Federal Court (Finally) Rules Backdoor Searches of Data Unconstitutional
Comments
treetalker
rayiner
You mean like in Riley, which was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and was a 9-0 decision? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
> Riley has been widely praised as “a sweeping victory for privacy rights”[5] with legal scholars describing the decision as "the privacy gift that keeps on giving."
Since then the Court has picked up another privacy hawk (Justice Gorsuch), and another Justice (Barrett) that's also pretty strong on privacy: https://www.protectprivacynow.org/news/how-will-a-justice-am....
zdragnar
My understanding of this case has nothing to do with metadata. The communications were captured in full because one party was not a citizen in the US (under national security reasons).
Those communications were then stored and made available in full via keyword based search interfaces, and those later searches were made without first securing a warrant.
I'm not going to bother reading the tea leaves too closely on this one, but I'd put it at least at even odds the supreme court would say the 4th amendment does apply here.
idrathernot
I think “metadata” is meant as an example of Barnum statement in the context of the original comment. It is very common for courts to reinterpret language as a means of getting to a specific end. Same reason that “Interstate Commerce” actually means all commerce in the 10th amendment.
landryraccoon
Can you explain why? That doesn’t seem like sound reasoning to me.
If you believe the reason is corruption, what personal incentive would the courts have to rule this way? Judges can easily be the victim of government overreach as well.
notjoemama
They were being sarcastic with no reasoning or explanation and there's no logical reason it ought to be the top comment in this thread.
idrathernot
And having a log of every conversation and keystroke that any outspoken judge has ever made gives you all sorts of ways to align their opinions with the above all importance of “National Security”
svachalek
Data is wealth and power, and today's Supreme Court will always side with wealth and power.
Aloisius
I'm not sure what this means. The Supreme Court will side with data because it is wealth and power? What side is an inanimate object on?
RiverCrochet
Data in this case is on the side of wealth and power. You're also wrong about it being an inanimate object for two reasons. Reason A: Data is not an object but a pattern of objects or attributes of object(s) wherein the arrangement forms symbols according to a standard or protocol. Reason B: Data is quite animated when moving e.g. in response to searches or otherwise (re)-transmitted.
Aloisius
We have more than one wealthy and powerful person. They're rarely all on the same side.
So regardless of how courts rule on most issues, one could almost always argue they're taking the side of wealth and power and against the side of wealth and power.
And data is inanimate in the dictionary definition sense of it not being alive. That other things can move it doesn't make it animate.
ARandomerDude
> We expect any lawmaker worthy of that title to listen to what this federal court is saying and create a legislative warrant requirement so that the intelligence community does not continue to trample on the constitutionally protected rights to private communications.
Sad to say it, but I find it laughable that the intel agencies would suddenly stop if it were illegal (though of course it should be illegal). They operate in secret and anyone in the government who opposes them will commit suicide or suddenly be in possession of child pornography.
As New York Sen. Chuck Schumer once told Rachel Maddow on air, “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” [1]
jmclnx
Well I guess of the the US Supreme Court. They seem to get every case these days :(
perihelions
No, just a district court (Eastern District of New York).
superkuh
It's funny that even though the court ruled it is against the law to do so the federal agencies will continue to commit this crime (FBI) and pass illegal legislation (congress) until each specific agency changes it's internal regulations. If they do. The EFF seems to imply continued pressure is needed to convince them to do so.
josefritzishere
This should not have been so hard.
idrathernot
Even if congress ends their blatantly unconstitutional endorsement of Section 702 spying, I still don’t see why anyone would believe that the government is going to do anything other than massively expand their ability surveil every living moment of our lives. I don’t see the point in them trying to play it off like the system has any integrity whatsoever.
duxup
Congress has been woefully short of curiosity or oversight that doesn't involve partisan politics ... let alone leadership.
npvrite
Can we all stop pretending that they don't abuse of their power and hold your deepest darkest secrets indefinitely? Even though most of us are law abiding citizens.
Can we please start making open hardware without Apple/google backdoors and stop pretending our systems are "secure".
Can we please write all software in Rust and stop using languages that weren't designed for security. Yes C is beautiful. Yes it also lets you shoot yourself in the foot.
Can we please use distributed systems to avoid censorship or holding our private information in the hands of the rich?
oneplane
No, we apparently can't, because every time someone attempts to do that, we don't end up with a usable end state or product that people actually want to use or participate in.
Perhaps we just haven't had success yet, and it's not impossible. But such desired outcomes tend to also require everyone to "be the same" (knowledge, skills, capabilities) or "want the same" (desire to spend time and attention on this sort of thing etc.) and that's not how people work.
dmz73
>Can we all stop pretending that they don't abuse of their power and hold your deepest darkest secrets indefinitely? Even though most of us are law abiding citizens. I don't anyone know who thinks powerful don't abuse their power. It is the nature of the beast. And it seems none of us are law abiding citizens: https://www.saponelaw.com/blog/2019/10/professor-says-that-e...
>Can we please start making open hardware without Apple/google backdoors and stop pretending our systems are "secure". Few try...and either fail or languish in obscurity. You comment in itself is the proof that open hw cannot compete since you don't know of these open hw platforms and don't use them even tough you seem to advocate their creation here.
>Can we please write all software in Rust... Rust only eliminates memory safety issues of C/C++. There are large number of languages, some decades older than Rust, that provide various aspects of Rust memory safety without imposing the same limits...and some are being used but people always flock to either new and flashy or the most widely used. Besides, Rust still provides ample foot guns and pushes reliance on 3rd party libraries which replaces memory safety issues with supply chain issues. Not to mention the the very poor ergonomics of the language that purposefully shies away from a lot of syntax sugar that makes writing and reading (understanding) code easier.
>Can we please use distributed systems to avoid censorship or holding our private information in the hands of the rich? Even if you managed to persuade a lot of people to use these, some nodes will become popular/trusted and be targeted for censorship and propaganda and that will achieve the same result as the current model. Again, it is the nature of the beast.
What can be done? I don't know, probably nothing...things have to get to the point where most people are compelled to act because the alternative is death or worse, until such time there will just not be enough support for action to matter. Just how people are.
johnnyanmac
Android, sure. There's still AOSP and there are a few niche devices dedicated to being as close to Open Hardware as we could be.
>Can we please write all software in Rust and stop using languages that weren't designed for security.
I'm all for it. But very few people want to pay for talent that can properly rewrite that legacy C/++ codebase into proper Rust.
ethin
I can't tell if your being sarcastic or actually serious, because nobody is rewriting everything in Rust.
kittikitti
We should go even further and abolish the FBI. They all believe they're above the law and have consistently been the enemy of Americans. What success can they even point to?
cyanydeez
Yes, its totally the FBI ans not every large tech firm invading and trading youe privacy.
idrathernot
Plausible deniability is key pillar of ensuring National Security
datavirtue
The FBI hunts down and removes extremely violent criminals from society every day. They certainly operate right on the edge of the law, as they should. Furthermore, they never stop and never quit and no distance is too far--they will prevail no matter what. Extremely important to the stability of society.
Don't worry: SCOTUS will determine that the Framers did not have a history and tradition of protecting metadata, so the Fourth Amendment has no application here; and, furthermore, the Court's recent jurisprudence regarding the Executive (dieu et mon droit) necessarily implies that the Government has an extremely compelling interest sufficient to overcome the Fourth Amendment and permit warrantless searches of everyone in the United States and elsewhere.