#warrantless access

[mgeist]

Why Bill C-2 Faces a Likely Constitutional Challenge By Placing Solicitor-Client Privilege at Risk

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google’s new phones can’t stop phoning home

On OCTOBER 23 at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

One of the most brazen lies of Big Tech is that people like commercial surveillance, a fact you can verify for yourself by simply observing how many people end up using products that spy on them. If they didn't like spying, they wouldn't opt into being spied on.

This lie has spread to the law enforcement and national security agencies, who treasure Big Tech's surveillance as an off-the-books trove of warrantless data that no court would ever permit them to gather on their own. Back in 2017, I found myself at SXSW, debating an FBI agent who was defending the Bureau's gigantic facial recognition database, which, he claimed, contained the faces of virtually every American:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/mar/11/sxsw-facial-recognition-biometrics-surveillance-panel

The agent insisted that the FBI had acquired all those faces through legitimate means, by accessing public sources of people's faces. In other words, we'd all opted in to FBI facial recognition surveillance. "Sure," I said, "to opt out, just don't have a face."

This pathology is endemic to neoliberal thinking, which insists that all our political matters can be reduced to economic ones, specifically, the kind of economic questions that can be mathematically modeled and empirically tested. It would be great if all our thorniest problems could be solved like mathematical equations.

Unfortunately, there are key elements of these systems that can't be reliably quantified and turned into mathematical operators, especially power. The fact that someone did something tells you nothing about whether they chose to do so – to understand whether someone was coerced or made a free choice, you have to consider the power relationships involved.

Conservatives hate this idea. They want to live in a neat world of "revealed preferences," where the fact that you're working in a job where you're regularly exposed to carcinogens, or that you've stayed with a spouse who beats the shit out of you, or that you're homeless, or that you're addicted to Oxy, is a matter of choice. Monopolies exist because we all love the monopolist's product best, not because they've got monopoly power. Jobs that pay starvation wages exist because people want to work full time for so little money that they need food-stamps just to survive. Intervening in any of these situations is "woke paternalism," where the government thinks it knows better than you and intervenes to take away your right to consume unsafe products, get maimed at work, or have your jaw broken by your husband.

Which is why neoliberals insist that politics should be reduced to economics, and that economics should be carried out as if power didn't exist:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/05/farrago/#jeffty-is-five

Nowhere is this stupid trick more visible than in the surveillance fight. For example, Google claims that it tracks your location because you asked it to, by using Google products that make use of your location without clicking an opt out button.

In reality, Google has the power to simply ignore your preferences about location tracking. In 2021, the Arizona Attorney General's privacy case against Google yielded a bunch of internal memos, including memos from Google's senior product manager for location services Jen Chai complaining that she had turned off location tracking in three places and was still being tracked:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/01/you-are-here/#goog

Multiple googlers complained about this: they'd gone through dozens of preference screens, hunting for "don't track my location" checkboxes, and still they found that they were being tracked. These were people who worked under Chai on the location services team. If the head of that team, and her subordinates, couldn't figure out how to opt out of location tracking, what chance did you have?

Despite all this, I've found myself continuing to use stock Google Pixel phones running stock Google Android. There were three reasons for this:

First and most importantly: security. While I worry about Google tracking me, I am as worried (or more) about foreign governments, random hackers, and dedicated attackers gaining access to my phone. Google's appetite for my personal data knows no bounds, but at least the company is serious about patching defects in the Pixel line.

Second: coercion. There are a lot of apps that I need to run – to pay for parking, say, or to access my credit union or control my rooftop solar – that either won't run on jailbroken Android phones or require constant tweaking to keep running.

Finally: time. I already have the equivalent of three full time jobs and struggle every day to complete my essential tasks, including managing complex health issues and being there for my family. The time I take out of my schedule to actively manage a de-Googled Android would come at the expense of either my professional or personal life.

And despite Google's enshittificatory impulses, the Pixels are reliably high-quality, robust phones that get the hell out of the way and let me do my job. The Pixels are Google's flagship electronic products, and the company acts like it.

Until now.

A new report from Cybernews reveals just how much data the next generation Pixel 9 phones collect and transmit to Google, without any user intervention, and in defiance of the owner's express preferences to the contrary:

https://cybernews.com/security/google-pixel-9-phone-beams-data-and-awaits-commands/

The Pixel 9 phones home every 15 minutes, even when it's not in use, sharing "location, email address, phone number, network status, and other telemetry." Additionally, every 40 minutes, the new Pixels transmit "firmware version, whether connected to WiFi or using mobile data, the SIM card Carrier, and the user’s email address." Even further, even if you've never opened Google Photos, the phone contacts Google Photos’ Face Grouping API at regular intervals. Another process periodically contacts Google's Voice Search servers, even if you never use Voice Search, transmitting "the number of times the device was restarted, the time elapsed since powering on, and a list of apps installed on the device, including the sideloaded ones."

All of this is without any consent. Or rather, without any consent beyond the "revealed preference" of just buying a phone from Google ("to opt out, don't have a face").

What's more, the Cybernews report probably undercounts the amount of passive surveillance the Pixel 9 undertakes. To monitor their testbench phone, Cybernews had to root it and install Magisk, a monitoring tool. In order to do that, they had to disable the AI features that Google touts as the centerpiece of Pixel 9. AI is, of course, notoriously data-hungry and privacy invasive, and all the above represents the data collection the Pixel 9 undertakes without any of its AI nonsense.

It just gets worse. The Pixel 9 also routinely connects to a "CloudDPC" server run by Google. Normally, this is a server that an enterprise customer would connect its employees' devices to, allowing the company to push updates to employees' phones without any action on their part. But Google has designed the Pixel 9 so that privately owned phones do the same thing with Google, allowing for zero-click, no-notification software changes on devices that you own.

This is the kind of measure that works well, but fails badly. It assumes that the risk of Pixel owners failing to download a patch outweighs the risk of a Google insider pushing out a malicious update. Why would Google do that? Well, perhaps a rogue employee wants to spy on his ex-girlfriend:

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/google-spy/

Or maybe a Google executive wins an internal power struggle and decrees that Google's products should be made shittier so you need to take more steps to solve your problems, which generates more chances to serve ads:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/#prabhakar-raghavan

Or maybe Google capitulates to an authoritarian government who orders them to install a malicious update to facilitate a campaign of oppressive spying and control:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(search_engine)

Indeed, merely by installing a feature that can be abused this way, Google encourages bad actors to abuse it. It's a lot harder for a government or an asshole executive to demand a malicious downgrade of a Google product if users have to accept that downgrade before it takes effect. By removing that choice, Google has greased the skids for malicious downgrades, from both internal and external sources.

Google will insist that these anti-features – both the spying and the permissionless updating – are essential, that it's literally impossible to imagine building a phone that doesn't do these things. This is one of Big Tech's stupidest gambits. It's the same ruse that Zuck deploys when he says that it's impossible to chat with a friend or plan a potluck dinner without letting Facebook spy on you. It's Tim Cook's insistence that there's no way to have a safe, easy to use, secure computing environment without giving Apple a veto over what software you can run and who can fix your device – and that this veto must come with a 30% rake from every dollar you spend on your phone.

The thing is, we know it's possible to separate these things, because they used to be separate. Facebook used to sell itself as the privacy-forward alternative to Myspace, where they would never spy on you (not coincidentally, this is also the best period in Facebook's history, from a user perspective):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

And we know it's possible to make a Pixel that doesn't do all this nonsense because Google makes other Pixel phones that don't do all this nonsense, like the Pixel 8 that's in my pocket as I type these words.

This doesn't stop Big Tech from gaslighting* us and insisting that demanding a Pixel that doesn't phone home four times an hour is like demanding water that isn't wet.

*pronounced "jass-lighting"

Even before I read this report, I was thinking about what I would do when I broke my current phone (I'm a klutz and I travel a lot, so my gadgets break pretty frequently). Google's latest OS updates have already crammed a bunch of AI bullshit into my Pixel 8 (and Google puts the "invoke AI bullshit" button in the spot where the "do something useful" button used to be, meaning I accidentally pull up the AI bullshit screen several times/day).

Assuming no catastrophic phone disasters, I've got a little while before my next phone, but I reckon when it's time to upgrade, I'll be switching to a phone from the @calyxinstitute@mastodon.social. Calyx is an incredible, privacy-focused nonprofit whose founder, Nicholas Merrill, was the first person to successfully resist one of the Patriot Act's "sneek-and-peek" warrants, spending 11 years defending his users' privacy from secret – and, ultimately, unconstitutional – surveillance:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/depth-judge-illstons-remarkable-order-striking-down-nsl-statute

Merrill and Calyx have tapped into various obscure corners of US wireless spectrum licenses that require major carriers to give ultra-cheap access to nonprofits, allowing them to offer unlimited, surveillance-free, Net Neutrality respecting wireless data packages:

https://memex.craphound.com/2016/09/22/i-have-found-a-secret-tunnel-that-runs-underneath-the-phone-companies-and-emerges-in-paradise/

I've been a very happy Calyx user in years gone by, but ultimately, I slipped into the default of using stock Pixel handsets with Google's Fi service.

But even as I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the direction of Google's Android and Pixel programs, I've grown increasingly impressed with Calyx's offerings. The company has graduated from selling mobile hotspots with unlimited data SIMs to selling jailbroken, de-Googled Pixel phones that have all the hardware reliability of a Pixel, coupled with an alternative app suite and your choice of a Calyx SIM and/or a Calyx hotspot:

https://calyxinstitute.org/

Every time I see what Calyx is up to, I think, dammit, it's really time to de-Google my phone. With the Pixel 9 descending to new depths of enshittification, that decision just got a lot easier. When my current phone croaks, I'll be talking to Calyx.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/08/water-thats-not-wet/#pixelated

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[jtmportland]

I know this post is long, but it’s important to read to understand what’s going on. A lot of people are asking, “Why is Trump just out golfing while things are falling apart?” It’s simple: the emergency isn’t something he’s reacting to — it’s something he’s building.

Trump recently declared a national economic emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — granting himself sweeping authority over international trade by labeling foreign economic practices an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

But here’s the real play: by declaring a national emergency, Trump didn’t just respond to a crisis — he created one. And in doing so, he unlocked access to over 120 statutory powers scattered throughout federal law. Many of these powers have nothing to do with trade — and everything to do with expanding presidential authority inside the U.S.

What This Move Enables: Expanded Domestic Powers

1. Control of Domestic Communications

- 47 U.S.C. §606(c): Allows the president to take control of, shut down, or regulate wire and radio communications — including the internet, social media platforms, broadcast networks, and telecom infrastructure — in the name of national defense. Originally intended for wartime, this Cold War-era law remains on the books.

2. Asset Freezing and Financial Surveillance

- Under IEEPA and related laws, the president can freeze the assets and bank accounts of individuals or organizations accused of aiding foreign threats. These powers are vague and can be stretched to include domestic political groups, journalists, or activists — especially if they’re perceived as having foreign ties or influence.

3. Domestic Military Deployment

- Under the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255), the president can deploy active-duty U.S. military to enforce laws or suppress civil unrest within the country. In certain scenarios, this can be done without state governor consent — especially if the president claims state authorities are failing to uphold federal law.

4. Emergency Detention Powers (Non-Citizens)

- The Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. §21) — a law dating back to 1798 — allows the president to detain or restrict the movement of non-citizens from nations deemed hostile. The criteria for “hostile” can be broad and undefined during a declared emergency.

5. Control of Energy and Transportation

- Under laws like 42 U.S.C. §6272 and others, the president can redirect or restrict domestic fuel production, electricity usage, or energy transportation. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. §40106(b) allows the president to limit, reroute, or suspend civil aviation, giving the executive branch near-total control over U.S. airspace in a crisis.

6. Suspension of Labor Regulations

- During a declared emergency, the president can waive federal labor regulations and override contract protections. This includes removing limits on hours, wages, and workplace safety for federal contractors and any industries deemed vital to national security.

7. National Security Letters & Warrantless Surveillance

- Emergency declarations expand the reach and use of National Security Letters (NSLs) — tools that let federal agencies demand financial, telecom, and internet records without a warrant. These also come with gag orders, preventing the recipient (e.g., Google or a bank) from disclosing that they’re under surveillance.

Why it Matters?

Even when legal domestic powers are limited, a national emergency lets the president:

- Frame the issue as a national security crisis, justifying aggressive action

- Bypass Congress and the courts by acting unilaterally

- Sway public opinion using fear, urgency, and patriotic rhetoric

Bottom Line

IEEPA is focused on foreign threats — but once the emergency is declared, the president taps into a hidden arsenal of domestic control powers. What began as a trade issue could quickly shift into civil liberties restrictions, mass surveillance, or even crackdowns under the legal shield of an “emergency.”

This isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about redefining the boundaries of executive power. Imagine if this economic crisis keeps getting worse — the amount of power he will gain.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Hi!! Do you have any good articles on Bill C-2?

[justagalwhowrites]

Apropo of nothing, I just thought some folks should be aware of some precedent regarding search and seizure from your friendly neighborhood ex-journalist/media law professor.*

*Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I do not have a law degree. I just studied and taught media law for a number of years. This is NOT legal advice.

If you are arrested or detained and your phone is confiscated during a routine search, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GIVE AUTHORITIES ACCESS TO YOUR PHONE. Police can and will lie to you and say you need to give them access. You do not. The case of Riley v California found that warrantless search of digital contents is a violation of the fourth amendment. This precedent has been applied to all portable electronic devices. Make them get the damn warrant.

As always, never talk to the cops. Always demand representation. Cops do NOT have to mirandize you when they arrest or detain you, only at the start of questioning, so a cop not mirandizing you is not your get out of jail free card. Anything you say before formal questioning is admissible even if you haven’t been mirandized. If you saw anyone at a protest, no you didn’t.

Stay safe, be smart, protect your community, fuck ICE.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Hugo Lowell at The Guardian:

Days before Pete Hegseth fired three top aides last month over a Pentagon leak investigation into the disclosure of classified materials, according to four people familiar with the episode, a recently hired senior adviser said he could help with the inquiry. The adviser, Justin Fulcher, suggested to Hegseth’s then chief of staff, Joe Kasper, and Hegseth’s personal lawyer, Tim Parlatore, that he knew of warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA) that had identified the leakers. Fulcher offered to share the supposed evidence as long as he could help run the investigation, three of the people said. But when he eventually sat down with officials, it became clear he had no evidence of a wiretap, and the Pentagon had been duped. The problem was that development was not communicated to the White House – so several Trump advisers who were told of the NSA wiretap claim believed that was part of the “smoking gun” evidence against the three aides fired by Hegseth, until they developed their own doubts. The Guardian revealed last month that there were unsubstantiated NSA warrantless wiretap claims underpinning the leak investigation, but its origin story and the involvement of Fulcher in the controversy has not been previously reported. Fulcher has said this account is not correct. In a statement, he said he never suggested there were NSA wiretaps or that he had access to wiretap records. “I never approached Parlatore, Kasper or anyone else offering ‘surveillance evidence’ and did not ask to join an investigation on that or any other basis,” he said. The extraordinary episode adds to the growing portrait of dysfunction inside Hegseth’s front office, which is involved in setting the direction of a department that has a budget of nearly $1tn and oversees more than 2 million troops around the world. The investigation prompted Hegseth to fire his senior adviser Dan Caldwell, the deputy chief, Darin Selnick, and the deputy secretary’s chief of staff, Colin Carroll, creating a leadership vacuum filled by Ricky Buria, the ex-junior military aide to Hegseth considered by the White House to be a liability.

The Guardian has a report on how Justin Fulcher, an aide for the embattled Pete Hegseth, helped upend a Pentagon leak inquiry.

[darkmaga-returns]

Montana has taken a decisive leap where others have faltered, becoming the first state in the US to officially outlaw a widespread government surveillance tactic: buying up private data without a warrant.

With the passage of Senate Bill 282 (SB 282), lawmakers have directly confronted what has become a backdoor into people’s lives, commercial data brokers selling sensitive digital information to law enforcement agencies, sidestepping the need for judicial authorization.

This so-called “data broker loophole” has allowed government agencies across the country to acquire personal details they’d otherwise need a warrant to access.

Instead of presenting probable cause to a judge, agencies could simply purchase location histories and other metadata from third-party brokers who gather it from mobile apps.

These apps often track users’ movements down to the minute, creating comprehensive logs of their daily routines. Until now, that information was effectively up for grabs, and no warrant has been required.

[mariacallous]

U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who started the now-infamous group chat coordinating a U.S. attack against the Yemen-based Houthis on March 15, is seemingly now suggesting that the secure messaging service Signal has security vulnerabilities.

“I didn’t see this loser in the group,” Waltz told Fox News about Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, whom Waltz invited to the chat. “Whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean, is something we’re trying to figure out.”

Waltz’s implication that Goldberg may have hacked his way in was followed by a report from CBS News that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had sent out a bulletin to its employees last month warning them about a security “vulnerability” identified in Signal.

The truth, however, is much more interesting. If Signal has vulnerabilities, then China, Russia, and other U.S. adversaries suddenly have a new incentive to discover them. At the same time, the NSA urgently needs to find and fix any vulnerabilities quickly as it can—and similarly, ensure that commercial smartphones are free of backdoors—access points that allow people other than a smartphone’s user to bypass the usual security authentication methods to access the device’s contents.

That is essential for anyone who wants to keep their communications private, which should be all of us.

It’s common knowledge that the NSA’s mission is breaking into and eavesdropping on other countries’ networks. (During President George W. Bush’s administration, the NSA conducted warrantless taps into domestic communications as well—surveillance that several district courts ruled to be illegal before those decisions were later overturned by appeals courts. To this day, many legal experts maintain that the program violated federal privacy protections.) But the organization has a secondary, complementary responsibility: to protect U.S. communications from others who want to spy on them. That is to say: While one part of the NSA is listening into foreign communications, another part is stopping foreigners from doing the same to Americans.

Those missions never contradicted during the Cold War, when allied and enemy communications were wholly separate. Today, though, everyone uses the same computers, the same software, and the same networks. That creates a tension.

When the NSA discovers a technological vulnerability in a service such as Signal (or buys one on the thriving clandestine vulnerability market), does it exploit it in secret, or reveal it so that it can be fixed? Since at least 2014, a U.S. government interagency “equities” process has been used to decide whether it is in the national interest to take advantage of a particular security flaw, or to fix it. The trade-offs are often complicated and hard.

Waltz—along with Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the other officials in the Signal group—have just made the trade-offs much tougher to resolve. Signal is both widely available and widely used. Smaller governments that can’t afford their own military-grade encryption use it. Journalists, human rights workers, persecuted minorities, dissidents, corporate executives, and criminals around the world use it. Many of these populations are of great interest to the NSA.

At the same time, as we have now discovered, the app is being used for operational U.S. military traffic. So, what does the NSA do if it finds a security flaw in Signal?

Previously, it might have preferred to keep the flaw quiet and use it to listen to adversaries. Now, if the agency does that, it risks someone else finding the same vulnerability and using it against the U.S. government. And if it was later disclosed that the NSA could have fixed the problem and didn’t, then the results might be catastrophic for the agency.

Smartphones present a similar trade-off. The biggest risk of eavesdropping on a Signal conversation comes from the individual phones that the app is running on. While it’s largely unclear whether the U.S. officials involved had downloaded the app onto personal or government-issued phones—although Witkoff suggested on X that the program was on his “personal devices”—smartphones are consumer devices, not at all suitable for classified U.S. government conversations. An entire industry of spyware companies sells capabilities to remotely hack smartphones for any country willing to pay. More capable countries have more sophisticated operations. Just last year, attacks that were later attributed to China attempted to access both President Donald Trump and Vance’s smartphones. Previously, the FBI—as well as law enforcement agencies in other countries—have pressured both Apple and Google to add “backdoors” in their phones to more easily facilitate court-authorized eavesdropping.

These backdoors would create, of course, another vulnerability to be exploited. A separate attack from China last year accessed a similar capability built into U.S. telecommunications networks.

The vulnerabilities equities have swung against weakened smartphone security and toward protecting the devices that senior government officials now use to discuss military secrets. That also means that they have swung against the U.S. government hoarding Signal vulnerabilities—and toward full disclosure.

This is plausibly good news for Americans who want to talk among themselves without having anyone, government or otherwise, listen in. We don’t know what pressure the Trump administration is using to make intelligence services fall into line, but it isn’t crazy to worry that the NSA might again start monitoring domestic communications.

Because of the Signal chat leak, it’s less likely that they’ll use vulnerabilities in Signal to do that. Equally, bad actors such as drug cartels may also feel safer using Signal. Their security against the U.S. government lies in the fact that the U.S. government shares their vulnerabilities. No one wants their secrets exposed.

I have long advocated for a “defense dominant” cybersecurity strategy. As long as smartphones are in the pocket of every government official, police officer, judge, CEO, and nuclear power plant operator—and now that they are being used for what the White House now calls calls  “sensitive,” if not outright classified conversations among cabinet members—we need them to be as secure as possible. And that means no government-mandated backdoors.

We may find out more about how officials—including the vice president of the United States—came to be using Signal on what seem to be consumer-grade smartphones, in a apparent breach of the laws on government records. It’s unlikely that they really thought through the consequences of their actions.

Nonetheless, those consequences are real. Other governments, possibly including U.S. allies, will now have much more incentive to break Signal’s security than they did in the past, and more incentive to hack U.S. government smartphones than they did before March 24.

For just the same reason, the U.S. government has urgent incentives to protect them.

[sapphicscholar]

Hey so remember how I posted yesterday about how it’s not a great idea to be condescending to people assuming the worst about the surveillance state and the role of the internet and tech companies in upholding and enforcing it? Well anyway, here’s an important thread on the House’s Section 702 “reform” bill, scheduled for a floor vote ASAP (as early as Dec. 12), which would be one of the largest expansions of surveillance within the US (accessible text below the images along with links to the linked articles)

Tweet thread from Elizabeth Goitein:

RED ALERT: Buried in the House intelligence committee’s Section 702 “reform” bill, which is schedule for a floor vote as soon as tomorrow, is the biggest expansion of surveillance inside the United States since the Patriot Act. 1/11

Through a seemingly innocuous change to the definition of “electronic service communications provider,” the bill vastly expands the universe of U.S. businesses that can be conscripted to aid the government in conducting surveillance. 2/11

Under current law, the government can compel companies that have direct access to communications, such as phone, email, and text messaging service providers, to assist in Section 702 surveillance by turning over the communications of Section 702 targets. 3/11

Under Section 504 of the House intelligence committee’s bill, any entity that has access to *equipment* on which communications may be transmitted or stored, such as an ordinary router, is fair game. What does that mean in practice? It’s simple… 4/11

Hotels, libraries, coffee shops, and other places that offer wifi to their customers could be forced to serve as surrogate spies. They could be required to configure their systems to ensure that they can provide the government access to entire streams of communications. 5/11

Even a repair person who comes to fix the wifi in your home would meet the revised definition: that person is an “employee” of a “service provider” who has “access” to “equipment” (your router) on which communications are transmitted. 6/11

The bill’s sponsors deny that Section 504 is intended to sweep so broadly. What *is* the provision intended to do, and how is the government planning to use it? Sorry, that’s classified. 7/11

At the end of the day, though, the government’s claimed intent matters little. What matters is what the provision, on its face, actually allows—because as we all know by now, the government will interpret and apply the law as broadly as it can get away with. 8/11

This isn’t a minor or theoretical concern. One of the FISA Court amici posted a blog to warn Americans about this provision. I can’t overstate how unusual it is for FISA Court amici to take to the airwaves in this manner. We’d be foolish to ignore it. https://www.zwillgen.com/law-enforcement/fisa-reform-bill-702-surveillance/ 9/11

If you don't want to have to worry that the NSA is tapping into communications at the hotel where you're staying, tell your House representative to vote NO on the House intelligence bill this week. More on the many flaws with that bill here: https://t.co/i9PEXmg5r6 10/11

Instead, they should vote for the Protect Liberty & End Warrantless Surveillance Act, a bill passed by the House Judiciary Committee on a 35-2 vote that would reauthorize Sec. 702 with strong reforms to protect Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. https://t.co/CN7ZepGSUu 11/11

[mgeist]

Lawful Access on Steroids: Why Bill C-2’s Big Brother Approach Combines Expansive Warrantless Disclosure with Unprecedented Secrecy

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

I'm coming to DEFCON! On FRIDAY (Aug 9), I'm emceeing the EFF POKER TOURNAMENT (noon at the Horseshoe Poker Room), and appearing on the BRICKED AND ABANDONED panel (5PM, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01). On SATURDAY (Aug 10), I'm giving a keynote called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE! How hackers can seize the means of computation and build a new, good internet that is hardened against our asshole bosses' insatiable horniness for enshittification" (noon, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01).

#20yrsago Fox News attacks Disney for insufficient homophobia https://web.archive.org/web/20040809000157/https://www.mediamatters.org/items/200408060012

#20yrsago Disney asks FCC to lock up all the record-buttons https://web.archive.org/web/20040814133636/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001805.php

#20yrsago Canadian Legion: “We own all uses of the word ‘poppy'” https://web.archive.org/web/20040811130036/http://anhedonia.imparte.com/gbook.html

#20yrsago MMOs discourage heroism, FRPGs encourage it https://web.archive.org/web/20040808001510/http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2004/08/where_are_the_h.html

#15yrsago Terry Pratchett on the right to die https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203622/Ill-die-endgame-says-Terry-Pratchett-law-allow-assisted-suicides-UK.html

#15yrsago Stupid pitfalls of social media https://web.archive.org/web/20090808193904/http://asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-09/AugSep09_Crumlish.html

#15yrsago HOWTO make dust-goggles from a bra-strap, light-bulb screens, and an old biker jacket https://windfiredesigns.com/How-To/Dust-Goggles/

#5yrsago A loophole in nonprofit law means that corporate lobbying is at least double the official figure https://theintercept.com/2019/08/06/business-group-spending-on-lobbying-in-washington-is-at-least-double-whats-publicly-reported/

#5yrsago The only thing health insurance companies are good at is scaring us about socialized medicine https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-08-05/health-insurance-useless

#5yrsago How Quebec’s health-care system uses “vaccine whisperers” to keep “vaccine hesitancy” from turning to anti-vax https://www.statnews.com/2019/08/05/the-vaccine-whisperers-counselors-gently-engage-new-parents-before-their-doubts-harden-into-certainty/

#5yrsago DOJ indicts man for paying AT&T employees to help him unlock millions of customers’ phones https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756625/att-unlocking-crime-conspiracy-malware-hacking-paid-employees

#5yrsago Amazon’s surveillance doorbell marketers help cops get warrantless access to video footage from peoples’ homes https://www.vice.com/en/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-cops-on-how-to-obtain-surveillance-footage-without-a-warrant

#5yrsago Survey finds high levels of harassment in multiplayer games, as well as white supremacist recruiting attempts https://www.adl.org/resources/report/free-play-hate-harassment-and-positive-social-experiences-online-games

#1yrago Fool Me Twice We Don’t Get Fooled Again https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/06/fool-me-twice-we-dont-get-fooled-again/

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Clay Bennett, The Chattanooga Times

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 17, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 18, 2024

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton responded this evening to the federal government’s demand that state troops give U.S. Border Patrol agents access to Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, the site where three migrants died last week as they tried to cross the Rio Grande. 

Aarón Torres and Joseph Morton of The Dallas Morning News reported that Paxton’s letter acknowledged that by law the federal government’s Border Patrol officers are allowed  “warrantless access to land within 25 miles of the border, but only ‘for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.’” Paxton claimed that this law doesn’t apply because the current administration’s policies—the law, after all, is written by Congress—are not intended to stop undocumented immigration. “There is not even a pretense that you are trying to prevent the illegal entry of aliens,” he wrote. 

Torres and Morton note that, in fact, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 migrants in 2023 and that Paxton presented no evidence for his claims.

Two weeks ago, House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-TN) demanded that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testify as part of the House’s impeachment proceedings against him. As Rebecca Beitsch points out in The Hill, testimony from a cabinet secretary is usually arranged several weeks or even months in advance, and Mayorkas said he could not make the date because he will be discussing immigration with a delegation from Mexico at that time but he asked to arrange another time. Mayorkas has testified before the House panel twice in the past year and before Congress 27 times since he took office.

In a letter obtained by Punchbowl News, Green wrote: “Since you continue to decline to come in person, I invite you to submit written testimony for the January 18th hearing record, so that our Committee Members may hear from you directly.” 

This evening, an inadvertently circulated internal Republican memo obtained by Rebecca Beitsch of The Hill shows that Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee likely have switched their demand for live testimony to a demand for written answers because they have already committed to impeachment on a tight timeline and cannot wait for the live hearing to be rescheduled. 

Green had previously suggested on the Fox News Channel that an impeachment document had already been written even though there had been no impeachment hearings. The memo appears to corroborate that suggestion, saying: “We have scheduled the markup for impeachment articles at 10:00 AM ET on Wednesday, January 31, 2024.” 

Republicans argue that Mayorkas lied to Congress because he said the government has operational control over the border. They dispute this characterization because the Secure Fence Act defines operational control as one in which not a single person or object enters the country improperly. This perfect standard has never been met, and yet they apparently decided to impeach over it before even holding hearings.  

Republicans are clearly hoping to use the issue of immigration against President Joe Biden and the Democrats in the upcoming election. After insisting in November that immigration was in such a crisis that there could be no more aid to Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan without it, Republicans in December rejected the idea of new legislation and said Biden must handle the issue himself. Then, in early January, 64 Republicans traveled to the border to demonstrate the importance of the issue.

But now that the Senate appears to have hammered out a bipartisan immigration reform measure, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said this morning: “It’s a complex issue. I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, because we know how complicated that is.” After a meeting at the White House today with President Biden, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee heads, Johnson still refused to put the proposed deal up for a vote in the House.

In today’s meeting, Biden emphasized the danger of leaving Ukraine’s defense unfunded. “He was clear,” the White House said, “Congress’s continued failure to act endangers the United States’ national security, the NATO Alliance, and the rest of the free world.” 

Johnson is caught between U.S. national security and Trump. On the Fox News Channel tonight, Laura Ingraham told Johnson she had just gotten off a phone call with Trump and Trump had told her that he was against the immigration deal and had urged Johnson to oppose it. “He…was extremely adamant about it,” she said. Johnson agreed and said that he and Trump had been “talking about this pretty frequently.”   

Trump needs the issue of immigration to whip up his base for the 2024 election.

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, chaired by James Comer (R-KY) held a hearing titled “The Biden Administration’s Regulatory and Policymaking Efforts to Undermine U.S. Immigration Law.” The administration has asked for additional funding for border patrol officers, immigration courts, and so on, but Comer said in his opening statement that the problem is not a lack of resources but rather an unwillingness to enforce the law. 

Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) replied: “You know we have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform up here for decades.” He noted that one of his colleagues had provided statistics showing that President Barack Obama deported more people in each term than Trump did, so “if the border wasn’t a problem until President Biden was elected, then how are we deporting all of these people in administrations before Trump was elected? It’s because this situation has been going on for decades. So stop lying to the American people that none of this happened until President Biden was elected.”

Comer has also used the House Oversight Committee to spread the idea that President Biden is corrupt, but while he has made many allegations on right-wing media channels, the committee has not, in fact, turned up any evidence linking the president to illegal activity. Instead, the investigations there appear to be a continuation of the technique Republicans have used since  the 1990s to insinuate that a Democrat has engaged in wrongdoing simply by holding investigations. 

Trump employed this technique effectively in 2016 in his constant refrain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, had illegally deleted emails, and less effectively in 2019 when he tried to strong-arm Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Hunter Biden. It was central to the plan of convincing state legislatures that they could recast their 2020 electoral votes: lawyer Jeffrey Clark wanted to tell them (falsely) that there were voting irregularities that the Department of Justice was investigating.

But this technique has backfired so far in this Congress. After a year of hearing that Biden is corrupt, MAGA Republicans have expected to see him impeached. But Democrats have come to hearings exceedingly well prepared and have pushed back on MAGA talking points, turning the tables on the Republicans so thoroughly that Comer recently was forced to back down, saying, “My job was never to impeach.” 

Creating a false reality to trick voters is central to undermining democracy, and it is no secret that autocratic states like Russia, Iran, and China are spreading disinformation in the U.S. But I have always wondered what would happen when the American people finally pushed back against suggestions and innuendo and instead demanded actual evidence and policies designed to address problems, as they did before American politics turned into entertainment.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[alphaman99]

Tenth Amendment Center

A bill prefiled in the Florida Senate would ban warrantless location tracking and the use of stingray devices to sweep up electronic communications in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Florida, but it would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Jeff Brandes (R-St. Petersburg) introduced Senate Bill 916 (S916) on November 15th. The legislation would help block the use of cell-site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.

S916 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before acquiring real-time or historical GPS location data, and before using any type of mobile tracking device in most situations. Police already must get a warrant before intercepting cell phone communication content. Adding location tracking to the warrant requirement would effectively end warrantless stingray use in Florida. The legislation would also require police to get a warrant before accessing stored location data from a service provider. Under current law, police can access stored data with a court order.

[nando161mando]

"LAPD Is Using Israeli Surveillance Software That Can Track Your Phone and Social Media [...] outsources much of their surveillance work to AI and machine learning, gives police warrantless [=constitution circumventing] access to your personal information [...through corporation...] by former IDF special operatives Omri Timianker, Shay Attias, and former Mossad official Udi Levy. The company is part of the controversial billion-dollar surveillance industry in Israel, where the technology is often tested on Palestinians before being implemented elsewhere in the world."

[liminalweirdo]

"Without needing a warrant, police can track ordinary peoples' smartphone locations - including people who travel out of state to get abortion procedures. The implications are troubling:

"“Warrantless law enforcement access to digital information related to reproductive health care, including location data, threatens reproductive freedom,” Ashley Emery, senior policy analyst, reproductive health and rights at the non-profit the National Partnership for Women & Families, told 404 Media. “If law enforcement can bypass court approval needed to obtain sensitive data and instead use this new surveillance tool to track pregnant people and build cases against them, the implications for abortion and pregnancy criminalization are alarming. This risk is especially salient for Black women, brown women, and low-income women, who are already over-surveilled and over-policed.”"

The tracking crosses states and is made possible by the cellphone networks themselves as part of what are shockingly lenient data sharing policies overall. Because of the jurisdiction, and the complicated way this data becomes available, the only surefire way to solve this problem is with a federal privacy law that protects our data.

At the very least it should need a warrant - but really, this sort of tracking shouldn't be possible at all. Without strong technical and legal protections against sharing, all our cellphones (this problem is not limited to smartphones) can be used as tracking devices to understand our whereabouts, who we're gathering with, and potentially more. We're all highly-dependent on them at this stage, but it's worth questioning whether we should be."

anyway yeah DELETE YOUR FUCKING ADVERTISING IDS

Android:

Settings ➡️ Google ➡️ all services ➡️ Ads ➡️ Delete advertising ID

(may differ slightly depending on android version and manufacturer firmware. you can't just search settings for "advertising ID" of course 🔪)

iOS:

Settings ➡️ privacy ➡️ tracking ➡️ toggle "allow apps to request to track" to OFF

and ALSO settings ➡️ privacy ➡️ Apple advertising ➡️ toggle "personalized ads" to OFF

more details about the process here via the EFF