On Government Monitoring & Expectations of Privacy

[MineralMan]

Here's a quote from DU's own Privacy Policy, which is interesting reading. I've added a link to the entire document as well:

Disclosure by Legal Mandate

Democratic Underground reserves the right to disclose your personally identifiable information as required by legal mandate, including, but not limited to, compliance with a judicial proceeding, court order, or legal process lawfully served on Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=privacy

I chose this, because it was readily at hand. Every web site has something similar in its privacy policy. Your contract with your telephone company, cell phone service, Internet Service Provider, and just about everywhere else you have disclosed personal information includes some similar clause. Your bank, the grocery store where you have a loyalty card, and just about every business and organization to which you belong or with which you do business has a similar clause somewhere in the stuff you didn't read when you signed up.

What does it mean? It means that if some official agency goes to court and gets a court order, warrant, or other legal document, any of those businesses or organizations will supply the information requested. Sometimes, those legal documents are closely targeted, but sometimes they're broader than that.

It's all legal, and you agreed to it, even if you didn't bother to read all of the disclosures and fine print. So, the NSA wants to collect data records about all phone calls so they can mix and match and look for patterns. There's a law that says they can do that, and your contract with the phone company says that they will turn over such information if a court order says they must. And such a court order was the first thing released by Snowden and Greenwald.

You don't like it. I don't like it, either, but I actually do read the fine print, at least some of the time, and I know that I've agreed with it when I signed up with whatever thing I signed up for. These days, I don't bother to read it, because it's all in every one of those agreements and policies. I signed up anyhow, knowing that such information might be accessed by someone at some point.

None of this is a secret, but most of us just click the box that says, "I have read and understood the Terms of Service," or something similar, and we accept whatever is in there, read or unread.

No surprises, really. Or, at least, nobody should be surprised. It's all there to read. We just don't bother. Then, when we discover that we have already agreed and someone actually has accessed the information, we get pissed and concerned.

I find that odd, somehow.

[dkf]

1. Why wouldn't they serve a blanket warrant like they did to Verizon and keep a gag order?

For all we know DU has already had to do that.

[MineralMan]

5. I have no idea. It could have happened, I suppose.

I know that it has happened on some web sites, though. I do know that.

In any case, there has been full disclosure that the administrators will hand that information over if ordered to do so by a court. We agree to that by participating. We may not know that we agree to it, but that's just because we haven't bothered to look. Why is that? Because we don't really care. We're not worried about such things.

My point is that just about everything we do is subject to disclosure, if some court orders it. We should all know that and be aware of it. I am. You are. Not everyone is, though.

[dkf]

15. The thing is some court decisions seem suspect, like all the blanket warrants.

With that in mind there seem to be no limits.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, that's always the concern.

With a court order, such things are legal, and meet constitutional requirements and are within the law. And there's the rub. We either trust the courts to issue such orders responsibly, or we do not.

I don't have adequate information to make a judgment on that point. I doubt I will every have adequate information.

I doubt even more that any objection I might have will make any difference at all.

[dkf]

18. I would have felt comfortable knowing there is no probable cause to get my info.

But with blanket warrants there is no probable cause for anything. They have made that requirement obsolete.

[MineralMan]

20. If they want metadata like they apparently have,

there's not much of a way without blanket court orders. If they find patterns within that metadata that is of interest, they get other, more detailed warrants.

[dkf]

23. The latest leak from the slide shows content is collected.

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/m/

How does the court justify this I wonder? Maybe they could have said blanket meta data was lawful but content? Seems suspect.

[MineralMan]

25. More briefing documents.

I looked at those this morning. They really contain very little information on how whatever data that is collected is analysed and used. The documents being referred to are nothing more than flow charts, and are designed to explain basic stuff to people who don't know much about any of it.

So, I can't say how they use any of it. The FISA court, I assume, is briefed more thoroughly, but how thoroughly I can't say.

Quite frankly, we're only seeing information at a very general level throughout this whole thing. It's difficult to get much of a grasp on what's going on from those briefing documents. They're classified, but reveal very little actual information. Without being able to drill down deeper, it's not of much use, really.

If this kind of stuff is worrisome for you, I guarantee that what hasn't been released would be far more worrisome, and I don't even know what that information might be. The existence of PRISM is public information. You can look it up on Wikipedia. It's like that abortive TIA thing. When the RFP's went out for that, a person could get a pretty good idea what was going to be involved, by inference.

The world's nuts, frankly. Privacy is a myth any more. Snowden released some general briefing information about some programs. There are other programs. There's much more information that hasn't and won't be released. Of that I'm certain, even though I don't know what those other programs are or anything about additional information. I just know that they and it, exist. By inference.

All of this stuff has momentum so large that it will never be turned back. I guarantee that.

[dkf]

27. But all the NSA stuff is culled from the vendors to the FBI.

The content is extracted from this data. What is the court order that authorizes this collection? Are they doing it in the FISA court? Has that become their fig leaf, collection of supposedly foreign data, to collect it all as incidental?

Yes we know its being done but under what authorization? How have they made this "legal"?

I don't care about its use so much as its collection.

[MineralMan]

29. As far as I have been able to tell, only one court order

from FISA has been released. It disclosed something that has been going on for multiple years. You can infer from it that similar court orders have been used with other sources, and that they've been issued for a long time.

That court order was classified Top Secret /SI/NOFORN. I'm sure all of the court's proceedings are at least that level of classification or higher. So, barring some other release by some other leaker, it's unlikely that we'll get answers to your questions.

From what I gather from what has been released, safeguards are apparently in place to prevent access to actual content from US Citizens in general. Additional court orders are required for that. Now, how many of those have been issued? We don't know. It's classified, so we're just guessing, really.

The NSA is supposed to be concerned only with international stuff. That's always been their charter. When that international stuff intersects with US citizens, things get cloudier, and I don't know how it's handled.

Say, for example, a cell phone call from someone in the US goes to a number in, say Iran. The Iranian number definitely falls within the purview of the NSA, according to its charter. The person in the US is another matter, and I'm not at all certain how that is supposed to be, or actually is handled.

These are old issues. 40 years ago, it had to do with mail and transatlantic cables. The same issues existed then as exist now. I don't know how they were handled then, either. It wasn't part of anything I was involved with. But the issues were there, and the rules were pretty much the same. The NSA was about international intelligence gathering, not internal. But, when the intersections occurred, it was handled in some way, and still is. I don't know how that handling was or is done, though. If I did, I wouldn't be talking about it at all. There are always intersections between international connections and connections within the US. That's the intelligence business. People travel, and people have connections. Some means has to be used to deal with that when there are matters of interest.

The Wikipedia entry on the National Security Agency is pretty good, and pretty accurate, as far as I can tell. It's worth a read, and it's even more worthwhile to explore the links there.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Then they don't get what they want. There is no way to have probable cause and reasonable can never

be defined as every.

The state down to the police have been granted powers that are logically specifically restricted to them by the constitution based on phantom exceptions, willfully not enumerated and circular reasoning that allows for reversing specific restrictions because there is no way to do it.

"How else are they going to do it?" would seem to be up to the folks that want "to do it" not those objecting.

[MineralMan]

7. Also, I can remember a number of situations where

someone has posted some vile threat of some kind that was posted somewhere other than DU. People have actively reported those things to the FBI, Secret Service, etc., after seeing it. In some cases, we've discovered later that the authorities have paid a visit to the person and even arrested that person in some cases.

Whatever the original source, some agency may have requested and received information on the person who posted the original threat. It happens.

Morons post moronic things. That happens, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. I find it odd that a person who preaches 'there is no privacy' has felt the need

to self delete dozens of posts. Ironic. Contradictory. Highly amusing. Predictable.

[L0oniX]

3. Nothing here to see. We don't organize protests, revolutions, demostrations, bomb building, ect.

It may be that they do monitor the #occupy group in case there is some organizing going on but I doubt it. All this shit gets index'd within hours on Google anyway.

[MineralMan]

4. Yes. Exactly.

There's nothing really interesting here to anyone aside from other DUers. That's my point. We accept the disclosure possibilities because we don't give a shit. If someone posted something nefarious here and some law enforcement agency got a warrant for whatever personal information DU had about someone's screen name, the agency would get the information.

But...nobody's interested in what we do here. They can just Google it, and find whatever is posted here. While most people anonymise themselves on DU to some degree, it's not all that well done, really.

But, bottom line is that there's nothing of interest here. Nor is there on your cell phone or any of those other places. The NSA can cross-match my phone number all day long, and still not find anything interesting. Same with everything else I do. So, I don't much give a shit if they do that. It's not of concern to me.

I agreed to let the phone company give that information to whomever has a court order, anyhow.

[In_The_Wind]

6. It's actually on Google within minutes of being posted on DU.

[MineralMan]

8. Yup. I've tested that a few times. The subject line of an

original post on DU shows up in a Google search almost instantly. Google appears to be online at DU, gathering everything posted here continuously. Pretty impressive data gathering, I think. If Google does it, clearly others can do the same, and more.

Data gathering and analysis is pretty advanced these days.

[In_The_Wind]

10. Indeed, it is.

I have been aware of cameras on the Thruway for many years. I'm not talking about the ones in the toll plazas.

[MineralMan]

12. Yup. Cameras everywhere.

Some people notice them. Most people barely notice the car in front of them. And on we go...

[In_The_Wind]

13. LOL

OMG So very true!

[MineralMan]

19. Actually, a lot of those Thruway cameras

can be publicly accessed. In Minnesota, you can go to the state DOT site and look at live feeds from hundreds of them. The local TV stations use them during their traffic reports, too. I imagine that's true in most states.

I think they're used for traffic monitoring and control more than for any other purpose.

On the other hand, Google's street view of my house is three years old. I do wish they'd update it, since I've painted my house since then and have a different car. I hate out of date info!

[suffragette]

22. Yet our PMs are not indexed and searchable through Google

There are limits and that is a good thing.
And I think it is also good to look at what those limits currently are and what they should be.

[MineralMan]

28. No, they aren't.

I don't use private messaging much, here or anywhere else. The illusion of privacy leads to sloppiness. And private messaging is only as private as the people involved want it to be. Given the nature of places like DU, that can change almost instantly, and what was once private can become public with a click of the mouse.

Your DUMail is stored on DU's servers, you know. You should never consider any private messaging system not controlled by you, personally, as actually private. What is stored privately can be unstored and made public at any time.

Everything changes from time to time. That includes relationships with others on Internet forums. There have been some such things happen on DU, actually.

[dtom67]

9. " Probable cause " and " court order " are the issue...

The idea that the fact that someone could legally violate my privacy if they have "probable cause", is not enough for me to say " fuck it ! let's just welcome the slide into Fascism ! If you are stupid enough to post a dissenting opinion of government practices , then you DESERVE to have your door kicked down by the militarized police force. Let's just accept Martial Law in out cities! let's crucify whistleblowers! Lets embrace corporatism ( per Mussolini )!"

Its not surprising that someone has access; its surprising how many people just go " all Vichy " when the Constitution is so blatantly disregarded.

It is an issue because it kinda underscores the idea that right here, right now, America is a fledgling Totalitarian police State.


Right here, right now.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, well...

People post dissenting opinions of government practices continuously on DU. So far, I know of nobody here who has had their "door kicked down" by anyone. Frankly, nobody in government is interested in what is posted on this or any other general political discussion site.

I'm betting, in fact, that you're not worried in the least about the "militarized police force" "kicking down your door." If you were, you wouldn't be here posting. And you needn't be worried, either. They have far larger fish to catch than you or me.

[dtom67]

32. concern is for the future, not the past or even the present....

no one is going to take away your liberties all at once. It is done slowly, often with the full cooperation of Public. This is usually because we do not believe the events we see occurring in the rest of the world can happen here. OWS has been cracked down on, Keystone protesters have been called " Terrorists " by police/corporate interests ( Remember Mussolini's definition of Fascism ), even the activists in Texas have had the terrorist label applied to them. According to the laws of the land, they no longer have the right to free speech or assembly. Or so the Government could argue, if it so chose.

But this is the "Land of the Free".

We're #1 globally in incarceration of citizens.

And as someone who has stood face-to-face with a militarized police force at a peaceful protest, I can tell you that I am sure as hell terrified of them. Not that they will kick down my door, but that they will make protests a thing of the past. The regular state police were actually pretty cool ( except the young ones, who seemed nervous ), but the guys in full riot gear were pretty frightening. Frightening, because they looked disappointed that they had not been allowed to use their teargas launchers yet. Imagine getting into a fight with someone, and it was illegal for you to fight back. And he gets pepper spray,tasers, batons and other weapons. To be fully under the control of another human being is terrifying.
And, remember, we are talking about computers ,scanning for keywords. We are not talking about a guy with headphones made in the 70's listening to our calls. Hell, I barely use my cellphone. so, I would guess someone might very well be interested in what people here are saying. If people here seem to accept the spying, why not push for even more surveillance?

you are right, though. We shouldn't expect privacy here.

That doesn't mean we should expect our "personal papers" to be read by our Government.

Still, we have left future generations with an Earth, ravaged by Greed. Guess we might as well leave them without Civil Liberties, allowed by our Apathy.

Sorry, kids......

[MineralMan]

14. About an hour ago, here's what I did:

I left my house, got in my car, drove to Walgreen's near my home and purchased three packages of over-the-counter medications. One of them is moderately controlled, due to abuse by some teenagers. I have some yucky allergies.

So, I went to the cashier, who scanned my items. I also swiped my store loyalty card, so I could take advantage of a lower price on one of the products. I paid for the items with my debit card, and that information appeared on my account by the time I got home.

My name, the products I purchased, how much I paid, the time and date, were all recorded and added to the Walgreen's database. It could be accessed by law enforcement, if they wanted to access and got a court order to find out who bought how much of that particular medication when.

Walgreen's too, will use that information for its own purposes, perhaps to determine how much of the products I purchased to order when restocking or to suggest some other product to me in an email. I have an online account at Walgreen's, too, so it probably knows that I bought those products, as well.

So, what I did, where I went, what I bought, and probably even more information is now known, included in multiple databases, and could be extracted with a court order.

But, nobody gives a damn about my shopping trip to Walgreen's. Why would they?

[In_The_Wind]

21. The people who give you credit care about where you shop.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

17. Fortunately! DU (nor any other private websites - fingers-crossed) have the power to ARREST

[felix_numinous]

24. Compartmentalized reasoning

just focuses on one facet, data mining for example. It's old news, what is everyone so upset about, and they say this is just for domestic threats. In a one dimensional world this is a-OK.

But it is the CONTEXT of learning this, along with peace activists, environmentalists or anyone demonstrating against corporate rule now being identified as domestic threats. It is the context of living in a time when police brutality is on the rise. It is the context of remembering Bush's reign, women's rights are virtually disappearing in some states, and voting rights just got sent back 40 years.

When looking at social issues you cannot isolate one event from all the others-- everything is connected, you have to open up the aperture and look at what is happening around the country, to others not like yourself, and what is happening all around the world.

[MineralMan]

26. Of course. My view is broader than you might think.

I'm talking about this narrow little segment in this thread.

And when I'm using the term "compartmentalization," I'm speaking only of how things work at the NSA with regard to access to information.

It has nothing to do with my world view at all.

[HardTimes99]

30. If a prosecutor is able to convince a judge that he or she has probable cause to think that

I have committed an offense and that my electronic communications might constitute evidence, then I have no objections whatsoever to the government gaining access to said communications (although I would expect royalty payments for my contribution to a cure for insomnia as a result thereby

That said, I think most Americans feel they have an expectation of privacy in the absence of any governmental showing of 'probable cause' (language from the 4th Amendment) and a consequent feeling of violation upon discovering that their data is part of some dragnet completely independent of probable cause considerations.

It is true that we sign ToS agreements that acknowledge that we relinquish control of our data BUT we get something in return for it (in the case of DU, feelings of camaraderie and intellectual stimulation). When the NSA scoops up our metadata, even if we willingly provided it to the phone company to obtain phone service, what do we get in return, other than vague feelings of paranoia and distrust (the so-called 'chilling effect' upon the exercise of free speech)?