[HN Gopher] I requested my photographs from the Department of Ho...
___________________________________________________________________
I requested my photographs from the Department of Homeland Security
(2015)
Author : Anon84
Score : 91 points
Date : 2021-07-12 14:01 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| [deleted]
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| >> To request this information yourself, visit FOIAonline
|
| Apparently link has been changed since article publication.
|
| https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/request
| distribot wrote:
| I don't see DHS as a listed agency--which ones would be the
| most interesting for an average person?
| advisedwang wrote:
| The article recommends CBP, which is listed there. (Perhaps
| this is because DHS is a department, not an agency?)
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Is there a way to see what information Apple and Google has given
| to the US government through PRISM?
|
| I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious what boring topics they
| had to listen to over the years to ensure I'm not a threat.
| voldacar wrote:
| Why would there be? You can't expect them to illegally surveil
| the whole population and then give you an easy procedural way
| to see what they have on you
| Aboh33 wrote:
| As someone who isn't involved in any illegal activity, I would
| welcome knowing why it feels I am overtly watched and tracked
| more so than others, especially in real-life.
| ipaddr wrote:
| How do you know you are being tracked more than others?
| unixhero wrote:
| They give everything.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "I'm not radical anymore, I'm just curious"
|
| That's what the all say... now you're really screwed lol
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| Not knowledge, just random thoughts: Could they return "We can
| not give you that information because it is a matter of
| national security." (Although that's still a sign that they
| have info on you that they gathered from Big Tech). Or they
| could give you pages and pages covered with black rectangles
| from margin to margin.
|
| The scary thing is, they wouldn't have done any manual
| listening/monitoring, all the data can just be fed into some
| big data computer[1] and it spits out your "threat index".
|
| For a Black Mirror episode plot, the main character hangs out
| every Friday at a pizza place that Google Maps has mislabeled
| as a mosque. The "AI" misclassifies his watch on a recent
| Instagram photo as the Casio F-91W, he gets detained as he
| tries to reenter the country, with the FBI agents not knowing
| why he's a baddie other than the fact that the computer flagged
| him after his threat index jumped over a threshold.
|
| [1] e.g. from the NSA whisteblower:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread: "Hayden admitted that
| the analysis technology is the underlying basis of current NSA
| analysis techniques"
| [deleted]
| wlesieutre wrote:
| If they can deny you access to the info because of national
| security, then "still a sign that they have info" is a solved
| problem. They "can neither confirm nor deny any the existence
| of any information matching your request."
|
| This is known as the "Glomar response" and dates back to the
| 1970s. I believe it hinges on "if the information existed it
| would be classified," otherwise they would be required to
| provide the info.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Unless they're breaking the law, the NSA still needs a warrant
| to request data if you're an American citizen. If you're the
| subject of an active investigation, law enforcement and spy
| agencies alike tend not to tell you that and are under no
| obligation to disclose anything. If the investigation is
| closed, then you can request data under a general FOIA request,
| but you'd have to know there was an investigation about you at
| some point. If nothing else, you'd find out upon being charged
| and your attorney would get all the data during discovery.
|
| Obviously, a broad sweep program can collect unrelated data,
| which presumably was part of the concern with PRISM. This has
| sort of always been the case, i.e. if you put a bug in
| someone's house, you hear everything said in the house, whether
| by the subject of your investigation or their kids or a
| housekeeper or whatever. But whoever is listening is supposed
| to immediately throw away data as soon as they can determine it
| isn't needed for their investigation.
|
| So theoretically, if they ever collected anything that came
| from you, and you were never the subject of an investigation
| that resulted in a warrant to collect on you, the data should
| have been discarded and could not be given to you.
|
| You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the
| law, but if they don't, they're probably not going to tell you.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| You don't need a warrant if one of your partner countries has
| already spied on your citizens and will share the data.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Or just buy the data from companies like ISPs, Google, and
| Facebook.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with
| the law
|
| If you believe that they do, I've got a bridge to sell you.
| Congress is entirely derelict in their duties of holding them
| accountable, and has been for a very long time.
| tunap wrote:
| Derelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable.
|
| >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of
| surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to
| obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
| Court (FISC) before _or up to 72 hours after the beginning
| of the surveillance_. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue
| a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ...
| the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign
| power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. SS
| 1805(a)(3).
|
| Emphasis mine.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| So if surveillance doesn't last 72 hours (one and done),
| does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing
| a FISA warrant?
| remarkEon wrote:
| I'm actually kinda interested if the "surveillance" is
| retroactive. Meaning, do they have 72 hours to go through
| everything that's already out there in the ether about
| you or is it more "you can only look at active
| communications for 72 hours and after that you need a
| court order".
| atoav wrote:
| It is also the wrong question. In practise (as shown by the
| snowden revalations) the actual question is not if the
| secret services comply with the law -- it is whether the
| law complies with the secret services.
|
| In most nations where illegal practises came to light these
| illegal practises have been legalized after the fact. The
| breaches of fundamental laws that happened before have gone
| unpunished.
|
| So to say secret services comply with the law is really a
| bit rich, given that when they don't law is usually
| adjusted to fit their behaviour with no punishments for any
| wrongdoing.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| > Unless they're breaking the law
|
| http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/
| adrr wrote:
| Do they need a warrant if the company sells the data? Mobile
| carriers were selling location dats on specific customers to
| private companies. Banks are selling credit card purchase
| data.
| erezsh wrote:
| > I'm not radical anymore
|
| Nice try;)
| snowwrestler wrote:
| PRISM is simply the NSA's internal designation for data that is
| sourced from FISA warrants. So, probably not.
| xwdv wrote:
| You might not want to do this without good reason, it can get you
| put on some kind of list.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| or, exercise your rights or else you will have none?
| bdamm wrote:
| Is the list the people who check up on the government? Could be
| a good thing.
| howaboutnope wrote:
| If nothing changes, humanity, _being human_ , is basically done
| for. To me being well fed by virtue of being harmless would be
| like throwing away the core of what makes my life meaningful,
| just to extend it a bit. I lived too long in an upright
| position to be remotely tempted by that. All of us will be dead
| for an eternity, the one real difference we can make for
| ourselves is what kind of person we were. Compared to that the
| difference between living 5 minutes and 500 years doesn't even
| register, at least not to me.
|
| And hey, as faint as that hope may be: if things do change in a
| positive manner, people might scramble to fake proof they (or
| their parents) weren't just idle or even complicit. The same
| list of persecuted dissidents today might tomorrow serve as a
| whitelist for voting rights, among other things.
| Spare_account wrote:
| I wondered about this, but I didn't know if it would really
| happen. Do we have any evidence for it?
| deregulateMed wrote:
| When a police officer asks "do you know why I pulled you
| over?"
|
| And you answer "I pled the fifth" instead of "no"
|
| You did nothing wrong, but their spidy senses go wild. It's
| like that, but with more government paperwork and database
| updates.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Exactly. Rational (on the police/government's part), but
| perverse (in that it punishes exercising your rights by
| taking them away.)
| dfsegoat wrote:
| > _it can get you put on some kind of list._
|
| Could you please elaborate?
| xeromal wrote:
| The request some info list. lol
| wruza wrote:
| GP probably meant that if you collect data, you may as well
| collect the "they actually wanted to see what we have on
| them" field.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If they have data on you, then you are already on a list.
| Circular logic. It just so happens everybody is on the list.
| There's no special treatment.
| dudul wrote:
| There are probably more than one list.
| dylan604 wrote:
| We're all on more than one list. Local, state, federal.
| Airlines have lists. Stores have lists. Websites have
| lists. At this point, I was wondering if the govt or
| facebook has more info one you, then I remembered that if
| FB has it, so does Big Brother.
| pessimizer wrote:
| It will definitely put you on more than one list.
| ClosedPistachio wrote:
| The title is actually, "How I requested my photographs from the
| Department of Homeland Security" with a byline "You can make a
| request to see your own document."
| Spare_account wrote:
| It's also from 2015, which usually merits a mention in the
| title round here.
| floatingatoll wrote:
| The mods can fix that much more rapidly if you email them,
| using the footer contact link.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| What really worries me about this is that anyone can effectively
| request anyone else's data because there is no identity
| verification.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| Since pretty every ID and all passports are leaked, it's almost
| impossible to verifie a person online.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| Just require it to be sent as registered mail and verify
| signatures.
|
| At least it's something.
| advisedwang wrote:
| It is a crime under 5 USC 552a(i)(3)
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a:
|
| > Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains
| any record concerning an individual from an agency under false
| pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more
| than $5,000.
| cyberge99 wrote:
| 5,000$ USD might be worth it for a paparazzo or other
| neerdewel.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| That's if they are even caught.
|
| Since no one verifies anything it's a worst case scenario.
| shuntress wrote:
| I am not a lawyer but I would assume that in a case like
| that, the court would bring additional penalties equivalent
| to the profit made using the stolen property.
| advisedwang wrote:
| The criminal record is probably more of a threat than the
| money in such cases.
|
| I'm more worried that if there is no way to get caught,
| people won't care about the criminal penalties no matter
| how heavy.
| 77pt77 wrote:
| So is stealing and yet it happens all the time.
| _rmrf wrote:
| What do you think would happen if an european citizen were to
| request a GDPR data deletion of the US Department of Homeland
| Security? Is there any chance that they would comply?
| [deleted]
| mataug wrote:
| I doubt GDPR enforceable in the US
| kube-system wrote:
| From GDPR article 2:
|
| > This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal
| data:
|
| > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the
| prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal
| offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the
| safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public
| security.
| dudul wrote:
| No, they wouldn't comply.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-12 23:02 UTC)