No, according to the article the printouts were provided by the US immigration officials. In fact, the article draws the inference that the US authorities may have been reading her private Facebook messages for weeks.

I'm a native speaker of German; there really isn't any ambiguity here.

I think the point is that the facts provided by the article don't seem very likely.

Too some extent, this NSA story should be of equal or greater disturbance to non-Americans.

Using Facebook's private messaging, with or without NSA spying, is very stupid because we know Facebook stores all of this forever, including after you "delete" your account. That could make it accessible even in a non-criminal civil dispute.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Even if PRISM allowed at-will searches across the FB accounts of would-be au-pairs, there is frankly no way the NSA would be sharing this with low level customs officials. At most there would be a simple flag on her record, at which point she would be shipped back without explanation.

Frankly, the fact that a significant number of commenters in this thread are taking this non-story at face value is bewildering. BS alarms should be going off left right and center, here.

Now you're questioning whether Homeland Security, an agency originally created to pool information from all intelligence agencies to screen for terrorists, has access to the same information?

It makes sense to read private communications to find out if she's a threat to the homeland. What doesn't make sense is your disbelief in the face of clear evidence that this kind of thing has been going on for years - just with a different agency name.

OK maybe I missed something, but do you have a citation for this?

No, I don't know this. Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%2...

"They [NSA] could get most of it, but they couldn't get it all. So in order to get all the data, they had to go to the service providers to fill in the blanks. That's what the PRISM program is for—to fill in the blanks. It also gives the FBI basis for introducing evidence into court."

"PRISM was first publicly revealed on June 6, 2013 [...] The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including (date of joining PRISM in parentheses) Microsoft (2007), Yahoo! (2008), Google (2009), Facebook (2009), Paltalk (2009), YouTube (2010), AOL (2011), Skype (2011), and Apple (2012)."

This statement is not supported by anything in the wikipedia article you cited. You're spinning conjecture.

Facebook provides data:

"Facebook: "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers. When Facebook is asked for data or information about specific individuals, we carefully scrutinize any such request for compliance with all applicable laws, and provide information only to the extent required by law."[23]"

Facebook has met with a US General on how to make data collection and reporting more efficient:

"The other companies held discussions with national security personnel on how to make available data more efficiently and securely.[29] In some cases, these companies made modifications to their systems in support of the intelligence collection effort.[29] The dialogues have continued in recent months, as General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met with executives including those at Facebook"

Facebook custom built a system for delivering data to the government:

"the companies were effectively asked to construct a locked mailbox and provide the key to the government, people briefed on the negotiations said.[29] Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information.[29]"

The Director of National Intelligence says they have been using Facebook to collect information on foreigners for six years. I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A SMOKING GUN, BUT I COULD BE WRONG.

" Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, on June 7 released a statement confirming that for nearly six years the government of the United States had been using large internet services companies such as Google and Facebook to collect information on foreigners outside the United States as a defense against national security threats."

In the future, please just read the page instead of trolling me to do the research for you.

Specifically, you have made and defended the claim that the NSA & FBI have total access to joe anybody's Facebook account. You then went on to cite passages from Wikipedia detailing the PRISM mailbox put in place by [FB / Google]. What you did not mention is how the mailbox is actually populated.

> The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. [1]

> FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before. [1]

This is from the NYT article cited in the Wikipedia page, which you indirectly cited twice. These requests are routed through a FISA court and limited in number, which is a far cry from "total" access. Your claim is incorrect.

Either way, this is a pretty unproductive discussion and I doubt we'll see eye to eye on this. You're also being belligerent and rude. Have a nice day.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-...

The far, far, far simpler explanation would that she had a printout of the conversations because it had an address or directions or that she voluntarily handed over a device (or, possibly, was bullied into doing so, which is in the rights of border control to do).

Pretty much, only "filled in a form on a web page" not "called up someone", "made a request to the api" not "called up someone at Facebook" and "the software ran" not "just gave it to them". Get with the times.

> Words fail me for an adjective to describe how unlikely that sounds.

You have not been paying attention.

It wouldn't surprise me now if there was a system in place that used the ESTA information to query the NSA/CIA/etc for anything that might be an issue for immigration control.

If she's been talking about working in the USA and hasn't got a visa (ESTA is only for personal visits, not business IIRC), that's enough for the TSA to refuse her entrance for lying to them.

It's for both both business and pleasure - says right there on the ESTA home page:

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

"You plan to travel to the United States for business or pleasure."

NB I've travelled a few times the US over the last few years on business using ESTA so you had me slightly worried there!

Someone leaks information about PRISM, and the primary response is TREASON! TREASON! ARREST THE TRAITOR AND DEAL WITH HIM!

Given that, do you really expect that A) random border agents are in on it, and B) feel free to just randomly disclose that sort of surveillance to someone who has no need to know about it?

Secondly, a lot of people knew, but kept quiet. I see no reason to expect a random border agent from talking, given it took years and someone like Snowden to finally talk.

Maybe, but even so, from giving access to the department, to allowing border officers to prove to foreign citizens that they can read their PMs goes a long way.

Using Facebook's private messaging, with or without NSA spying, is very stupid because we know Facebook stores all of this forever, including after you "delete" your account. That could make it accessible even in a non-criminal civil dispute.

She lives in Germany, which has a widely different fact gathering process, being much more restrictive and protective of the defendant's privacy.

Moreover, she's 18 and from a country which is probably much less lawsuit-happy than the US. It doesn't seem stupid to me at all that she didn't consider being sued when sending PMs to her host.

Even if that were true, she was exchanging messages with the father of the American family she was planning to stay with. I doubt they only read the messages sent by the German girl.

Do you have a link to a source on this? What other leakers are you referring to?

I mean, I don't know why Snowden bothered to leak the info, if they're just telling any 18-year-old German girl about it.

Assuming for the moment that this story did happen exactly as we're lead to believe (and I'm only making that assumption for the sake of playing devils advocate - I'm firmly on the fence with this story due to how sketchy the details are), then it would be very easy for the NSA to cover up how they had such data: "We'd been investigating her for a few weeks - here's a warrant"

Playing devils advocate here; there maybe more to this teenager than we're aware of. She might be an active protester or have left vocal remarks on other locations online that triggered closer inspection.

I'm not trying to say that your explanations are wrong or less plausible though, just that assumptions are being made on both sides of the argument.

I'm not saying that is what happened, there are other plausible explanations too. I am just saying that such a scenario is entirely plausible.

It doesn't seem likely a low level border agent would have access to this. If this is standard operating procedure, don't you think we would have heard about it from other people who were presented with printouts of their facebook messages when arriving at the border?

Or more likely, this is FUD that leaves out specific facts (border agents don't have broad access to facebook messages) to give the impression it is linked to a big trending news story.

Exactly! How would the US gov't have access to someone's private correspondences on Facebook? They'd having to be spying on FB's users for that to be the case...

Right now very unlikely.

As for personal experience with this, I had a musician friend that posted on his website that he was going to be performing a series of shows in Canada. He was asked at the border if he planned to work while in Canada. He said no and did not have a visa that allows it. The border agent showed him his website, which was found with google, showing that he was planning to work. He was denied entry and banned from Canada for 1 year for lying to a border agent.

Where do you get this understanding from?

Is it just me who feels that is a bit heartless?

If a young Mexican woman showed up at the border with papers describing how she intends to work as an illegal nanny, would we react the same way?

The first is a job, the second shouldn't be considered one.

This is to prevent abuses such as shipping in workers from a poorer country, giving them food, board and $10 a week for them to stack shelves, and claiming "It's not a job", so the not-workers don't require a working visa.

Similar judgements are also often made in relation to tax law, working conditions, etc.

Plus it's tricky when it comes to something like 'watching children part of the day'. It wouldn't be considered labor if it was a family member doing it, whereas stacking shelves certainly would be. If I'm letting someone live in my house, why should it matter if they're family when it comes to having them do chores?

Illegal immigrants pay more into social security than they take out. I don't even live in your country and I know this, come on - read a book.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeituni_Onyango

She ignored deportation orders and managed to receive subsidized housing and a disability pension. She's not unique.

I think that comment was uncalled. If you wanted to point out OP disinformation you could just provided the source and it would be as much effective and also would be better appreciated.

My guess is it would be difficult to find any piece of document where it states something along the lines of "The goal of this program is to make this country more appealing for illegal immigrants, by offering them extensive welfare and preferential job and tuition situations, especially over those of our citizens."

I think what's more likely is that you are citing unfortunate byproducts of an imperfect solution to a complicated problem. Not a "typical reaction."

I'm not an expert on these things, though.

That's ridiculous and puts the whole article under doubt. Nobody would waste that much time on her.

Long story short, it wouldn't necessarily waste much time to go through her records, and it would probably be completely legal.

The part that seems unlikely to me is that they would show their hand by using PRISM for such a small thing, unless there is some bigger reason they want her out of the country. It's hardly a sure argument, though.

I just don't find anything about that article logical.

Where this case differs is that the comments were over private messages - which means that the intel would have been collated covertly. So the real question is whether this is another piece of the PRISM jigsaw or just a sensationalist article cashing in on the hysteria that the NSA leaks have generated.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/30/leigh-van-bryan-a... (though in that case - I actually blame the visitors for posting dumb comments rather than the US government)

What makes you think this is a thing that exists, aside from the rest of this conversation?

She sent a bunch of data to Facebook, with instructions to give that data to someone else. Why does she or anyone have an expectation of privacy when you hand an unsealed (read: unencrypted) piece of paper to a courrier?

If something's important, you protect it by putting it in an envelope.

1. ^ This.

2. Was actually public information; story details lost in transmission or translation.

3. Her phone was still logged into Facebook.

4. They gained access to Facebook via links in e-mail.

[...]

10. Normal federal law enforcement powers.

11. Special federal law enforcement powers, e.g. Patriot Act.

[...]

100. NSA data that requires TS/SAP + full-scope poly to access.

But the idea that somehow all FB messages are thoroughly searched seems .. unlikely.

The German article says the girl 'found a nice family' and had 'a regular contact with her guest dad'. How unlikely is it, that the guest dad - or someone with access to his account .. - notified the border control?

I refuse to believe in the Orwellian surveillance theory here and put my money on a jealous spouse.

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/crcl-bor...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/13380622263/9th-ci...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/israel-airport-emai...

I still cringe about multiple 'turn on the computer' scenes in Tel Aviv, where 'turn it on' obviously (..) wasn't satisfied by pressing the button, nor by logging in: I had to 'open a file, just any file' (the clueless guys would be impatient by now, being annoyed by my failure to understand this useless requirement). Usually I chose a default windows wallpaper -> Done.

Braindead, waste of time.

Login screen simulators are old tech. Friends of mine used to run them on the terminals at the college I studied at in the 80s to harvest other student's account details. Nowadays they're a lot more sophisticated. If you think you know more about security than the Israelis you're sadly mistaken.

You do realize that the process I'm talking about happens after they (always.. always.. sigh) x-rayed your belongings like everywhere else and (this is special, I get that treatment every time) polished all my electronic equipment with their 'sniffer' pads for traces of whatever explosives I might've built into my laptop?

That totally ignores that both times that I had to do this weird 'proof it works' dance by .. clicking myself, doing what came to my mind (and what I considered nonsense). If your world allows for a cramped micro controller that kind of simulates an OS booting, plus the login screen: Hey, let me raise you a Raspberry Pi in a laptop case, that __actually_ runs a full operating system.

It's bullshit, there's no way to make it better.

Disclaimer: I like the country, love Tel Aviv and certainly don't claim to be an expert on terrorism. But I can recognize IT related crap when I see it.

The entire "turn on the computer" check is idiotic security theater. Either they can tell if there is a bomb in the computer anyway through other means (in which case why are they bothering to do that check?) or they cannot (in which case, how can they possibly hope to catch anything?). My money is obviously on the first.

Asking people to turn on their computers is like a doctor taking your temperature with the back of his hand on your forehead.. right before actually using the digital thermometer anyway.

You may be over-estimating the classification level here. The government classification isn't about protecting the secrets of private citizens, only government secrets. I have some experience in this field - handling fingerprints of non-criminals which were classified at the bare minimum for the agency. It would not surprise me if any non-specific NSA drag-net data itself was not classified any higher than CUI - controlled unclassified information.

Using that logic, Facebook private messages supplied courtesy of the NSA would be highly classified, considering their collection mechanism would be PRISM or similar closely-held programs.

> I have some experience in this field - handling fingerprints of non-criminals which were classified at the bare minimum for the agency.

Fingerprint data is available to nearly every local law enforcement organization in the country. There's no mystery about the collection method. It's a foregone conclusion that it's aggregated up the chain.

As other comments have said, if immigration officials were using NSA-supplied data, it would likely be in vague, aggregate form that did not hint at the underlying collection mechanism.

BTW, unless something has changed since I was last in west virginia, fingerprint info is not widely available in the general case. You take prints from an arrestee or latents from an object, you send them to IAFIS for matching and they return hits which may not even include a copy of the matched prints depending on the circumstances.

As far as fingerprints, I agree the interface available to IAFIS database end-users may be restrictive. However, due to the highly aggregated nature of the data, and the fact it's maintained for law enforcement by law enforcement (namely the FBI), people expect it to be available to a myriad of government agencies (which it is).

With Facebook private messages, you expect only Facebook employees (or partners) to have access, or in special cases government via warrant or subpoena. Major tech companies took a fairly large PR hit following the news of NSA having wholesale access to their systems, precisely because of these expectations.

If the headline was instead "FBI grants NSA full unrestricted IAFIS access." nobody would bat an eye, because it's expected. The FBI is heavily involved in national security affairs themselves.

My point was, the sensitivity of the collection method is a major factor in determining the classification level of the data. The PRISM leak is a prime example of this.

What I believe is that if the NSA are already monitoring someone for whatever reason and see evidence of law-breaking that they would call up an appropriately cleared contact in the relevant agency and say, hey you should look into this person. The agency is free to run with it from there, using whatever tools with minimal oversight are available to them and no need to even mention the NSA after that point.

In fact, I believe that the number of actual terrorists is so small that such (ab)uses of the system are inevitable. In the same way that all the federal money for SWAT training of police departments has resulted in SWAT teams being deployed for all manner of low-risk situations, there just ain't enough real work for them to do so the mission creeps.

This may well be the same- even if the girl did not intend to show those messages to the border control agents, they can search her suitcase for evidence to then later present to her. So, to the extent that the word "provided" does not also imply "voluntarily", I suspect you're right.

The only evidence I have submitted to a half dozen employers of my right to work in the United States (because it's all I've ever been given) - is a cardboard I-94, filled out by me, no less, with a faint, blue stamp and date, and a (once again handwritten, this time by ICE agent) "Class: TN, Until: 07 Oct 2015". No Serial Number, no tracking number - just a stamp and visa class.

Not trying to scare you, just noting that I have had at least one friend on TN's who tried to bridge their status without filing a proper change in status ( ie. to B-2 as soon as you quit/are let go from your old employer, to be eligible to stay without packing up your apartment) and were banned from re-entry for 2 years.

I have had several TN's over the past 16 years and the only trouble I have had was primary border guard overreach once or twice (they felt I had been in the USA long enough, arbitrarily. Secondary review fixed that.)

I did not realize I could file a change in status if my old job concluded before I got a new one. In 2003, I finished up with a company, and my last, "Paid Day" as an employee was September 26th, but I wasn't required to come into the office for the last two weeks - so my last day in the office was around September 12th, a friday. By Sunday, September 14th, I had emptied my apartment, packed up all my possessions, and had returned to Canada.

Returning to Canada after an extended stay and then returning to the US, you will almost always be questioned.

Stamps are old school, they log your passport or NEXUS on each entry/exit in their system.

Of course, if you were working for yourself (freelance), there are no employment verification checks.

The key word being "apparently", i.e. bad journalism, jumping to conclusions for a more sensationalist story.

Edit: just noticed you had written "my translation", not "the translation". My German is nowhere good enough to translate the article, I'm just working off Google's.