Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NSA Servers Collect Personal Data Sent by iPhone Apps

Rigby said:
Yes they will. 🙂 We already have conflicting rulings, it's just a matter of time until the Supreme Court will have to intervene.
The "whole line of cases" is all based on single, 35 year old precedent dealing with a lone phone stalker. The notion that this can be applied to the wholesale surveillance of the entire population is, shall we say, far-fetched. Until very recently nobody even knew that the FISA court used this as a cover for the NSA's dubious activities since their ruling was secret. But as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The roaches are already scurrying. 😀
Click to expand...

Explain why you feel that case DOESN'T cover metadata?

Smith vs. Maryland EXACTLY covers this information. Metadata is either private or it isn't. If it isn't, it doesn't matter if it's wholesale collection or not.
 
mozumder said:
Explain why you feel that case DOESN'T cover metadata?

Smith vs. Maryland EXACTLY covers this information. Metadata is either private or it isn't. If it isn't, it doesn't matter if it's wholesale collection or not.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the facts of the NSA program seem to fit the holding in Smith vs. Maryland that phone calling records were not protected by the Fourth Amendment because the individual had handed over the data to a third party (the phone company). If they are unprotected by the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement and national security agencies do not need a warrant to collect and search the data. The data collected by the NSA is exactly the same as the kind held unprotected in Smith.

Like Rigby said above, the NY decision argues that technology has changed so much that Smith is no longer good law. However, that is up to the Supreme Court. The NY decision also concludes that the ability to collect and analyze the data — and the extent of its collection — was unlike anything in existence at the time of Smith. Again, though, that decision has to be made by the Supreme Court.

All that said, I do have an issue about the whole notion of losing Fourth amendment protections when personal information is given over to a third party. I would expect that information I give to my doctor or accountant would enjoy the same Fourth amendment protections as if I had it in my possession.
 
zipa said:
How would they know that you aren't doing these things unless they kept a watch on you?
Click to expand...
you've got it backwards...they don't spy on someone unless they are a high profile criminal. High profile criminals are suspect by other means first. How do you think criminals were caught before cell phones & internet? 🙄
 
benji888 said:
you've got it backwards...they don't spy on someone unless they are a high profile criminal. High profile criminals are suspect by other means first. How do you think criminals were caught before cell phones & internet? 🙄
Click to expand...

So, you think it unlikely that cell phone/internet activity is not cross-referenced for a link to a 'person of interest'?

In my mind, this would be illegal search and seizure of your personal data.

AKA a fishing expedition.

But it you have done nothing wrong ..... 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back