The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 6, 2019, 01:11 PM   #1
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,173
Feds want data on ATN Electronic Scope App Users

This is really interesting. ATN is in the news because their electronic scopes are apparently being illegally exported. These scopes have the obsidian 4 {computer} core and apparently include night vision and thermal scopes, including weapon sights and handheld spotters. The Feds want all the information on the folks who downloaded the app because of possible illegal export issues.

The request from Google and Apple for the information includes everyone who has downloaded the app to run/set up/remote view these scopes. They are reporting that this is in excess of 10,000 users, so may include some TFL members.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#46dcf27c6135
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old November 28, 2019, 06:12 PM   #2
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,173
And now Federal Court says they have to turn over the data...
https://wellstonjournal.com/federal-...rs-report.html
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is online now  
Old November 28, 2019, 09:10 PM   #3
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,756
Exporting anything that can be considered a munition can bring a nasty wrath upon the violator.

In a previous life I worked with USG export control personnel. One of them was an export lawyer who was flying out on a redeye to Miami to testify in the case of someone who had illegally sent (exported without paperwork) a DirecTV decoder box to his brother in the Caribbean so they could watch DirecTV in a country that had little TV. The encryption is covered by Category 5 of ITAR, International Trafficking in Arms Regulations. The error the exporter made was telling the USG that they had no say in him sending the box to his brother, instead of doing serious Mia Culpa's and retrieving the box.
He was found guilty, was fined I believe received a few years in prison.

They found this because his brother called the 1800 DirecTV help number to figure out why only some of the transponder channels were clear. Yep, they reported him.
My guess is someone overseas may do the same thing with the ATN scopes and get snagged...
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 30, 2019, 10:17 AM   #4
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,210
That’s a general issue with any “smart” device. It is gathering a ton of data on you all the time. And the manufacturers may turn that over with no more than a letter from a local law enforcement agency or they may require a subpoena. Frankly, I’m surprised ATN went this far fighting it, though they are probably correct to fight hard given their target market.

The other thing with “smart” devices is they are usually broadcasting some type of radio frequency signal.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 30, 2019, 11:46 AM   #5
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 905
From the links:

"“The danger is the government will go on this fishing expedition and they‘ll see information unrelated to what they weren‘t looking for and go after someone for something else,” Tor Ekeland, a lawyer who focuses on privacy issues, told Forbes.

Ekeland added that the US government has a poor track record when it comes to data privacy, and warned that even broader court orders could soon come down the pike demanding yet more sensitive information, such as data from health or dating apps.

Edin Omanovic, who heads up the State Surveillance program for the watchdog group Privacy International, said the move sets a risky precedent and will allow the state to gobble up “huge amounts of innocent people’s personal data,” adding that “Such orders need to be based on suspicion and be particularized – this is neither.”"


The impression given was that ICE interrupted shipments that were in the process of being made, not that ICE conducted investigations in foreign countries (although I suppose they could have.) Moreover the order is aimed at the manufacturers of the app, not the manufacturer of the rifle sight. It isn't clear how long the investigations have been underway.

As noted above, one of the more chilling concerns is that of precedent. On a global scale, 10,000 (+?) users is not a huge number of affected citizens (for a particular privacy issue). But if the government is successful in compelling Apple/Google to divulge personal information of app users, what happens when the government wants to compel Anthem Blue Cross, or AAA, or Match.com, or Dell Computers, or any other entity to divulge similar information on all their users world-wide for some future 'investigation'?

I'd argue that simply downloading an app, whether its connected to a riflescope or a Lojack type tracking feature, or something else does not automatically funnel one's personal information to the government. It should be of deep concern if this case is decided otherwise.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old November 30, 2019, 12:53 PM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,495
Double Naught, the link to the Wellston Journal takes me to a place that is entirely UK and I could find nothing about anything US on it, 11/30/19

ok, I'm not tech saavy, don't have any "smart" anything or even a cell phone at all. (and not getting one!) All I know about "apps" is hearing people constantly talk about them. From context I gather they are a kind of computer program (for a smart phone?) is this basically correct?

So, does this analogy work?

You make a product, an app or a bottle of whiskey or a car, or...
someone does something illegal with your product, the illegally export it, the give it to a minor, or they run someone over, or whatever

HOW does that give the govt the authority to demand your entire customer information records??

I can see them wanting information investigating a specific individual, relating to a specific criminal investigation, but is them saying "tell us all you have on everyone who bought your product" actually legal? and even if is it, is it proper???

Or is this some special thing where "the security of the state" overrides personal privacy???

I understand how in our system today, our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and personal effects ends when a judge says it does, and that makes it legal, but does it make it right??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 08:01 AM   #7
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
according to an application for a court order filed by the department of justice (doj) on september 5, investigators want information on users of obsidian 4, a tool used to control rifle scopes made by night-vision specialist american technologies network corp.
Quote:
if the court approves the demand, and apple and google decide to hand over the information, it could include data on thousands of people who have nothing to do with the crimes being investigated, privacy activists warned.
?? DOJ? THE Federal Government DOJ?
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 1, 2019, 11:19 AM   #8
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,883
The request for names of buyers of the Obsidian app originated with the Department of Defense.

https://www.cnet.com/news/cyber-mond...-deals-so-far/

IMO: There was an incident involving US troops where the app was used.
thallub is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 10:22 AM   #9
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,201
Quote:
I understand how in our system today, our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and personal effects ends when a judge says it does, and that makes it legal, but does it make it right??
Member this?

Quote:
Consider this, air travel is voluntary. No matter what "otherwise unConstitutional" seeming things they require, your rights are not being violated, because you are CHOOSING fly, and in order to do so, agree to voluntarily comply with any and all regulations and requirements.

Not flying might be inconvenient, it might be more expensive, it might be a royal pain in the butt, but the law doesn't care about that.

I can't point to where, but I'm sure its in the fine print somewhere, perhaps in the ticket contract, perhaps somewhere else, but essentially, by going to the airport and buying a ticket on a commercial flight you are agreeing to all their rules and regulations. Since you voluntarily agree, your rights are not being violated, you have, essentially waived them.
Pretty much the same applies to what you're asking here as what you said to me a while back.

Your participation in the use of said product & the purchase of said product is 100% voluntary on your art. Don't want the nose of Big Brother poking into what you buy? Then don't buy it.
Hal is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 11:12 AM   #10
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,210
Quote:
Your participation in the use of said product & the purchase of said product is 100% voluntary on your art. Don't want the nose of Big Brother poking into what you buy? Then don't buy it.
And don't download the AP...
Quote:
The request from Google and Apple for the information includes everyone who has downloaded the app to run/set up/remote view these scopes. They are reporting that this is in excess of 10,000 users, so may include some TFL members.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 4, 2019, 01:05 PM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,495
Quote:
Pretty much the same applies to what you're asking here as what you said to me a while back.

Your participation in the use of said product & the purchase of said product is 100% voluntary on your art. Don't want the nose of Big Brother poking into what you buy? Then don't buy it.
I see your (our?) point, but I believe while there are similarities, there are significant differences, as well.

I guess what needs asking is, At what point does our "right" of privacy kick in??

I know when I go through an airport, I and my possessions might be searched. I know when I enter the country I have to go through customs.

I know that any and everything I post on the Internet MAY become a matter of public record.

Why is lawyer/client conversation considered "protected"? No one is forced to talk to a lawyer....

Why do we fight against govt compiled lists of gun ownership?
Perhaps it doesn't apply, and, if so, I'm looking for a (simple) explanation of why it doesn't apply, but if the cops find a Colt pistol at a crime scene, they trace THAT gun /that gun's owner. The go to Colt and say, who bought THAT gun, and follow the chain down the line as far as possible.

They don't go to Colt and say "give us a list of everyone who bought this model Colt pistol"


Why/How is the computer/phone app different from that??

I know there are limits, though I don't know where all of them are.

I understand govt's "compelling need" for information in the course of a criminal investigation. I'm just trying to figure out (without the benefit of formal legal training) where this fits in that picture.

Wasn't there a big legal wrangle not too long ago about the govt demanding a maker "unlock" a cell phone??

I'm certain that the "you chose to comply" principle applies to certain things, but if we expand that to the fullest, we have very few, if any, rights at all, because we "choose" to live in this country.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 5, 2019, 10:55 PM   #12
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,369
You are already being electronically surveilled for commercial and marketing purposes, eventually it will be big brother.
rickyrick is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08535 seconds with 10 queries