Ymmv, not a lawyer and this is internet bullshitting, not legal advice.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legality-of-web-scraping
The answer from Pablo Hoffman talks and provides some links regarding web scraping and US cases.
Having an intelligence system ingest this metadata and synopsis is not considered "collection".
Essentially, if it can be automated, it isn't collection. If a human gets pulled into the loop to look at data, that's when it's collected. However, a human could be shown a synopsis or an inference about an American target and this could still not be collection, as the summary information being viewed isn't considered the person's private records.
Basically a loophole in a loophole. I'll be happy to keep databases of, and run software over, our national security records. I won't collect any of it, though. I won't even look at it. I'll just get summaries of the information contained in it from my algorithms - and if I want to look at a specific document I'll punch a rubber stamp on it first.
Search for "how FISA works" here: http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files...
prior to snowden, almost everybody (you and your clever colleagues excluded, obviously) would think it was paranoid to believe this was the case. at least, there's no way i could make the leap from:
'EULA's state that recording activity on a company's servers by that company [i assume this is what you mean?] doesn't require a warrant but the government reading it does'
to:
'the government records incomprehensible amounts of domestic traffic but it doesn't count as warrantless surveillance because they don't read most of it'
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/primer-executive-order...
section 4 outlines collection policy, beginning on page 6 of the pdf:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANEDFinal%20USSI...
edit: if the term' collection' is your major gripe, i apologize -- i rewatched the video i cited and the term is actually 'intercept', not 'collect'
That kind of action should count as a seizure, no?
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Therefore the only question left is whether it was a search.
If Congress doesn't like these retention / collection interpretation of their laws, they can clarify them in statute at any time. But they haven't and probably won't, because "retain everything for judicially approved retroactive collection" is incredibly useful e.g. when a bomb goes off at a marathon and a judge OKs the suspect's communications being reviewed.
No judge has ever signed an NSL. That's precisely the distinction between a "regular" judicial subpoena and an administrative subpoena [1].
Subpoenas have nothing to do with NSA interception, and everything to do with ordering businesses to produce evidence or individuals to testify pertaining to a crime. The case law setting the "expectation of privacy" test is from the 70s, and the electronic wiretapping laws from the 80's. The only recent development is that SCOTUS decided people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when their cell phone connects to cell towers because that's obviously how they work [2].
You don't need a law degree nor security clearance to understand this. Stop finding reasons to justify your anger and start getting informed.
I do think the US could use some legislative work on privacy. I'm glad there are FISA courts issuing search warrants, but don't think national security letters should actually be a thing.
Good call re: NSL. I don't quite understand why investigators need NSL instead of a court order. Avenues for abuse seem relatively clear with no obvious ways to recourse or even know when it occurs!
> no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
When the data is retrieved and stored (note I did NOT say "collected") seems to me to be an important part of the fourth amendment. Under the NSA's definition of "collect", the police could -- without warrant -- come to your house every day to scan all documents and take pictures of everything and keep it as long as they "promise" to not review it until they do get a warrant. Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the fourth amendment to you?
There are so many laws that it's unknowable to be sure that you're not violating one at any moment, and in fact it's been estimated that you break three federal laws every day [1]. With the amount of information the NSA stores it's likely they could legally put away any citizen in the country. This gives them absolute power, since all they have to do is invent a story about how they legally "collected" the information, aka Parallel Construction [2].
Now lets add in arbitrary, secret laws (which completely undermine the purpose of laws and democratic/representative government, btw) and their necessary secret trials. This turns the "unknowable" in the previous paragraph from "practically true because it's untenable" to "literally true" because you're not allowed to know it. This means on top of all of the above, there can be no oversight or public accountability of the actions of the government against citizens.
This is a mindbogglingly omnipotent combination: Retroactive "Collection" + every citizen could be tried as a felon + Parallel Construction + no accountability.
I don't understand how this wouldn't concern you.
Discretion of investigators, prosecutors, and judges means that the "you break federal laws every day" is a no-op argument, and repealing laws takes a lot of work. I'd rather Congress focused on e.g. fixing healthcare.
Parallel construction has existed at least as long as the USA, i.e. since there have been non-public data sources. Parents, do it too. If you're upset about it you're a child.
"Arbitrary, secret laws"? What a load of nonsense. Congress passes and debates every federal law in public (albeit sometimes a bit quickly). You mean secret interpretations of laws by FISA? Yeah, not exactly news and relatively public and subject to review by elected lawmakers. How, exactly, do you suggest counterintel should work, sans secret courts?
It doesn't concern me because this combination stems from ignorance and an overactive imagination that wants to see evil where there is no evidence of evil. I imagine the systems you mention has avenues for abuse and also checks to make sure they are not abused. We should absolutely be vigilant for signs of abuse and talk about them.
Given the concrete issues facing our society right now, abuse by lawless investigators colluding with a court appointed by SCOTUS to... do what, exactly?
If you're ok with having to rely on their discretion we may already be talking past each other. A bedrock principle of the constitution and amendments are that the government's discretion can't be trusted, so discretion must be limited and controlled and standardized. My point is that discretion to use a power is no different from just having the power outright.
Appeal to tradition, a strawman, followed by an ad hominem. I hope you're saving a better counter for later. Parents don't need parallel construction, they already have absolute power and can investigate however they wish. Are you sure you understand what parallel construction is? A simplified example: A prosecutor wants to convict a citizen (for whatever reason) but they don't have any evidence, so they use illegal means to find evidence that they couldn't have practically found otherwise. But this is inadmissible in court, so they fabricate an "investigation" that -- through the prosecutor's superior "intuition" and uncannily accurate "hunches" -- ends up producing some of the same evidence, enough to make a conviction. I don't understand your goal here, are you saying that parallel construction is fine and the source of evidence doesn't matter? It sounds like you're trying to throw out the exclusionary rule altogether.
I'm sorry you're not aware about the existence of secret laws. Please read up on it [1], it may be enlightening. If you take issue with my use of the adjective "arbitrary", I'll give you that. (But if they're secret how is that really so different from arbitrary?) If you take issue with my colloquial use of "law" that includes regulations, executive branch pronouncements, and secret interpretations that fundamentally change the plain reading of statutes, I'm not sure what to tell you other than to stop being pedantic and think of the bigger picture. "Couterintel" is an overused excuse employed to dodge accountability, most of the time it doesn't need to be secret. "Subject to review". Yeah, sure [2].
What you see as "overactive imagination" I see as a healthy distrust of the government, because "all men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree" [James Madison, 3]. Yes the checks exist, but the systems I mention are the circumvention of these same checks. What I see from you is sticking your fingers in your ear, burying your head in the sand, and singing LALALA as loud as you can when presented with evidence of the very abuses for which you say we should stay vigilant.
[1]: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/new-era-secret-law or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/the-governments-a...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-c...
[3]: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_711.asp