, 12 losing horns
#9Red XlVPosted 10/10/2011 9:26:57 PM

From: willythemailboy | Posted: 10/11/2011 1:04:38 AM | #007
As to why that is banned, I think it was something about that site posting stolen or plagiarized guides taken from GameFAQs


That still doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban any mention of the place.
---
A bad enough dude to save the President.
#10willythemailboyPosted 10/10/2011 9:31:07 PM
Red XlV posted...
From: willythemailboy | Posted: 10/11/2011 1:04:38 AM | #007
As to why that is banned, I think it was something about that site posting stolen or plagiarized guides taken from GameFAQs
That still doesn't seem like a valid reason to ban any mention of the place.


It was way before my time. IIRC it was a cjayc policy, not a sballen policy.
---
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.