Comment by bradley13
2 years ago
"Because Apple and Google deliver push notification data, they can be secretly compelled by governments to hand over this information"
What I don't understand is this: If the government wants to search your house, they show up at the door and show you a warrant. You can inspect the warrant - it's not secret. Granted, they're going to search your house anyway, but at least you know about it.
Except in truly extraordinary circumstances, you should be informed if your government has requested access to any of your private information.
This apparently goes even farther: not only have companies not been allowed to inform their customers, they haven't even been allowed to generally say that such information has ever been requested about anyone. That is seriously into dystopian territory.
The interesting thing is, the gov't cannot open your letters if it's first class mail, and may only open your letters under some well defined circumstances (https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/yes-the-government-can-op...) - it's all related to the letter being foreign, and i don't see any clause for domestic mail between US citizens being searchable warrantlessly.
SO why should electronic mail not have the same rules applied?
I believe that the government can look at the outside of the envelope or the contents of a postcard without a warrant. This was extended for phone surveillance to the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing calls, and presumably they have argued that the contents of push notifications are in this category.
>the gov't cannot open your letters if it's first class mail
Even if the government has a warrant? The article you linked to seems to say the government can do it with a warrant:
>By law, first-class mail is sealed against inspection, meaning that government officials may not open it without first getting a warrant from a judge.
I assumed that was implied - that is a warrant is always required for opening letters (first class mail), unless there are some specific circumstances that are outlined in the clauses mentioned on the page (which are related to foreign mail).
1 reply →
Because it is more convenient for paw enforcement and the pro-surveillance forces that came into power all over the world since the war on terror and the Patriot Act?
You can thank the "patriot" act for that one. Bush Jr's lasting legacy.
Agree, but this is not new.
This data is not legally yours, since its not on equipment you own or rent.
If the same exact service was on property you owned or rented, they would need a warrant.
Speculating here, but if you paid for a service, and the terms of service were such that you had rental rights to the equipment and ownership of the data, then the US govt would need a warrant. But then the company would not be able to sell the data since it would actually be yours.
I'd pay for a service that was like that.
> I'd pay for a service that was like that.
Email was like that, until Gmail ruined it and you can no longer run your own mail server without being blacklisted everywhere.
The Fediverse is kind of like this, except it's not really designed for private data; its primary use-case is publishing.
The idea that people seem to struggle with is that this is not a new development - it has always been the case. It puts people through its education, teaches that bad is good, that the state is the best we've got, etc, and kind hearted people believe it! It's not a case of voting a better psychopathic ruler in, to help turn the ship around. It has only ever been/can only ever be a mafia extortion racket.
While the problem is not understood, there is no chance of finding a proper solution.
As Nietzsche said:
Amen. That kind of secret data collection should be reserved for profiteering capitalist oligarchs. Government is bad because it's government, but if you can generate personal wealth by exploiting others it's admirable.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re alluding to - but yes, neither do corporations should be allowed unrestricted access to your personal data.
I think what they're alluding to is the unspoken implication that Apple and Google deserve admiration for coming forward about the government spying, despite the fact that they obviously spy on you, too.