No, not very much. No matter which way it’s stored, the government has to get a court order before searching it. No warrantless searches involved. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but I don’t see how your analogy works as a basis to argue against warrantless searches.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the data-gathering and legislative changes this past week are pretty low on most people’s notice these days. And that people who still care enough about Snowden to have an opinion are more likely those against his actions and see them as treasonous than those who support him or see him as heroic.
It seems like the media pretty successfully marginalized Snowden, which I’m sure he’s grateful for. He never seemed comfortable in the spotlight, though he tried his best. He’s irrelevant now, since Greenwald et al have all of his data and are releasing it slowly for maximum political effect.
It was pretty funny in 2013 when the NSA and FBI and everyone kept saying “Well, Snowden is right, we were doing X… But it isn’t so bad, you can be damn sure we aren’t doing Y!” and then Greenwald would release something the next week clearly illustrating the huge amount of officially sanctioned Y going on.
I still think this pattern will continue for awhile. Snowden obtained a lot of evidence, and Greenwald is making sure that as soon as the American public is ready to forget the abuses against them and move onto the next Kanye West outburst, more government abuses come to light.
There is absolutely 0% chance that the Patriot Act would have expired without Snowden. And the Freedom Act isn’t much better, but it is symbolic of the concessions government agencies will be forced to keep making in the coming years. I see this as a boulder slowly tumbling down a gentle slope at first, but picking up speed later until it becomes unstoppable. Maybe I’m optimistic, but nothing has given me more hope in humanity and society than Edward Snowden.
I’m really getting that sense; that’s there is a concerted effort to play down his role.
It really suits no one to acknowledge his achievement - and even people here are loathe to admit the scale at which government allowed and continued to sanction criminal activity on an industrial scale in direct breach of the constitution.
Jesus, it’s even the Republicans who have terminated the Patriot Act. And it’s like no big deal.
Yeah. The media has no incentive to make hay of Snowden’s accomplishments. Just like Julian Assange never had his 15 minutes of fame. Riiiiiiiiiight.
That’s true now that the topic has moved on from the messenger to the message. His personal 15 minutes are over, but the isues raised continue and aren’t going away anytime soon (for one thing, too many people have too much money at risk to tolerate further government damage to either the reality or the perception of cybersecurity, which is why the Administration officials who have been going around setting their hair on fire might as well fuggedaboudit and relax).
Christ, it sounds like the refrain of Republicans who complain that their issues of abstinence-only education and school vouchers aren’t more popular only because the big bad biased media has it in for them!
Yeah, that’s a pretty good analogy for the flaming-hair shows we’ve been seeing lately.
To be fair-minded, that letter doesn’t address Comey’s statement that strong encryption comes with advantages (which the letter enthusiastically and correctly explains) and disadvantages such as that the government may never be able to access some evidence in important criminal investigations, even with lawful court orders (an issue which the letter does not address).
It’s a bit difficult to address an assertion of fact which may be charitably described as misdirection (or uncharitably described as setting his pants on fire to match his hair).
The key claim is
No, Mr. Comey, you are not finding yourself unable to read what you find or to open a device. You are unable to read what you find or to open a device via your preferred method of having the device unlocked by the manufacturer. The device owner can still unlock it just fine.
The latter approach is the norm; the former exists only for an unusual special case which had a good run from the Feds’ point of view but now has seen its day. Logically, there is no more reason for the Feds to assume they can have Apple or Google help them find evidence hidden inside a phone than there is for them to assume that they can have Sealy and Serta help them find evidence hidden inside a mattress.
To me, he’s going to end up with a similar public attitude towards him as Jane Fonda. A segment of the population is never going to forgive him for “endangering American lives” or some nonsense about siding with the enemy. Even if we end up admitting to ourselves that bulk surveillance is wrong like we did with Vietnam, some people will still hate him for the method he chose to do it. It won’t matter if he eventually apologizes, it won’t matter if Americans come to benefit from what he did, all that will matter to some people is that he was a traitor.
Of course, he’s not as famous as Fonda was, and won’t have the benefit of a lot of powerful people fighting on his behalf and claiming him as part of their group. I hope he stays far away from the American justice system and lives his life with the reward of knowing what he did was ultimately a good thing. I mean, our Congress pretty much voted (through not voting for) to sunset those bulk surveillance provisions that he brought to light. What other possible vindication for his deeds could he possibly get than a Republican dominated Congress essentially changing the law due to him?
I think we talked about this before. Do you think courts ought to be able to compel people to provide passwords or unlock their devices, or do you believe that such actions are testimonial in nature and could be infringements on a person’s Fifth Amendment rights?
PRISM and the arrangements with internet companies revealed operational activities, but the core concepts honestly should have been apparent to anyone that had followed the known FISA court activities, the text of legislation passed by Congress after 9/11, and previous leaks (that for whatever reason) never got the attention Snowden’s did. Snowden got the most information out, I guess in a way that any idiot could understand it (but most don’t, actually.) But the thrust of it had already been revealed years prior.
As for criminality and unconstitutionality, there’s no evidence widespread crimes have been committed. These activities were sanctioned by U.S. legislation and subject to judicial oversight. They would not be classified by crimes by any court in the United States, and could not be successfully prosecuted as such. When something is specifically authorized by legislation and approved by a judge, the idea that it is a criminal action is frankly, hyperbole. It shows that you’re just a ranter that doesn’t really understand the realities, legalities, or practicalities of these issues.
As for it being unconstitutional, that’s still a matter of debate to be honest.
I do understand now your love for Snowden, you think he did a bunch of stuff that he didn’t actually do, and revealed things he didn’t reveal. In that scenario I can see holding him up for acclaim that he doesn’t actually deserve.
The case law is still being sorted out as to whether active cooperation may be required. Even without active cooperation, the existence of bypass techniques for individual devices (e.g. keyloggers) is sufficient for legitimate (i.e. targeted at specific suspects) surveillance.
I agree the case law is still being sorted out, but I’m asking what you think the law SHOULD be. Do you think the 5th Amendment should not should not prohibit the government from compelling a suspect to reveal passwords or to unlock secure devices?
On the keylogger front, you’re technically correct, but your suggestion is not practical in a large number of cases. To use a clear-cut example, let’s say Special Forces raided bin Laden’s compound and found a bunch of iPhones with strong encryption. UBL was shot dead, of course, so we can’t force him to unlock the phone. Since we didn’t have access to anything he was doing before the raid, there was no opportunity to install a keylogger on his phone or any other device. Strong encryption means that we will probably never be able to know what is on those devices… while simultaneously meaning that my purchases from amazon.com will be more secure, etc. Anyone who denies the pros and cons of strong encryption in those two examples, I believe, is not being fair-minded.
One of the fun things about the leaks was the “we already knew anyway” crowd (some in this thread). The only people who talked about this were dissident voices in the wilderness and the non-mainstream press. They were describing the shadow more than the substance. And they were the types of people the “we already knew” crowd were fiercely denouncing, if they paid any attention at all.
Before Snowden, if you brought most of this stuff up in polite company or in the mainstream news you’d be called a moonbat conspiracy theorist who buys aluminum foil in bulk. It was so fucking funny watching CNN and Fox have to talk about this after years of defending and handwaving government abuse. It was like watching children find out Santa Claus isn’t real. But sure, everyone knew.