> It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud
That well-sourced Wikipedia article doesn't say what you claim. Nowhere does it say the US government can access data on its own citizens from other Five Eyes countries.
It says this:
"So far, no court case has been brought against any US intelligence community member claiming that they went around US domestic law to have foreign countries spy on US citizens and give that intelligence to the US."
The source says the following and does not have any information contradicting it:
"'Any allegation that NSA relies on its foreign partners to circumvent U.S. law is absolutely false. NSA does not ask its foreign partners to undertake any intelligence activity that the U.S. government would be legally prohibited from undertaking itself,' Emmel said."
A bunch of conspiracy theorists theorized that these countries could skirt their laws by asking for data from other countries in the intelligence sharing agreement without the proper warrant, but it turned out that they do not.
The page does mention the canadian case and european fallout (though that with conflicting language).
Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case.
- Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise?
- Of course warrants are rubber stamped.
- There’s no laws against using third party data.
- No one every gets in trouble… see Clapper lying to Congress on national TV. Oh, except the ones that speak up about the law.
They even have a technical term for it called “parallel construction.”
The important point is they get whatever they want without practical restraint. This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.
> Your premise is faulty however—that something does not exist because there’s not a court case.
My premise is that something does not exist because there are no documents claiming it does. Snowden had the chance to leak such documents, but he did not. Despite that, you produced a conspiracy out of thin air as if Snowden had produced such documents.
> - Of course warrants are rubber stamped
Then why haven't we seen thousands of warrants to obtain data from other countries on US citizens used in prosecutions?
> Of course they help each other, why would they even bother to get in touch otherwise
They help each other by sharing intelligence in other countries, not by helping each other break their own laws.
> - There’s no laws against using third party data
Then why doesn't the government just read your email?
> This whole subthread is an immaterial pedantic angle and waste of time, and I won’t be returning here further.
The next time you post conspiracy theories on HN, I will be there.
> It has a well-sourced Wikipedia page for crying out loud.
You’ll have to read most of it as well, the juicy parts and citations are towards the bottom.
Bootlickers have the burden to prove data is not misused these days—not the other way around.
reply