4 ms·

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review. The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one

Communications are already being monitored by random government employees with no judicial review. The FISA court is already a rubber stamp. Encryption is one of the only ways to non-passively protest. Edit: Can't reply to my replies, likely because of the down votes on my parent's comment. Re: FISA, yes to both. That anecdote may be truth but I am still hung up on NSA employee looking up ex-girlfriends' emails the day he got access to do so. Re: Army, you aren't wrong but that's not encouraging. It's true, at the end of the day the most powerful military will win. But it's an argument that only wins against those with something to lose, like people who care about their family or nation states with a future. I guess that's why the ultimate response over a long enough timeline to an unbeatable military force is terrorism.

mozumder 11y ago
Again, good luck building your own army. My army can beat your army. As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.
- ross-life 11y ago
  > As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court. This opinion is just nuts. Trust a court that you were told for years didn't even exist? A secret court? How about no. Secret courts lead to abuses: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jo-shaw/secret-courts-8-nightmare-scenarios-now-possible-in-britain-0 https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jo-shaw/secret-cour...
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Would you prefer if there were NO judicial oversight? Because the only way to oversee top-secret data is with a top-secret court.
  - schoen 11y ago
    The existence of the FISA Court has never been a secret. It was created by FISA in 1978 and is right there in the text of the statute. Even the members of the FISA Court are publicly disclosed (they're all existing Federal judges who are appointed to temporary terms). What is secret about the FISA Court is its decisions, not its existence (and that should change slightly as a result of the USA Freedom Act's requirement to release "significant" opinions).
    - ross-life 11y ago
      As a European that still effectively screams "secret court" to me, just with some word games around it. Part of the problem is the US also broadly applies "Top Secret" to too much information, even the mundane, so then it "has to go to the secret court because it's "Top Secret".
      - schoen 11y ago
        Oh, I'm happy with the description of the FISA Court as a "secret court"; I just wanted to answer the misconception that this means people didn't know that the court existed. Interestingly, regular courts can and do hear cases involving classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedu... It's not that cases involving classified information somehow get transferred to the FISA Court; instead, the FISA Court only hears cases involving surveillance requests arising under FISA.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  > As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court. Not only must justice be done but justice must be seen to be done. If we can't audit or inspect the courts then there is zero assurance they are acting in a lawful or moral manner. The whole point of courts is so that people can't make shady deals in back rooms.
- mikerichards 11y ago
  My army can beat your army. That army that you keep on claiming is yours is closer politically to libertarian than you are to the army.
- ibejoeb 11y ago
  That's entirely antithetical to a system of checks a balances. Distrust has always been a key part of the framework.
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Which is why we don't give the Judicial branch an armed military force, and that we can impeach them.
arkem 11y ago
I hear this a lot, what is the basis of considering the FISA court merely a rubber stamp? Is it the approval rate? Is it the lack of transparency? If it's the approval rate, in my experience the reason why court warrant approvals are so high is because intelligence / law enforcement are very risk adverse and will not submit requests that are likely to be rejected. Anecdotally, the officers I talked to considered it career poison to submit a request that got rejected by a court.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  In 35,000 requests, they denied 12. Either the NSA is really accurate or something smells.
  - arkem 11y ago
    I think it shows that they have an excellent understanding of their authorizing legislation. It also reflects that unlike other types of warrants the court can request revisions or additional information before making a decision and requests can be withdrawn before a formal rejection can take place. Some estimates put the reject/withdrawal rate closer to 25% Some more information: https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-tougher-media-says https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-t... https://web.archive.org/web/20140402093319/http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/honorable-patrick-leahy.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140402093319/http://www.uscour...
- arkem 11y ago
  tehwebguy: I'd prefer if you replied to me in a separate post rather than editing in a reply to your post. It makes it hard for me to respond. In a way I'm heartened by stories about NSA employees acting inappropriately, it means that they're being caught and disciplined and the Office of the Inspector General is doing its job. If it was routine and accepted it wouldn't be a newsworthy story and the inspector general. That said, I don't think employee abuses have much bearing on the effectiveness of the FISA court as a source of judicial oversight for intelligence operations inside the United States.
- Findeton 11y ago

mozumder 11y ago

Again, good luck building your own army. My army can beat your army. As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court.

ross-life 11y ago
> As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court. This opinion is just nuts. Trust a court that you were told for years didn't even exist? A secret court? How about no. Secret courts lead to abuses: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jo-shaw/secret-courts-8-nightmare-scenarios-now-possible-in-britain-0 https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/jo-shaw/secret-cour...
- mozumder 11y ago
  Would you prefer if there were NO judicial oversight? Because the only way to oversee top-secret data is with a top-secret court.
- schoen 11y ago
  The existence of the FISA Court has never been a secret. It was created by FISA in 1978 and is right there in the text of the statute. Even the members of the FISA Court are publicly disclosed (they're all existing Federal judges who are appointed to temporary terms). What is secret about the FISA Court is its decisions, not its existence (and that should change slightly as a result of the USA Freedom Act's requirement to release "significant" opinions).
  - ross-life 11y ago
    As a European that still effectively screams "secret court" to me, just with some word games around it. Part of the problem is the US also broadly applies "Top Secret" to too much information, even the mundane, so then it "has to go to the secret court because it's "Top Secret".
    - schoen 11y ago
      Oh, I'm happy with the description of the FISA Court as a "secret court"; I just wanted to answer the misconception that this means people didn't know that the court existed. Interestingly, regular courts can and do hear cases involving classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedu... It's not that cases involving classified information somehow get transferred to the FISA Court; instead, the FISA Court only hears cases involving surveillance requests arising under FISA.
noir_lord 11y ago
> As a citizen, you are expected to trust the FISA court. Not only must justice be done but justice must be seen to be done. If we can't audit or inspect the courts then there is zero assurance they are acting in a lawful or moral manner. The whole point of courts is so that people can't make shady deals in back rooms.
mikerichards 11y ago
My army can beat your army. That army that you keep on claiming is yours is closer politically to libertarian than you are to the army.
ibejoeb 11y ago
That's entirely antithetical to a system of checks a balances. Distrust has always been a key part of the framework.
- mozumder 11y ago
  Which is why we don't give the Judicial branch an armed military force, and that we can impeach them.

arkem 11y ago

I hear this a lot, what is the basis of considering the FISA court merely a rubber stamp? Is it the approval rate? Is it the lack of transparency? If it's the approval rate, in my experience the reason why court warrant approvals are so high is because intelligence / law enforcement are very risk adverse and will not submit requests that are likely to be rejected. Anecdotally, the officers I talked to considered it career poison to submit a request that got rejected by a court.

noir_lord 11y ago
In 35,000 requests, they denied 12. Either the NSA is really accurate or something smells.
- arkem 11y ago
  I think it shows that they have an excellent understanding of their authorizing legislation. It also reflects that unlike other types of warrants the court can request revisions or additional information before making a decision and requests can be withdrawn before a formal rejection can take place. Some estimates put the reject/withdrawal rate closer to 25% Some more information: https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-tougher-media-says https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-t... https://web.archive.org/web/20140402093319/http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/honorable-patrick-leahy.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20140402093319/http://www.uscour...
arkem 11y ago
tehwebguy: I'd prefer if you replied to me in a separate post rather than editing in a reply to your post. It makes it hard for me to respond. In a way I'm heartened by stories about NSA employees acting inappropriately, it means that they're being caught and disciplined and the Office of the Inspector General is doing its job. If it was routine and accepted it wouldn't be a newsworthy story and the inspector general. That said, I don't think employee abuses have much bearing on the effectiveness of the FISA court as a source of judicial oversight for intelligence operations inside the United States.
Findeton 11y ago