U.S. Threatened Yahoo With Massive Fines Over User Data

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Ever wonder how hard it is to fight the government when it comes after your company in search of user information? Yahoo's general counsel explains it rather well.

The released documents underscore how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the U.S. Government’s surveillance efforts. At one point, the U.S. Government threatened the imposition of $250,000 in fines per day if we refused to comply.
Click to expand...
 
This should be illegal to try, yes, even from the power hungry (corrupt) US government.
Laws need to be passed to stop this sort of shit ASAP!
 
I totally agree, everyone knows now that 1984 basically going to be our future..
 
If people wanted to stage a real protest of this spying then everyone should send a non stop stream of penis pictures on all formats. Email, text, vines, instagrams, etc etc. Someone at the NSA would have to get sick of combing through nothing but cock.
 
From our airports and borders to our online data, our federal government no longer operates under Constitutional law. This isn't the first time it's happened, the difference now is that the current SCOTUS refuses to do its job on this and a long list of other issues, and our Congresses/presidents have made permanent political careers out of terror and fear. Worst of all they are now basing their claimed rights on an errant set of assumptions about what's constitutional, thanks again to the SCOTUS. I've been searching for the words "except for special circumstances" in our Fourth Amendment for years and still have not found them. IMO it's only a matter of time before those four magic words relegate our entire Bill of RIghts to utter pointlessness. Most ridiculous imo is how our government actually expects the American people to abide by constitutional law when they themselves refuse to do so. Ain't gonna happen.

Or in other words, we have become pre-WWII Germany.
 
Big business has invested into the current state of the US government to allow them change, whether at the people's behest, or otherwise.
 
The situation is self-correcting. Unless someone wishes to claim trillion dollar a year trade deficits with a single country (China) are sustainable for any length of time. Our federal government is in de facto bankruptcy, the only question is how long the world continues pretending that we pay ourselves with something other than Monopoly money.
 
JaiWebb said:
This should be illegal to try, yes, even from the power hungry (corrupt) US government.
Laws need to be passed to stop this sort of shit ASAP!
Click to expand...

Why? The Government already passed laws to allow this for specific purposes and they are under no burden to explain themselves to a telecom or an ISP when a Judge has already authorized it and the actions are legal and properly executed.

Yahoo is just a business and although they maintain potentially private information from individuals, some of these people are not US Persons and not protected by US Privacy Laws. Some of these people whether US Person or not, are in direct contact with individuals who are being investigated because of their contacts and activities.

There are established legal and not unreasonable procedures for making these requests and the Government was following these procedures so under what shred of propriety was Yahoo "fighting". Yahoo is just an ISP/provider and the Government is under no burden to explain anything to them when a Judge Orders their compliance other then to check and make sure the request is in order. Regardless, Yahoo did make their challenge and another court still upheld the Government's position and the challenge failed.

There is a balance that must be maintained. It can't all go one way or the other. So don't try and say that it's reasonable to make it completely unlawful for the government to demand information on individuals whether they are a US Person or not because there are many many reasons why those demands are justified.
 
JeffDC said:
From our airports and borders to our online data, our federal government no longer operates under Constitutional law. This isn't the first time it's happened, the difference now is that the current SCOTUS refuses to do its job on this and a long list of other issues, and our Congresses/presidents have made permanent political careers out of terror and fear. Worst of all they are now basing their claimed rights on an errant set of assumptions about what's constitutional, thanks again to the SCOTUS. I've been searching for the words "except for special circumstances" in our Fourth Amendment for years and still have not found them. IMO it's only a matter of time before those four magic words relegate our entire Bill of RIghts to utter pointlessness. Most ridiculous imo is how our government actually expects the American people to abide by constitutional law when they themselves refuse to do so. Ain't gonna happen.

Or in other words, we have become pre-WWII Germany.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's all completely justified and you just refuse to accept that these actions are warranted and truly in our best interests.
 
JaiWebb said:
This should be illegal to try, yes, even from the power hungry (corrupt) US government.
Laws need to be passed to stop this sort of shit ASAP!
Click to expand...

There is, its called the fourth amendment. But when all three branches have the same goal, there is no way to stop them
 
AthlonXP said:
I totally agree, everyone knows now that 1984 basically going to be our future..
Click to expand...


Just why is it you all assume that the requests were for information on US Persons? Yahoo doesn't know if their users are citizens or not, they don't know if their users attended a terror training camp. They don't know that these users are communication with other foreigners who are known terrorists or fund terrorists or any of that.

So why is it you guys make these assumptions?
 
lcpiper said:
Just why is it you all assume that the requests were for information on US Persons? Yahoo doesn't know if their users are citizens or not, they don't know if their users attended a terror training camp. They don't know that these users are communication with other foreigners who are known terrorists or fund terrorists or any of that.

So why is it you guys make these assumptions?
Click to expand...

This. The US government doesn't specifically target US citizens for collection...generally. If it happens, it's usually because they are involved in some sort of terrorist activity (ex. Anwar al-Awlaki). The vast majority of targeted collections occur vs foreign born militants (as in, not US citizens)...and you'd be surprise at just how many use yahoo, gmail, msn, etc, etc as primary communication methods. With that said, is there another way that would protect the privacy of US citizens better? Probably...but we wouldn't be having this conversation if such a "better" system were in place.
 
If this is what they're willing to release to the public, what are they still hiding?

/tinfoil hat
 
w4ffles said:
If this is what they're willing to release to the public, what are they still hiding?

/tinfoil hat
Click to expand...

The public doesn't need to know everything the government is doing in an effort to keep terrorism off of our soil, that would be letting the enemy know as well...which kind of defeats the purpose. Sure, abuses happen (which many argue is happening here) but nothing of this scale stays secret forever.
 
lcpiper said:
Just why is it you all assume that the requests were for information on US Persons? Yahoo doesn't know if their users are citizens or not, they don't know if their users attended a terror training camp. They don't know that these users are communication with other foreigners who are known terrorists or fund terrorists or any of that.

So why is it you guys make these assumptions?
Click to expand...

Grahamkracka said:
This. The US government doesn't specifically target US citizens for collection...generally. If it happens, it's usually because they are involved in some sort of terrorist activity (ex. Anwar al-Awlaki). The vast majority of targeted collections occur vs foreign born militants (as in, not US citizens)...and you'd be surprise at just how many use yahoo, gmail, msn, etc, etc as primary communication methods. With that said, is there another way that would protect the privacy of US citizens better? Probably...but we wouldn't be having this conversation if such a "better" system were in place.
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1828387&highlight=nsa

Really...so they don't target US Citizens...
 
Grahamkracka said:
This. The US government doesn't specifically target US citizens for collection...generally. If it happens, it's usually because they are involved in some sort of terrorist activity (ex. Anwar al-Awlaki). The vast majority of targeted collections occur vs foreign born militants (as in, not US citizens)...and you'd be surprise at just how many use yahoo, gmail, msn, etc, etc as primary communication methods. With that said, is there another way that would protect the privacy of US citizens better? Probably...but we wouldn't be having this conversation if such a "better" system were in place.
Click to expand...

Has it served as a strong enough terrorism deterrent to warrant the mass surveillance of US citizens?
 
What about this girl? She is a US Person, do you think the Feds needed access to her communications? Imagine if she was your daughter, put yourself in her father's place.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/

Now I am fine with her new Faith. No one yanked the scarf from her head as she went before the judge. No one made her renounce her beliefs. This girl was definitely headed "off the reservation" and I suppose there were three ways to handle it.

1st, the way it was handled and you need to know that the undercover agents actually tried to talk her out of trying to leave cause they knew she was going to mess herself up.

2nd, Some countries have gulags and cut people's heads off and shit.

3rd, just let her go and she get's what she asked for. She could have a Hellfire in her lap by next week, Inshallah.

As it is, She probably will do very little time and mostly it will server as a "cooling off" period for her to get her head back on straight. I hope she does and I hope she goes on and has a very happy life, there is no reason she can't.
 
lcpiper said:
What about this girl? She is a US Person, do you think the Feds needed access to her communications? Imagine if she was your daughter, put yourself in her father's place.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/justice/colorado-jihadist-guilty-plea/

Now I am fine with her new Faith. No one yanked the scarf from her head as she went before the judge. No one made her renounce her beliefs. This girl was definitely headed "off the reservation" and I suppose there were three ways to handle it.

1st, the way it was handled and you need to know that the undercover agents actually tried to talk her out of trying to leave cause they knew she was going to mess herself up.

2nd, Some countries have gulags and cut people's heads off and shit.

3rd, just let her go and she get's what she asked for. She could have a Hellfire in her lap by next week, Inshallah.

As it is, She probably will do very little time and mostly it will server as a "cooling off" period for her to get her head back on straight. I hope she does and I hope she goes on and has a very happy life, there is no reason she can't.
Click to expand...

This is different than the NSA tapping her lines. This was a DOJ case and therefore a criminal investigation...which means there were warrants in place to use any evidence from electronic monitoring means against her in federal court. She didn't actually go over, therefore wouldn't have specifically fallen under the purview of an NSA collection task.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Has it served as a strong enough terrorism deterrent to warrant the mass surveillance of US citizens?
Click to expand...

The only mass surveillance of US citizens that has been shown to exist is the Bulk Meta-data Collection Program. That meta-data consists of the calling number, the called number, the time and duration of the call, I thought there was a 5th parameter but forget what it was off hand. The data is stored in a separated data-base not linked to other data-bases, access to the data-base is controlled by those cleared for it who require access. And this is all well known and uncontested and was specifically authorized by President Bush under the War Powers Act, continues to remain in effect under President Obama, and will continue for the next almost-five years. This data-base contains information on US Persons and Non-US Persons alike. The data is analyzed to determine patterns and associations that suggest connections to know terror targets.
 
DarkStar02 said:
Has it served as a strong enough terrorism deterrent to warrant the mass surveillance of US citizens?
Click to expand...

I'd say the fact we haven't had a terrorist attack on US soil (that was foreign in origin) since 9/11 says it's relatively successful, despite the CONSTANT attempts of a multitude of terrorist organizations to do so. The only one you can make a case for is the Boston Marathon bombing, which was a 'homegrown' attack.
 
Grahamkracka said:
This is different than the NSA tapping her lines. This was a DOJ case and therefore a criminal investigation...which means there were warrants in place to use any evidence from electronic monitoring means against her in federal court. She didn't actually go over, therefore wouldn't have specifically fallen under the purview of an NSA collection task.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken. The FBI handles Anti-Terrorism Investigations, the DOJ Prosecutes them. The NSA performs SIGINT Collection so when the FBI has a terrorist target they charge the NSA with the SIGINT Collection requirement. Either way, because she was a US Person a Warrant had to be obtained to collect information on her or to request it from her ISPs and Providers. If She had not been a US Person then no warrant is required for the NSA to get a Court Order from the FISA Court or the FBI can make the request for data from the providers with a National Security Letter because it was terrorism related. But that would be if she wasn't a US Person, She was so a warrant had to be obtained.
 
lcpiper said:
I think you are mistaken. The FBI handles Anti-Terrorism Investigations, the DOJ Prosecutes them. The NSA performs SIGINT Collection so when the FBI has a terrorist target they charge the NSA with the SIGINT Collection requirement. Either way, because she was a US Person a Warrant had to be obtained to collect information on her or to request it from her ISPs and Providers. If She had not been a US Person then no warrant is required for the NSA to get a Court Order from the FISA Court or the FBI can make the request for data from the providers with a National Security Letter because it was terrorism related. But that would be if she wasn't a US Person, She was so a warrant had to be obtained.
Click to expand...

The FBI is part of the DOJ. Either way, it's all irrelevant since the whole thing started because someone called the cops on her because she was taking notes on the layout of a church. She admitted to everything else.
 
lcpiper said:
Why? The Government already passed laws to allow this for specific purposes and they are under no burden to explain themselves to a telecom or an ISP when a Judge has already authorized it and the actions are legal and properly executed.

Yahoo is just a business and although they maintain potentially private information from individuals, some of these people are not US Persons and not protected by US Privacy Laws. Some of these people whether US Person or not, are in direct contact with individuals who are being investigated because of their contacts and activities.

There are established legal and not unreasonable procedures for making these requests and the Government was following these procedures so under what shred of propriety was Yahoo "fighting". Yahoo is just an ISP/provider and the Government is under no burden to explain anything to them when a Judge Orders their compliance other then to check and make sure the request is in order. Regardless, Yahoo did make their challenge and another court still upheld the Government's position and the challenge failed.

There is a balance that must be maintained. It can't all go one way or the other. So don't try and say that it's reasonable to make it completely unlawful for the government to demand information on individuals whether they are a US Person or not because there are many many reasons why those demands are justified.
Click to expand...

Fuck that shit.

You will never be reasoned with.
 
What crime am I supporting?

What civil rights do I support the violation of?
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Fuck that shit.

You will never be reasoned with.
Click to expand...

Neither will you.

You will not even entertain the barest possibility that you've been misled by the media at every turn. That you are a patsy, a pawn, an uncomprehending fool that refuses to even look and read for himself.

I could get it if you would at least look into what I say and try to be objective. But instead all you do is look for stupid shit from stupid and unreliable sources to justify your inaccurate beliefs and claims that you are being abused.

You can't let go of your hatred of all things government long enough to even check for yourself and confirm or deny what you are being told.

No, you will never be reasoned with either.
 
Grahamkracka said:
The FBI is part of the DOJ. Either way, it's all irrelevant since the whole thing started because someone called the cops on her because she was taking notes on the layout of a church. She admitted to everything else.
Click to expand...

Maybe there is a little more to it then that;
Authorities interviewed her seven times over the course of five months before arresting her at the airport.
Click to expand...
A five month investigation with a suspect who is in contact electronically with a member of a Terror Organization. Do you think they didn't get data from her ISP and phone provider and possibly use active surveillance to gain a lead on a member of a foreign terror group and then make use of the Bulk Meta-data program to determine who else in the states his number might be connected to?

Perhaps you don't.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
What crime am I supporting?

What civil rights do I support the violation of?
Click to expand...

The unchecked spread of foreign terrorism into our own borders...and the right to life by the people that would die as a result.

Like I said before, the system isn't perfect...but I challenge you to find one that is. It's better than nothing and you sure as hell (as well as any other blindly ignorant moron who simply hates it because it's the 'gubment') don't comprehend any benefits that would arise. The NSA literally doesn't fucking care about you unless you are a terrorist asshole, stop being so goddamn paranoid.
 
lcpiper said:
Maybe there is a little more to it then that;

A five month investigation with a suspect who is in contact electronically with a member of a Terror Organization. Do you think they didn't get data from her ISP and phone provider and possibly use active surveillance to gain a lead on a member of a foreign terror group and then make use of the Bulk Meta-data program to determine who else in the states his number might be connected to?

Perhaps you don't.
Click to expand...

I overly simplified it. Shoot me:D
 
lcpiper said:
Neither will you.

You will not even entertain the barest possibility that you've been misled by the media at every turn. That you are a patsy, a pawn, an uncomprehending fool that refuses to even look and read for himself.

I could get it if you would at least look into what I say and try to be objective. But instead all you do is look for stupid shit from stupid and unreliable sources to justify your inaccurate beliefs and claims that you are being abused.

You can't let go of your hatred of all things government long enough to even check for yourself and confirm or deny what you are being told.

No, you will never be reasoned with either.
Click to expand...

Everything I've ever seen from you can be reduced to "the law says we can do it".

Only one of us has ever questioned whether or not that is ok. Its ok. Fall in line, good soldier.
 
Is it me or does it seem like every time government spying on US citizens comes up, lcpiper shows up to defend the government.

Seriously, how do you know what they're collecting/doing to be able to state it as factual when the programs that have been outed are top-secret and their directives are still under question?

lcpiper = Edward Snowden's cubicle-mate / best friend who feels betrayed so he's taking it out on the world ... wide web.
 
lcpiper said:
Or maybe it's all completely justified and you just refuse to accept that these actions are warranted and truly in our best interests.
Click to expand...
As if often the case on this site I don't know if that's a serious post. Do you know how many billions of lost productivity hours the American people have flushed down the toilet, proving (or trying to prove, as far as gullibility will allow) our innocence to our own government? Would you like to know how many cost-benefit reports were written prior to implementation of the TSA? Zero.

The current situation is, specifically, what the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top