If The Feds Say Collecting Data Is Not A Search Until It Looks At Them, Is It Not Piracy Until You View The File?

from the just-saying... dept

One of the (many) governmental excuses that have been spread in an attempt to defend the NSA surveillance practice of collecting every bit of data is that just the collection isn’t a “search and seizure.” That is, they claim that until they actually look at the data they’ve collected, they haven’t even triggered a 4th Amendment issue. Of course, most people find that sort of redefinition difficult to believe from just a common sense standpoint. However, security guru Tom Ritter jokingly spun this around on Twitter recently:

Hey, so according to the government, I can download movies, and it isn’t piracy until I watch them, right?

Okay, so I can already hear the copyright maximalist wonks banging away at their keyboards to mention that the exclusive rights provided under copyright law include reproduction and distribution, so merely making a copy via a download could violate those two rights. And, of course, that’s how the courts have seen it. But, the point he’s making is actually quite reasonable. Yes, according to common sense and the basic definitions in English we all know, when the NSA hoovered up all the data about all of your communications, most normal people would think it’s a search. But, now that the feds are admitting that normal English doesn’t apply, and that they can hold all your data without violating any law, it seems only fair to flip that around on them. So, even if basic English says that downloading a copy likely involves potentially infringing on the reproduction right, if we just use the NSA’s dictionary, clearly, copyright holders should need to also prove that the file itself was opened. Otherwise, it’s as if nothing at all happened…

Just to reinforce this for the angry maximalists (assuming they read this far): this post is not actually about copyright law — it’s about the NSA’s defense of surveillance. Also, learn what sarcasm means. Don’t bother spewing something stupid now.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “If The Feds Say Collecting Data Is Not A Search Until It Looks At Them, Is It Not Piracy Until You View The File?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
63 Comments
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well if you were willing to pay to support the site(not going to happen I know), you too could get the first word on articles in, though considering you seem to have the maturity of a 5-year old, I’d imagine it would just lead to a whole string of ‘This comment has been hidden…’ posts as first comments.

GMacGuffin says:

I'll spew something stupid anyway...

You keep using the term “hoover” as a verb, which is 1) distinctly British terminology (I know, because I’m from California and I own the Monty Python box set); and 2) a flagrant use of Hoover’s trademark generically in a public forum, risking Hoover’s exclusive rights. Don’t you care about Hoover’s trademarks?

Bloody hell…

Brent Ashley (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The point of Schrodinger’s Cat is that quantum physics dictates that the cat under that set of circumstances must be considered simultaneously to exist in both states.

Thusly, (if the already tenuous analogy were to be stretched even further) until they listen to a file to determine if it is infringing, they can say that it both is and is not, a condition no doubt likely to bring a smile to a certain Mr. Clinton.

You can guarantee which side the copyright lobby would choose to decide is the determining state; it’s not so clear which the courts would decide trumps the other in this hypothetical overextended analogy world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Don't bother spewing something stupid now

There is an infinite supply of stupid, the cost of duplication and distribution of stupid is effectively zero.
I thought you guys understood the economics of the digital age, stupidity is ubiquitous and needless to say, the USA is at the forefront of the stupid economy.
Do you have any ideas how many jobs in the states are supported by the stupid.

Anonymous Coward says:

“That is, they claim that until they actually look at the data they’ve collected, they haven’t even triggered a 4th Amendment issue.”

Why collect it if you aren’t going to look at it. It has no value if you’re just collecting it…

I mean if something is captured while a person isn’t a suspect, it can’t just be stored to use to further incriminate them at a later date when that person becomes a suspect right?

In other words, unless it’s being illegally searched the data has no value and as such wouldn’t exist. I think the NSA has lost the ability to use the “give us the benefit of the doubt” or “we’re working in your best interest” arguements. It’s time for people to stop trying to justify the actions and realize that this isn’t right by any measure or secret interpretation of the law…

Lord Binky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

More specifically the justification would be ‘Our actions can be an unreasonable search or an unreasonable seizure, but we avoid doing both at the same time such that the 4th amendment is not violated. ‘

example :
Collecting as much data on american citizens as physically possible may be unreasonable seizure of their information, but we only search it when we have a reasonable search.

or

Searching everything a person owns at the national boarders including the contents of any electronics they have with them may be unreasonable, during that unreasonable search we try to find a reasonable cause for seizing it so we do not violate the 4th amendment.

Transmitte (profile) says:

My take on them collecting all of this is to serve a s a data base on each person in the event they commit a crime, and then they can comb through everything as a bible on your communications to try and suss out what kind of person you are, if you had been planning something all along and how hard they throw the book at you. If you actually wind up committing a crime that is, and what worries me is what if you do something completely benign, but some asshole of a prosecutor decides he wants to go full tilt on you, say because you were attending something like an occupy rally yet all you did was get arrested cause you were there in a peaceful way.

Yeah, spin hard that and twist those words…

RyanNerd (profile) says:

What I thought this was about the NSA... Not quantum physics

Wait…I get it. By using quantum physics analogies the truly stupid will not be able to form any argument. It must be working since I notice the surprising lack of trolls so far. Or perhaps I just haven?t read any of their comments so they don?t exist until I read their comments then. Wonderful wonderful world of quantum mechanics!!!

Anonymous Coward says:

It's a seizure, not a search

The massive collection of data is not a “search” within the meaning of the 4th amendment until they look at it. The controversial part is that it is arguably a “seizure,” within the meaning of the 4th amendment and should therefore still require a warrant (or at the very least some higher standard, like reasonable suspicion or probable cause), since the 4th amendment guards against both unreasonable searches and seizures. The analogy to copyright law is based on a fallacious premise, besides the fact that its a huge stretch, considering they are two very different areas of law (one governing state actors in the area of law enforcement and the other governing private actors in the area of the marketplace).

Further, not sure how arguing that you have an exclusive right to reproduce is in any way a maximalist position- it’s the most basic and oldest right there is under copyright law (hence, copy-right)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's a seizure, not a search

The maximalist position being described is to leap immediately to what your exclusive rights are rather than any kind of pragmatic evaluation of a situation. Sort of like saying ‘how is that maximalist, those are your rights’ and ‘the analogy is based on a fallacious premise’ in response to a sarcastic joke about something else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It's a seizure, not a search

  1. The dictionary defines maximalist as “a person who favors a radical and immediate approach to the achievement of a set of goals or the completion of a program.” Simply asserting your rights (rights that Congress specifically has authority to grant under the Constitution, unlike most rights), is not maximalist. Believing that there is nothing more important than those rights may be maximalist, but simply believing in them and asserting them is definitely not. Calling someone maximalist for simply asserting those rights is a form of ad hominem attack that continues to close the door to real reasoned discourse.
  2. The sarcastic joke is based on the fallacious premise that “searches and seizures” is the same, when they are in fact two different things. It has nothing to do with copyright law; I’m just clearing up fourth amendment jurisprudence so that someone reading this post won’t accidentally be mistaken by the “sarcastic joke.” I feel that it’s important to point out when there is a clear legal error for the benefit of the public, since I’m all for making information available to the public.
RD says:

Disgusted with it all

“Okay, so I can already hear the copyright maximalist wonks banging away at their keyboards to mention that the exclusive rights provided under copyright law include reproduction and distribution, so merely making a copy via a download could violate those two rights. And, of course, that’s how the courts have seen it. But, the point he’s making is actually quite reasonable. Yes, according to common sense and the basic definitions in English we all know, when the NSA hoovered up all the data about all of your communications, most normal people would think it’s a search. But, now that the feds are admitting that normal English doesn’t apply, and that they can hold all your data without violating any law, it seems only fair to flip that around on them. So, even if basic English says that downloading a copy likely involves potentially infringing on the reproduction right, if we just use the NSA’s dictionary, clearly, copyright holders should need to also prove that the file itself was opened. Otherwise, it’s as if nothing at all happened… “

It’s disgusting to me that you have to include such a ridiculously intricate CYA/cover-all-arguments definition of the point you are trying to make, simply due to the overweening shills and trolls that post here who WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY go out of their way to miss the point and principle of any article posted here, just so they can “try to get” Mike and other frequent supporters of the site.

It’s political bullshit just as bad as the garbage that goes on in our nations capitol, and it diminishes us all that is is even remotely necessary to have to do so because of people of poor character and less intelligence that insist on trying to derail every topical discussion here by trying to devolve it into “the law is the law why wont you debate me rawr bawk bawk!” infantile rhetoric.

Alex says:

Thought

If I understand properly, this means two things:

– Without a warrant, any evidence provided in court from this type of source is void.
– If you can prove that your information was accessed with no warrant, that is illegal and can be punished.

In this context, I don’t see why everybody is freaking out. Yes, it is possible to track you because you carry a super high tech phone with you. Yes, the government is plugged in, because it is a reliable source of information. But anything you say or do cannot be punished in the court of law; unless there is a valid reason to track you.

My personal fear is more about what the government considers a valid warrant. I’m especially afraid of their loose definition of “terrorism”.

Shawn says:

What...?

So your telling me they collect all this data but do not look at it, what if in the process they came across something truly incriminating like proof of terrorism, your telling me that they wouldn’t look at that unless something came up with that person? no.. of course not all kinds of flags would be raised because I bet they scan every piece of information that comes in, therefore they look at all of it and are guilty.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...