US Spies Are Lobbying Congress to Save a Phone Surveillance ‘Loophole’

https://www.wired.com/story/nsa-ndaa-lobbying-privacy-loophole/

by jbotdev • 3 years ago

167 100 3 years ago

mc325• 3 years ago

It’s so obviously unconstitutional. If Congress gives them a pass, I don’t see how they would explain allowing agencies to sidestep the Constitution. At that point they’re not upholding the Constitution any more. The only chance is bringing it up to the Supreme Court.

petesergeant• 3 years ago

For those of us not well-read on the Constitution, which specific parts does it violate?

iinnPP8• 3 years ago

I would say it qualifies under unreasonable.

It's unreasonable to expect every citizen to understand when and where their data is being taken.

It's unreasonable to expect people to understand what actions lead to what data points.

It's unreasonable to assess data for unrelated traits that don't match every person perfectly.

It's unreasonable to trust a company selling data to not at some point include illegal data. Certainly not without a verified chain of custody.

It is unreasonable for the government to bypass the constitution by using limited interpretation of language.

mc325• 3 years ago

Fourth amendment to the constitution. They would need a warrant. Laws don’t evaporate just because it’s in the digital realm.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 3 years ago

I actually think that is reasonable.

If the data is already commercially available, why not access it.

If you want to fight this, regulate the commercial collection and sale of this data.

iinnPP8• 3 years ago

It's unreasonable to expect a person to understand when and where their data is being leaked/sold.

barnabee• 3 years ago

Really a warrant should be required to carry out any kind of in-depth, prolonged, or otherwise invasive surveillance or investigation into someone.

It’s not just which data or where they get it (though surely many types and sources of data should be restricted too, especially without a warrant) but the fact that they are building a profile, targeting, etc. at all. These are things the government/law enforcement should not be doing lightly or without supervision.

slim• 3 years ago

if the availability of commercial data becomes necessary for a functioning NSA, it will be used as an argument against any attempt to regulate data collection

AbrahamParangi• 3 years ago

I think it is reasonable for governmental agencies to have greater restrictions on their behavior without due process than a private company because the government has vastly greater opportunity to abuse this power.

jwie• 3 years ago

If they can buy it then I can opt out.

It is an unconstitutional practice. If they didn’t think it was they wouldn’t go through the extra steps to get the data. Outsourcing one part of the illegal enterprise doesn’t make the whole thing legal.

But if they want to play this game, an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.

hiatus2• 3 years ago

But if they want to play this game, an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.

Can state law compel a federal agency to do anything?

jonhohle2• 3 years ago

Can state law compel a federal agency to do anything?

Within the jurisdiction of a state, probably. States rights should have precedent over federal except in cases that involve interstate activity. This is being tested in Texas right now with various firearm laws that are meant for items made in and staying within Texas.

space_fountain2• 3 years ago

It's not just the NSA buying this data right? So is it illegal when say a marketing agency buys the data? If not why should it become illegal for the government?

oneplane• 3 years ago

Because the government can put you in jail and the marketing agency can't. (I think I heard this simplified response on the Risky Business podcast)

Realistically, scraping people for their data like this should just not be allowed at all. People are more important than corporations.

iinnPP8• 3 years ago

It sure should be illegal all around.

The second piece about comparing the government to a business isn't valid. There exist many laws and rules that apply only to the government.

Not that I agree with the distinction. I think companies larger than the US government at formation should probably have rules to keep them good for humanity.

retrocryptid6• 3 years ago

Because the marketing agency can't have you targeted in a drone stike.

mrangle2• 3 years ago

For the same reason that the Constitutional protections exist to restrict the government, specifically.

hulitu• 3 years ago

an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.

Good luck with that. You cannot delete something which "doesn't exists". /s

mycall• 3 years ago

Only a whistleblower could make this happen.

sandworm1012• 3 years ago

If you don't want them to buy your data, stop selling it. Lock down your browsers. Don't use Facebook. Put a better OS on your phone. And sue every company that even hints at violating privacy rules.

iinnPP8• 3 years ago

Your actions will signal X,Y,Z and qualify you for intrusive monitoring "because you are hiding something."

This is reality.

retrocryptid6• 3 years ago

There's probably a market for fake id streams: want my contact history? Fine here's 100 fake contacts. Want my location data? Fine. I'm at the Taylor Swift concert two states over. Want to listen in on my microphone? Fine. Here's a recording of Pat Boone trying to do rap.

I'm far from the first person to recommend this.

unethical_ban• 3 years ago

Besides being speculative, this misses the point that if more people do it, it becomes less suspicious.

ulkis• 3 years ago

Can you find a bank, insurance company, phone carrier, etc, that doesn't have them selling your data in their terms though?

seanp2k22• 3 years ago

But hey, we make them send out “IMPORTANT UPDATE FROM _____ BANK” letters every time they change the pages-long legalese that allows them to sell all your data, and of course people read those from all the companies sending them and keep up on all the written mail-in opt-outs that expire.

GDPR is a disaster but the intent was good. Here in America we just say go for it.

tempodox• 3 years ago

And don't have a car, because the DMV sells your data too. “Stop selling your data” is too simplistic.

renegat0x0• 3 years ago

The privacy train has already gone.

We should just accept the status quo. We should not fight for privacy aby more. We should accept global surveillance without a fight.

No. We van do something. We van limit our data. It may be futile, but I cannot leave things be like that.

thefurdrake2• 3 years ago

It's not a full-scope solution. I think you'll find most things in the world are complex and require complex solutions, and most people are capable of understanding that discussing one solution doesn't negate the need for others.

Positions like this really aren't helpful because they detract from existing discussions on ways to mitigate data loss. The information a DMV sells isn't behavioral data.

wahnfrieden• 3 years ago

That works for a fringe minority of users

thumbuddy• 3 years ago

I wish this worked... Even your ISP or VPN providers can and likely do sell data...

snerbles• 3 years ago

...and when WEI reaches mass adoption, your privacy-oriented clients will eventually be locked out of essential services.

I sure hope you have a big war chest for litigation.

RyanAdamas• 3 years ago

This is exactly why the US Government will not create a Citizen Network for authenticated social sharing among actual participants in our Social Contract. It's absolutely a path to despotism, and very few have the stomach for rebellion.

ozymandias12• 3 years ago

will not create a Citizen Network for authenticated social sharing

What do you mean? Care to elaborate on the network (I think I know what you mean about authenticated, but I need to be sure where for).

tiahura• 3 years ago

If it’s publicly available, they don’t need a warrant. That’s been the 4A law from the beginning.

0xParlay2• 3 years ago

Wait is Snowden still considered a loser here? I can't keep track of the narrative.

We have an agency beholden to no-one with the power to blackmail any journalist, lawyer, politician, associate, etc.

We have an agency that seems to take pride in "hacking" the constitution. We've been shown glimpses and glimmers of clever mechanisms to run-around the US Constitution.

Go ahead and use a VPN and lock down your stupid android OS. You fail to grasp the breadth and depth of sources for harvesting "public" intel.

If you want to be a founder and have no moral code there's ample opportunity here. IoT and connectivity make it cheaper than ever to generate intel on people. Fingerprint people's voices in public, travel patterns, associations, bluetooth/wifi device ids, home wifi attributes, etc. Who's the customer? Big Brother.. Spy on your fellow Americans to help combat Terrorism.

Tin foil hat on: It might be too late for any of this to be meaningfully reformed. The people-in-charge already have enough blackmail on politicians they can drown out dissent. If there is any reform, the info gained from illegitimate sources is already stored as weights into a neural model for future use. Creating the neural model would be "constitutional" because the models aren't "searched" lol

Our national security apparatus is running on self-signed certs. Hope nothing goes wrong with that!

2OEH8eoCRo02• 3 years ago

beholden to no-one

They're beholden to congress. No US entity is beholden to no-one

iinnPP8• 3 years ago

The NSA is beholden to Congress until the NSA sends a few messages to fix it.

zmgsabst• 3 years ago

The CIA hacked Congressional oversight of their illegal activity with no consequence.

I’m comfortable saying that US intel agencies are rouge and beholden to no one and no laws.

LeanderK• 3 years ago

but is the oversight effective? Formal supervision alone is irrelevant.

dylan6045• 3 years ago

I could see where you could get that notion from reading an org chart. However, Clapper lied to Congress, was accused of perjury, and allowed to resign. He now walks around as a free man with 0 consequences making whatever salary he's given from his consulting career.

Congress is a feckless body of government when it comes to checks and balances.

0xParlay2• 3 years ago

And when the intel director lies to congress about spying on American citizens, then what? Self signed certificate my friend..

I guess it would be nice if congress held the executive in check.. but maybe they can't bc of sinister reasons >:D

Wasn't there a report recently of the FBI illegally searching US Senators?? Something really wacky is going on.

mrangle2• 3 years ago

That's false. If an entity is above the law then it is above Congress. This exists.

If an entity can forever dismiss Congressional inquiry through unlimited open-ended legalistic escapes that are virtually always applicable, then it is de facto above Congress. This also exists, and is different than the first example.

exabrial• 3 years ago

For the love of all that is good... the problem isn't "omg the NSA is buying data!" the problem is this data is being collected in the first place.

ALL data collection should be restored to its natural state of OptIn, no matter what zuck or any other silicon valley bro says.

pydry3• 3 years ago

There is no "one" problem. Both are problems.

singingwolfboy• 3 years ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230729141840/https://www.wired...

thefurdrake2• 3 years ago

I have mixed feelings about all this.

Obviously, the intelligence agencies are thwarting the spirit of the law requiring warrants by buying data hoovered up by big data.

But I was always told growing up not to share things on the internet I don't want everyone to know. I feel like you kind of deserve having your data hoovered up by the government if you share that data publicly on social media, but personal responsibility doesn't appear to be a contributing factor in this discussion for some reason.

That's not the only source of data, obviously, but there are a lot of people on HN who think blocking ads is piracy. To those people, I present this exact problem, because they should have seen it coming. Adtech is amoral and unethical, and ways of life that rely upon it should collapse. No mercy, I don't care, find a better business model or live on the street.

saikia81• 3 years ago

personal responsibility is always important, but you are just blaming the victims. And you ignore the responsibilities of those we trusted. The tech companies have lied about, and disavowed the surveillance systems they use.

Let's be glad then, that policy is not based on your feelings. You had the privilege of education, that doesn't mean those still ignorant deserve the abuse.

US Spies Are Lobbying Congress to Save a Phone Surveillance ‘Loophole’

Related Stories