The advantages of not being a Luddite government

[Aimless]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...gital-dragnet/

Will government surveillance finally become a political issue for middle-class Americans?

Until recently, average Americans could convince themselves they were safe from government snooping. Yes, the government engaged in warrantless wiretaps, but those were directed at terrorists. Yes, movies and TV shows featured impressive technology, with someone’s location highlighted in real time on a computer screen, but such capabilities were used only to track drug dealers and kidnappers.

Figures released earlier this month should dispel that complacency. It’s now clear that government surveillance is so widespread that the chances of the average, innocent person being swept up in an electronic dragnet are much higher than previously appreciated. The revelation should lead to long overdue legal reforms.

The new figures, resulting from a Congressional inquiry, indicate that cell phone companies responded last year to at least 1.3 million government requests for customer data—ranging from subscriber identifying information to call detail records (who is calling whom), geolocation tracking, text messages, and full-blown wiretaps.

[Dreadnaught]

The fundamental issue here seems to be more of a due process/warrant issue than a privacy/technology issue. I don't know much about the judicial precedents in the US or in Yurp about this, though any insight here would be appreciated.

Candidly, I'm not comfortable with advocacy groups and journalists stirring luddite sentiments as they have in some places (achem Deutschland) with alarmist rhetoric about privacy. I actually prefer judges evolve current due-process procedures about surveillance to meet the changed technology. We did it with phones and marijuana lamps after all.

[LittleFuzzy]

Somehow, I don't think gathering records of your past activities *most of what you mentioned* counts as surveillance, anymore than having a warrant-backed request for your financial records. Surveillance is possibly a "search," and gathering records is search and seizure sure, but the only way warrants for phone information counts as surveillance is if they're actively tracking you or if they're listening in.

[RandBlade]

The key issue for much of it is whether there is (or should be) a warrant required.

1.3mn requests is a meaningless figure. If that was 1.3mn requests (from a national population of 311mn) with warrants then that seems reasonable. If no warrant is required then that is concerning.

[Dreadnaught]

Somehow, I don't think gathering records of your past activities *most of what you mentioned* counts as surveillance, anymore than having a warrant-backed request for your financial records. Surveillance is possibly a "search," and gathering records is search and seizure sure, but the only way warrants for phone information counts as surveillance is if they're actively tracking you or if they're listening in.

Really? Like has this been tested at all or is it so obvious and I'm just missing it? I have to imagine it's possible to make a case that police requests for phone records counts as some level of surveillance. I know the request procedure is routine (Ref: opening post ), but just wondering if it's an area that has been explored (must have been when phones came about, right?).

[LittleFuzzy]

"Search" has meaning in legal/constitutional parlance. It has specific, specialized definitions in the US legal framework. "Surveillance" does not, it is more or less a meaningless term.

[earthJoker]

Candidly, I'm not comfortable with advocacy groups and journalists stirring luddite sentiments as they have in some places (achem Deutschland) with alarmist rhetoric about privacy.

If you once lived under the Stasi, you may be not so keen living in a Überwachungsstaat again.

[Loki]

The main tool of the Stasi and other communist domestic intelligence services was their army of local informers, who often were coerced into becoming informers. They weren't successful just because of technology.

[earthJoker]

It's not only technology that is criticized either. The so called "V-Men" (Verbindung - Connection) have been criticized many times.

[Flixy]

Out of curiosity, I (obviously, since I'm asking this) don't know much about it, but do emails fall under postal secrets? And if surveillance on what you do in your house requires avwarrant, does that extend to what you do online, from home?

[Dreadnaught]

"Search" has meaning in legal/constitutional parlance. It has specific, specialized definitions in the US legal framework. "Surveillance" does not, it is more or less a meaningless term.

I guess is there any rational basis to argue that pulling massive amounts of phone records constitutes a search? I could imagine a few arguments for why it's beyond simple surveillance.