Feds want data on ATN Electronic Scope App Users

D

Double Naught Spy

New member
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/thomas...-10000-users-of-a-gun-scope-app/#46dcf27c6135
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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??
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

?? DOJ? THE Federal Government DOJ?
 
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??
Click to expand...
Member this?

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And don't download the AP...
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You are already being electronically surveilled for commercial and marketing purposes, eventually it will be big brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top