3 ms·

From the article: "Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply and the government can troll through it for whatever la

From the article: "____Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply____ and the government can troll through it for whatever law enforcement purpose it wants without having to worry about getting a pesky warrant." (emphasis mine) You're not addressing this which I think is the point. The relevant section from the ruling's conclusion: "The government shall promptly submit in writing a report concerning each instance after December 4, 2015, in which FBI personnel receive and review Section 702-acquired information that the FBI identifies as concerning a United States person in response to a query that is not designed to find and extract foreign intelligence information. The report should include a detailed description of the information at issue and the manner in which it has been or will be used for analytical, investigative, or evidentiary purposes. It shall also identify the query terms used to elicit the information and provide the FBI's basis for concluding that the query is consistent with the applicable minimization procedures." In other words, the FBI can query for data related to US persons without a warrant and justify it later with a report to the FISC.

DannyBee 11y ago
""____Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply____ and the government can troll through it for whatever law enforcement purpose it wants without having to worry about getting a pesky warrant." (emphasis mine)" Except, I did: This is, as i pointed out, exactly what the statute allows and has been allowed since 2002! Again, see In Re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (F.I.S.C. 2002) which makes very clear this is the case: "The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). " This isn't new by a longshot, and it's been okay'd by other courts other than this one, because that's what the statute says. In fact, In Re Sealed case came about, because the FISA court tried to stop what the EFF is complaining about, and the government appealed. That is, their decision was "you can't use this for ordinary crimes". The government appealed, the reviewing court said fisa must allow them to use it for what they want, as per the statute. So yeah, blaming the FISA court is silly, since they tried to stop this once already. And calling this new or news is 14 years too late.
- chishaku 11y ago
  Except, you didn't. None of your previous references make clear what the reference you just added now does which is that the minimization procedures allow for retention and dissemination of __non-foreign intelligence__ information which is evidence of __ordinary crimes__. I can see in your previous comment where that might have been what you meant but leaving out the keywords I emphasized is cause for confusion. In any case, arguing over whether or not the content of this statute is "news" is just a distraction. The EFF is challenging this statute and its application as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Despite the amicus agreeing at least in part, the court decided to uphold the statute and to continue allowing warrantless querying for ordinary crimes. News or not, this is cause for concern and I applaud the EFF in its efforts to do something about it.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    If you read the opinion, instead of the PR, it makes clear exactly what I said, with citations and everything. So I'm just going to assume you didn't bother to read it. The EFF has done literally nothing here except the press release and blaming a court that already took the EFF's position once and got beat down for it. I don't applaud them when they know this, and write a press release blaming the court, instead of complaining how hamstrung they are by precedent. This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form.
    - chishaku 11y ago
      > it makes clear exactly what I said It does make clear what you tried to say. Leaving out keywords makes it hard to have a productive conversation. > This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form. Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. When the court upholds legal precedent and current statutes to allow warrantless querying of indiscriminately collected data by the FBI for ordinary crimes, many concerned citizens and casual observers would like to know about it. Again, more thanks to the EFF. While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF. If you do have alternative sources for info on FISC, its rulings and other legal apparatus involved in trampling Fourth Amendment rights, I'd be glad to check them out.

From the article: "____Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply____ and the government can troll through it for whatever la

DannyBee 11y ago

""____Once it has communications in its custody, those limitations no longer apply____ and the government can troll through it for whatever law enforcement purpose it wants without having to worry about getting a pesky warrant." (emphasis mine)" Except, I did: This is, as i pointed out, exactly what the statute allows and has been allowed since 2002! Again, see In Re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (F.I.S.C. 2002) which makes very clear this is the case: "The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). " This isn't new by a longshot, and it's been okay'd by other courts other than this one, because that's what the statute says. In fact, In Re Sealed case came about, because the FISA court tried to stop what the EFF is complaining about, and the government appealed. That is, their decision was "you can't use this for ordinary crimes". The government appealed, the reviewing court said fisa must allow them to use it for what they want, as per the statute. So yeah, blaming the FISA court is silly, since they tried to stop this once already. And calling this new or news is 14 years too late.

chishaku 11y ago
Except, you didn't. None of your previous references make clear what the reference you just added now does which is that the minimization procedures allow for retention and dissemination of __non-foreign intelligence__ information which is evidence of __ordinary crimes__. I can see in your previous comment where that might have been what you meant but leaving out the keywords I emphasized is cause for confusion. In any case, arguing over whether or not the content of this statute is "news" is just a distraction. The EFF is challenging this statute and its application as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Despite the amicus agreeing at least in part, the court decided to uphold the statute and to continue allowing warrantless querying for ordinary crimes. News or not, this is cause for concern and I applaud the EFF in its efforts to do something about it.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  If you read the opinion, instead of the PR, it makes clear exactly what I said, with citations and everything. So I'm just going to assume you didn't bother to read it. The EFF has done literally nothing here except the press release and blaming a court that already took the EFF's position once and got beat down for it. I don't applaud them when they know this, and write a press release blaming the court, instead of complaining how hamstrung they are by precedent. This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form.
  - chishaku 11y ago
    > it makes clear exactly what I said It does make clear what you tried to say. Leaving out keywords makes it hard to have a productive conversation. > This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form. Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. When the court upholds legal precedent and current statutes to allow warrantless querying of indiscriminately collected data by the FBI for ordinary crimes, many concerned citizens and casual observers would like to know about it. Again, more thanks to the EFF. While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF. If you do have alternative sources for info on FISC, its rulings and other legal apparatus involved in trampling Fourth Amendment rights, I'd be glad to check them out.