Comment by chatmasta
2 years ago
This, to me, is the more disturbing part of the article:
> In this case, the federal government prohibited us from sharing any information," the company said in a statement. "Now that this method has become public we are updating our transparency reporting to detail these kinds of requests.
What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance?
IMO such gag orders shouldn't be legal when applied to dragnet surveillance. If you want to gag a company from notifying an individual they're being surveilled (with a warrant), then fine. But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
> But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.
I see you have not read the Patriot Act, an Orwellian double-speak of a title if there ever was one.
The first "paper" I ever wrote was an anti-USA PATRIOT Act paper for a scholarship competition in 2003 when I was 17 where I was awarded $1,000. Literally the only thing I remember is what the acronym USA PATRIOT stands for.
Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
It really is one of the best double-speak bill titles ever.
cool!
Is it really that hard for the government to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist?
Is there any data on how often they're surveilling people without warrants vs with warrants?
This seems like important info to know.
Having data on illegal searches would require an insider leaking that information. Nobody has any semblance of a clue how much illegal data sniffing is happening, and it’s even more questionable since the USA and five eyes continues to degrade basic privacy.
But won’t someone think of the children!?
You're missing the point, in this case they don't even need the warrant at all. And yes, it is because you would have to ask a judge for each and every person surveiled and then provide a reason. They wouldn't have any reason for the drag net and would be denied.
Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech in the US. Especially when you consider the wording of the Apple communication saying that they can talk about it openly now that it's public knowledge.
> Seems like a pretty open and shut case of unconstitutional restriction of speech
I wish it didn't cost a lot of money and years of your life to beat these over-reaches.
How exactly do you bring suit on this matter?
Hey we would like to bring suit because the government says we can't talk about them doing X. Oh no, that would be talking about doing X!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
I don’t think third-party doctrine applies to the gag order, but it is relevant to the surveillance being discussed in this post.
Free speech: are you saying it is guaranteed for companies?
Given the US has a 4th Amendment-free zone within 100 miles of all national borders in the name of national security, I expect the same justification and level of oversight here.
https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-...
This is a common misconception. The 100 mile radius does not waive 4th Amendment protection. A reasonable suspicion of immigration law violation is still required to detain, search and ultimately arrest individuals. To wit: please name a single instance of someone having their rights abused by this so-called "zone".
18 replies →
> What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance?
How many times did those of us who knew all of this to be a farce warned about this?
This is why I never believe Apple's "We're super serious about your privacy!"
That is until a government asks them to do things behind the scenes.
If I’m not mistaken they’re called NSLs and the legality of them when challenged are reviewed by a secret court with secret laws that have secret interpretations of words. The whole thing as far as I can tell is an out of control nightmare and our corrupt congress doesn’t give a shit.
Actually quite a few members of congress do give a shit. Unfortunately they're the same members of congress maligned as MAGA extremists or whatever (in some cases that might be accurate, but it doesn't mean they're wrong about every political position they hold).
If you actually take a second to listen to Matt Gaetz, for example, you might be surprised to learn his (rather principled) positions are much closer to those of AOC than to President Orange, at least in some dimensions. He wants to require single-issue bills, and to completely eliminate FISA-702. Ironically, it seems like FISA will be reauthorized as part of an omnibus spending bill...
I meant Congress as a body doesn’t care, which IMHO is proven by the fact that decade after decade congress as a body does nothing to remedy these problems. Actually the 1984 nightmare just gets worse.
Support from members here and there is nice but in reality for the 20 years I’ve been paying attention has resulted in nothing.
This is why warrant canaries can be useful in privacy policies, at least for smaller/startup companies. The apple/google/microsoft/amazon/metas of the world would have had to remove the canary long ago, though.
No competent startup or small business would take on such a legal risk. And anyway, a sure conclusion can already be reached on the basis of reasoning about the complete and total lack of warrant canaries anywhere.
Every Monday morning - since 2006:
https://rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
and they're trivial to DDoS
>What is the point of transparency reports if they don't include major vectors of government surveillance?
The feels.
It's more than that, IMHO.
I think companies publishing whatever they can is a good thing. We would be worse off if they took the attitude of if we can't publish everything we might as well publish nothing.
Publishing whatever they can is a good thing.
But this is also a great reminder that there's a bunch of things they can't publish -- so "transparency reports" are of extremely limited value. Their greatest value is encouraging people to have a false sense of security.
I'm infinitely more cynical about corporations. For me, it's always about what they can do to mitigate any and all possible blame, regardless of circumstance, context, and the world itself. Always.
perhaps that democracy is not effective when the state organs are unelected bureacrats with guns
Nine times out of ten, the person saying this will turn around and complain about all the "political hacks" running things, referring to political appointees with no experience or background in the area of government they are tasked to run.
The term "unelected bureaucrats" applies to people like...I dunno, the director of the NIH and field office managers. Heck, even a police captain is an "unelected bureaucrat". Sheesh.
The director of the NIH is a prime example of a position the people should have direct control over. As is the police captain. Are you claiming otherwise? Have we really forgotten about 2020 so soon?
4 replies →
history has shown that clumsy bureaucrats with slow erosion of rights is still superior to belligerents with guns in a mob
Would you prefer elected bureacrats with guns? That scares me more.
Perhaps we just go with rock solid transparency laws...
It's a sad day when HN is defending the Patriot Act.
1 reply →
At least elected bureaucrats are theoretically accountable to the electorate. The gripe comes from things like the unelected bureaucrats at the US Department of Justice deciding that as part of implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, there are only two limited and inadequate questions you can ask of someone with an apparently bogus service dog or else. That rule didn't come from the people who wrote the law.
5 replies →
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That's been a common charge against our vast unelected bureaucracy, most of whom hold qualified immunity. We're trillions of dollars in debt, maybe it's time to peel some of it back a little.
Downvotes are possibly because the unelected bureaucrats with guns are overseen by the elected Executive and Legislature.
12 replies →