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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: collecting, copyright, infringement, nsa, nsa surveillance, search, tom ritter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL
Google already pays for this site to spew moronic anti-copyright propaganda. You stooges are just too dumb to know you're lining the pockets of fat-cat corporatists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll spew something stupid anyway...
Bloody hell...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
Oh, you mean the Electrolux type of Hoovering. Got to get out of this vacuum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
"J/K Honey"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll spew something stupid anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't confirm someone is a pirate until you look at his playlist.
Man, this quantum stuff is confusing as hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you put a playlist into iTunes, it is either infringing or non-infringing, but the listener will not be aware of which until the playlist is listened to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*stares* Are you new here?!
That is their default mode of operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't bother spewing something stupid now
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Something like that you mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right, nobody can top YOU in your forte, Masnick.
But as usual, it's not even your idea! You're just copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right, nobody can top YOU in your forte, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right, nobody can top YOU in your forte, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right, nobody can top YOU in your forte, Masnick.
Ah, right. So according to you, EVERY NEWS OUTLET IN THE WORLD does nothing but "copy" the works of others, yes? Or would you like to revise your charge?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right, nobody can top YOU in your forte, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, spin hard that and twist those words...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...are admitting that normal English doesn't apply"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I thought this was about the NSA... Not quantum physics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
word swap
I think the problem is that the NSA has no idea that you can substitute "seizure" w/ "collection" in the 4th Amendment & not lose any meaning what-so-ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shoe on the other NSA foot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a seizure, not a search
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a seizure, not a search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a seizure, not a search
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusted with it all
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I admit that I downloaded it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, I admit that I downloaded it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
English
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just said the same thing recently, so, being a reasonable person, I agree.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130703/00121023700/snowdens-constitution-vs-obamas-const itution.shtml#c916
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thought
- 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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]