网络科技

    今日:1007| 主题:246504
收藏本版
互联网、科技极客的综合动态。

[科技] Was Yahoo's mass wiretap legal?

[复制链接]
シ尊嚴的色調 发表于 2016-10-6 04:47:34
371 15

立即注册CoLaBug.com会员,免费获得投稿人的专业资料,享用更多功能,玩转个人品牌!

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
Yesterday, a very aggressive and very secret surveillance operation was abruptly made public. According to    an exclusive      Reutersreport    , Yahoo complied with a government order last year asking the company to scan all incoming emails for a specific string of characters — effectively surveilling hundreds of millions of users in search of a single phrase or snippet of code.    In a statement this morning, Yahoo called the report "misleading" and emphasized that the mail-scanning system does not currently exist on company servers, but did not otherwise dispute the report.  
  It’s the biggest surveillance news in years — and suggests that despite the post-Snowden chill, many companies are more than willing to cooperate with ambitious government requests. But more troubling than the system itself is the way it was justified.    Reuters’ reporting makes clear that, despite the unprecedented nature of the proposed system, Yahoo simply didn’t believe it had legal grounds for refusing the government. Other tech companies have lined up to say they wouldn’t comply with such a request —    including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter— but the fact that Yahoo felt it had to raises up an uncomfortable question. Was the mass-wiretap order sent to Yahoo legal? And if not, why not?  
  "Precisely the type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit"
  For privacy groups, the answer is simple: the Fourth Amendment says you need a warrant, and you can’t get a warrant for 300 million users at once. We don’t know exactly how the government justified the order to Yahoo — there’s a spirited debate going on about whether it was the result of a FISA warrant,    a 702 directive, or    even a result of Executive Order 12333— but however it happened, there’s good reason to think it would have violated the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.  
  "The government appears to have compelled Yahoo to conduct precisely the type of general, suspicionless search that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit," says Patrick Toomey of the American Civil Liberties Union. The Electronic Frontier Foundation took a similar tack    in a statement this morning, saying, "The sweeping warrantless surveillance of millions of Yahoo users’ communications described in the Reuters story flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches."  
      NSA's Adm. Mike Rogers says, re Yahoo! story, that a blanket look at all email "would be illegal."      #cambridgecyber   
— AJ Vicens (@AJVicens)    October 5, 2016    The crucial words are "suspicionless" and "unreasonable." The government may have had good reason to investigate anyone using the telltale string of characters, but they had no reason to suspect any particular email of containing the string. It’s not even clear whether the government had reason to suspect the email would arrive in a Yahoo account rather than a Gmail or Outlook account. The result is the equivalent of searching every house in a city block to look for a missing gun. Without some particular suspicion to justify the search, it’s unconstitutional. Companies    routinely grant access to specific email accounts, but only after the owner of the account has been shown to be party to a crime. Without that specific suspicion, the government is asking for what lawyers call a "general warrant," a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  
  "The executive branch has an obligation to notify the public."
  But as the Snowden documents showed, the government has become very good at sidestepping those protections in the name of national security.    Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)authorizes the government to target foreign targets for foreign intelligence purposes — and often compel assistance from network carriers in doing so. Since the order only authorizes foreign targets, intelligence services argue that Fourth Amendment concerns don’t apply — but those same collection efforts also sweep up vast amounts of communications by US citizens. As a result, groups like the ACLU and EFF have long argued that 702 authorizations violate the Fourth Amendment for the same reasons described above.  
  Because the Yahoo system targeted anyone using the telltale string of characters, there’s also reason to think that even 702 might not be enough to justify it. According to    the 2014 PCLOB report, the NSA has typically used Section 702 to target foreign actors using an email address or other identity-based tags, rather than looking for keywords the contents of a message itself. According to Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) — a longtime surveillance critic — the Yahoo order could represent a troubling break from that practice. "The NSA has said that it only targets individuals under Section 702 by searching for email addresses and similar identifiers," Wyden said    in an email to          Ars Technica    . "If that has changed, the executive branch has an obligation to notify the public."  
  Fulfilling the order meant building a brand-new system
  There’s also the issue of compelled coding, a crucial element    in Apple’s San Bernardino case earlier this year. The government wasn’t just asking for access to Yahoo’s records or a peek into their network. Fulfilling the order meant building a brand-new system, one that presented lasting privacy and security risks to Yahoo’s customers and network. It’s not clear how any of the existing surveillance authorities could be used to compel that kind of work.  
  The result is something of a muddle, leaving intelligence agencies with plenty of grounds to make the request and companies plenty of grounds for resisting it. The bigger problem is how that disagreement might play out. Yahoo was facing an intelligence request rather than a law enforcement request, so it couldn’t be challenged in open court, a lesson Yahoo had itself learned after    a seven-year battle against a separate 702 request. At one point, the company was threatened with fines of $250,000 per day. The company dodged the fines but ultimately lost the fight, the details of which were only made public in the wake of the Snowden leaks.  
  The result is daunting logic for any company trying to challenge such an order, even with the constitution on its side. It’s still unclear whether the Fourth Amendment defense put forward by the ACLU and EFF would hold up under pressure from an intelligence agency — and that uncertainty isn’t an accident. The groups have been    actively trying to test those laws for years, and the government has been working just as hard to block the cases from going through.  
  The result is that, when a company like Yahoo gets an order like this, it’s hard to say whether it’s lawful or not, and it could take years of legal warfare to find out. As long as the government can keep the law ambiguous, there’s no legal protection to appeal to. Even if a company decides to fight, that fight will take place in secret courts friendly to intelligence agencies, and it may take years to reveal there was ever a fight in the first place. That’s a scary thought for Yahoo and other tech companies, but it should be even scarier for their users.
友荐云推荐




上一篇:Businesses need to put more focus on internal IT services
下一篇:Apple holds top spot with $178B value in annual Interbrand global rankings
酷辣虫提示酷辣虫禁止发表任何与中华人民共和国法律有抵触的内容!所有内容由用户发布,并不代表酷辣虫的观点,酷辣虫无法对用户发布内容真实性提供任何的保证,请自行验证并承担风险与后果。如您有版权、违规等问题,请通过"联系我们"或"违规举报"告知我们处理。

星空№锕飞♂ 发表于 2016-10-6 06:29:54
今年楼主不送礼,送礼就给楼下的!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

黄荣 发表于 2016-10-6 06:43:25
拍脑袋决策,拍胸脯保证,拍屁股走人.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

123321qa 发表于 2016-10-6 10:58:03
很多天不上线,一上线就看到这么给力的帖子!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

qazaqaz 发表于 2016-10-6 11:03:25
最近回了很多帖子,都没人理我!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

mapeihe 发表于 2016-10-6 11:05:22
楼下的不要小看我,我可不是吃素的。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

devil13 发表于 2016-10-6 11:05:47
好好学习シ尊嚴的色調的帖子!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

毁我爱他你真棒 发表于 2016-10-6 11:11:30
シ尊嚴的色調的帖的确不错!我代表江湖上所有的兄弟姐妹给你顶上去!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

狼牙1.0 发表于 2016-10-8 02:39:41
放假前的节奏
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

冯安娜 发表于 2016-10-10 02:27:40
别人的钱财乃我的身外之物.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

*滑动验证:
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

我要投稿

推荐阅读

扫码访问 @iTTTTT瑞翔 的微博
回页顶回复上一篇下一篇回列表手机版
手机版/CoLaBug.com ( 粤ICP备05003221号 | 文网文[2010]257号 )|网站地图 酷辣虫

© 2001-2016 Comsenz Inc. Design: Dean. DiscuzFans.

返回顶部 返回列表