PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project

Sun Jun 9 21:54:09 UTC 2013

Le 09/06/2013 20:26, Rob McEwen a écrit :
> Dan,
>
> I doubt anyone can answer your question easily because you seem to have
> contradictions in your scenario. At one point you say:
>
>> private company to collect information about terrorist entities, who
>> in turn privately contracts with the top X telecom providers and Y
>> social media companies
> but then you continue:
>> to obtain all available information that it can, via TAP ports or
>> direct database access.
> and then:
>> That private organization, through analysis, knows a lot about you
> I'm confused, in your scenario, is the data collection limited to
> "terrorist entities", or does your statement, "all available information
> that it can" mean that it gets everyone's info, and then does their
> filtering later?
>
> Additionally, one would hope that by "terrorist entities", you would be
> referring to those who plan on hurting or killing innocent people,
> whether that be an Islamofactist terrorist planning to blow up a
> government building, or a right wing terrorist planning to do the same
> (for different reasons), or a environmentalists planning to sink a legal
> whaling boat, or a anti-abortionist planning to blow up an abortion
> clinic... take your pick. The point being that mass-killing of innocent
> people is the common thread... NOT the politics. And I hope that you
> haven't downward defined this to someone that could be easily used to
> "pick off" political opponents, right?
>
>> Have your 4th Amendment rights been abridged in this scenario
> Sorry if this comes across as rude or snobby, but I think you just need
> to read the 4th Amendment about 20 times to yourself and let it all soak in.
>
> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:
> If the Federal Government is paying a private entity to do the snooping,
> then they are a defacto agent of the state. That doesn't make the 4th
> amendment apply any less applicable. Even then, to abide by the 4th
> amendment, there should be SPECIFIC persons/orgs AND specific info/items
> that are being searched where that search is SPECIFICALLY approved by a
> judge or court IN ADVANCE (no super wide "blanket" approvals, no broad
> fishing expeditions)... only THEN does the searching for the information
> meet 4th amendment requirements. The fact that the search was of your
> e-mail or phone records doesn't make the 4th amendment apply any less
> than if they were looking inside the drawer in the nightstand next to
> your bed!
>
> There are notable exceptions... for example, an employer is really the
> owner of the mailbox, not their employee. Therefore, there is an
> argument that government employees don't have "privacy rights" from the
> government for their official work e-mail accounts. There are probably
> several other exceptions like that. But such exceptions are a tiny
> percentage of the whole.

Right. And among these exceptions we (still) find, at least in some
European countries, the notion of a private sphere also in your
professional role. Summing up to that a reasonable amount and
type of private communications (for instance, with your bank,
childcare, tax office, family, friends, and other with whom you may
share urgency as well as office hours and inability of relying
efficiently on end-to-en encryption) are likely to happen, and
expected to be honored as private, also via your professional
communication channels. I think that, in France for instance, you
flag these communications by tagging them 'private/perso' or
similar and legally expect them to be treated as such. I may
stand corrected?

A word about a small, yet significant I think, piece in a quite complex
puzzle...

Cheers,

mh

>