So it's okay for the carriers to provide the phone-location (and other metadata) to government entities without a warrant, but it's not okay to sell it commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
They (NSA / govt) still warehouse it. They just don’t access it without a warrant. That is the current legal fiction they operate the surveillance state under.
Does that matter to the legal theory though? Like they’re free to pass a law that says that carriers have to keep logs for X years and then get a warrant anytime they want them.
Like if you don’t trust the government to follow their own rules then why do the rules matter?
On paper. How do you know it’s foreign? That’s why they warehouse it. As much as they can. Figure out if it’s foreign later on. Don’t underestimate the laws they will skirt to collect data.
They were once caught doing that, which caused a shit show. It doesn't mean they are currently doing that. Maybe they are, I don't know, and neither does you, asserting that they do it only spreads panic and misinformation
Why would they ever stop? No one made them stop. They were cleared to operate under that legal theory. Go back and review the exhaustive testimony from that period and you will find they were never forced to stop collecting “potentially” domestic communications. I think its best to assume they are.
Edit: start with Hayden. They admitted exactly how it all works and what the judges allowed. Read up on the many EFF lawsuits that were shut down.
So this Supreme Court ruling has eliminated all use of Stingray-like equipment by all law enforcement agencies unless they have a warrant? Wow! Looks like Harris will be going of business soon, and no more DRT boxes flying over cities?
> The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time cell site location information (CSLI) or "tower dumps"
No, a stingray is an active surveillance method... the authorities deploy it and can get information from that point on. It is generally used for an active investigation against a target; of course, it is super problematic because it also intercepts innocent people's calls and can track them, and it is also being used for more and more cases where it is not justified.
However, it is still not the same as the phone company selling location data. They have EVERYONE's location data for all time; it is not like they have to 'turn it on' for you and then are only able to spy on you going forward. They just have all of it, all the time.
The difference is that a stingray is like one cell tower being able to spy on people... the phone company is ALL THE CELL TOWERS being able to spy on you... and not only being ABLE to, are just always doing it no matter what, for everyone.
Not much of a difference really. Mainly just that LE uses their own equipment instead of that of the carrier. This brings up a separate FCC issue: Why is it okay for LE to transmit on the cellular bands for this purpose, when it provably can interfere with emergency communications (such as a 911 call)?
It’s a huge difference. The technical difference is that law enforcement is doing an end-run around the carrier to have phones just give up information. Carriers have zero control over that.
Because it's hyperbolic, sarcastic, and unhelpful. Your question rephrased as a statement is completely fine: "Unfortunately, mass surveillance and extremely targeted surveillance are both still legal and frequently used."
As you pick up on, the question was just used to make a statement, not gain information. That could be considered bad-faithy. But at the very least it annoys with its overused tone of sarcastic outrage, especially because it was the second such comment in the thread, made after the first was already shown to be entirely wrong.
On its merits, the accusation of hypocrisy is also a non-sequitur: from "one bad thing is stopped" never follows "all bad things are stopped". The implied expectation is impossible to fulfill.
It's also unhelpful, politically, in a way that this thread, HN generally, or even "the internet" are full of: If everyone is always assuming the worst while expecting the best, it removes all incentives for anyone in power to behave honorably. After all, if you're going to be accused to be corrupt and/or incompetent anyway, why even try?
That is in no way contradictory. I disagree with it as much as you but there's lots of stuff the government does that you can't and this isn't anything new.
As a parallel statement:
> So it's okay for defense contractors to sell tanks to the government but not commercially? I'd love to see a legal analysis of that argument.
Selling tanks is covered under ITAR.
If there are Federal/State/County/Province/City regulations that cover (or mandate) providing metadata to all levels of government without a warrant, I'd like to see them (assuming they aren't classified).
I am actually OK with that. I don’t believe the government is going to routinely misuse location data, confiscate my guns, ... etc. I don’t want corporations having my tracking data.
The government, Democrats and Republicans, basically do whatever corporations want, so this action is surprising and welcome.
There's a difference between "Corporations have too much power to influence government policy" and "The government will hand over its sensitive personal data records to corporations".
I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.
I read the comment as that they are surprised that the government is pushing back instead of legitimizing bad behavior.
Likely explanation is the wealthy and powerful have a personal interest here. Consider the security nightmare that phone tacking poses for high wealth individuals.
Do you want the ambulance/police car dispatched for you as soon as the operator determines there is a problem, or wait for them to receive your location by you telling them? What about all the people that can't for some reason?
It's the only reason in my mind the government should have access to that info, and it's a damn good one
You are referring to the E911 location data that is provided in real-time to emergency responders. AFAIK everyone is okay with that. I was referring to archival records of all telephone use (calls, text, web).
E911 is one of those rare, valid exceptions to the bill of rights. Do you think people should be able to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater too?
Plus, it's probably arguable as to whether or not your cell providers' location data on you constitutes a "search" or not. Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities, but even then I am not sure since they are doing so as a middleman. IANAL
Also, you might wait but I'm not sure that most folk in distress would agree with you.
> Unless E911 works by transmitting your devices' GPS readings from its own hardware to authorities
That's exactly how it works:
> When the cellular phone detects that the user is placing an emergency call, it begins to transmit its location to a secure server, from which the [Public Safety Answering Point] can retrieve it. Cellphone manufacturers may program the phone to automatically enable GPS functionality (if disabled) when an emergency call is placed, so that it may transmit its location.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States