5 ms·

I'm curious how many of these "NSL"s actually have anything to do with actual national security investigations, or if they are just defaulted to if there is a p

I'm curious how many of these "NSL"s actually have anything to do with actual national security investigations, or if they are just defaulted to if there is a politically plausible excuse that it has something to do with national security. For example: NSL used to go after an ISIS propagandist working within the United States and is a US citizen. They've got information he is talking to ISIS/ISIL via an NSA intercept. They know who he is, he is pretty well involved and known to be involved in radical Islamic terrorist activities and social circles, to the FBI and others. They NSL to get information with the gag required to not tip off and close up the whole cell or disclose IC practices used against foreign adversaries. However, I can see this case being more likely: US Citizen on Twitter quotes the Qu'ran a lot, and writes a lot in Arabic. One day they quote a verse that sounds militant, or say something that seems like it may be an indirect frustration with USG, US citizens, or @-replies somebody who is within a couple of degrees of an investigated radical. Some keyword search FBI runs on the Twitter firehose picks this up and an analyst says "eh, this guy looks sketchy." FBI wants info, doesn't want to cycle through the courts, and knows they can NSL and say it's "because terrorism", even though the person in question is more being profiled for something innocuous than they are actively involved in anything radical (i.e. it's perfectly legal to be a religious Muslim in the United States.) I've a feeling more often than not this is water taking the path of least resistance, and it's easier for special agents to issue these and that's why they issue them so often. Unfortunately we only get to see what an NSL looks like, but I'm curious who the guy is they were going after and what "national security" threat this guy really is or was.

click170 10y ago
I honestly believe people working for three letter agencies don't see this as a distinction. They're both "because terrorism" and technically, that's correct. You and I can probably agree that one of them is overreach, but I don't trust that they have internal mechanisms to discourage overreach - that would be counter to their interests. Edit: Clarification
- micaksica 10y ago
  This is dangerous and this banality of the process is what will lead us to an actual authoritarian state. The FBI is made up of humans and humans are lazy as well as judged on the effectiveness of their jobs. Regardless of if you are an American paladin-cop or a boring FBI bureaucrat, you're going to take the path that makes it easier for you. And aside from a few underfunded, underpowered civil liberties groups bringing a swarm of mosquitoes to the firefight, the FBI/DOJ has the real power here. They get to use the virtually limitless funds of citizens to operate in the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, depending upon what is advantageous, and will issue charges on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, depending on what is advantageous. The depressing fact of the matter is that the natsec apparatus will remain the winning side until mainstream perspectives on policing change; this "victory" rings hollow and the fact that it took years to publish a redacted note is overall worth as much fanfare cutting a rhinoceros with a razor blade. We're celebrating a slaying of the beast right before it goes and gores somebody else. (I'm celebrating too, but I'm not going to deny it's more for morale than substance.) For non-activists, though, it is easier to believe that the system works as intended and people want to trust that it works as intended. I don't think America is truly authoritarian as much as it is too lazy to pay attention until either the guns are pointed at them or the panem et circenses dry up, but by then it's too late. I don't actually blame the FBI or any TLA here. If we don't like this, the finger should be pointed at anyone who encourages this behavior or turns a blind eye to it.
  - RCortex 10y ago
    > though, it is easier to believe that the system works as intended and people want to trust that it works as intended. I don't think America is truly authoritarian as much as it is too lazy to pay attention until either the guns are... I wonder if people just don't know how to make a difference. I wonder what would happen if schools taught activism as part of social studies. The idea itself is absolutely hilarious. A lot needs to be taught in social studies, like just getting kids to get along adequately
darawk 10y ago
TBH i'd be fairly happy if it was either of those two cases. The second is obviously an overreach, but i'd be willing to bet these use these NSLs on things wholly unrelated to terrorism. Drug investigations, organized crime, etc.. Anything can be related to national security if you stretch it far enough.
- micaksica 10y ago
  IMO crime can be separated usually to be either anti-ideology (emotional-psychological fanaticism), such as terrorists, rapists, murderers that are fanatically enveloped in something against the status quo of behavior, or anti-commercial (property destruction and crime, fraud, "white collar" crimes) in which somebody's money/goods are being misdirected or misused. The first is usually "terrorism" or "terroristic" behavior. As for the latter, we have thankfully come up with a novel definition of "economic terrorism". So you're probably right.
  - jholman 10y ago
    Which one of those categories does jaywalking fall into? Smoking pot? Drunk driving? Selling drugs? Smuggling? Illegal sex acts? Negligent manslaughter? Domestic violence?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

click170 10y ago

I honestly believe people working for three letter agencies don't see this as a distinction. They're both "because terrorism" and technically, that's correct. You and I can probably agree that one of them is overreach, but I don't trust that they have internal mechanisms to discourage overreach - that would be counter to their interests. Edit: Clarification

micaksica 10y ago
This is dangerous and this banality of the process is what will lead us to an actual authoritarian state. The FBI is made up of humans and humans are lazy as well as judged on the effectiveness of their jobs. Regardless of if you are an American paladin-cop or a boring FBI bureaucrat, you're going to take the path that makes it easier for you. And aside from a few underfunded, underpowered civil liberties groups bringing a swarm of mosquitoes to the firefight, the FBI/DOJ has the real power here. They get to use the virtually limitless funds of citizens to operate in the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, depending upon what is advantageous, and will issue charges on the letter of the law or the spirit of the law, depending on what is advantageous. The depressing fact of the matter is that the natsec apparatus will remain the winning side until mainstream perspectives on policing change; this "victory" rings hollow and the fact that it took years to publish a redacted note is overall worth as much fanfare cutting a rhinoceros with a razor blade. We're celebrating a slaying of the beast right before it goes and gores somebody else. (I'm celebrating too, but I'm not going to deny it's more for morale than substance.) For non-activists, though, it is easier to believe that the system works as intended and people want to trust that it works as intended. I don't think America is truly authoritarian as much as it is too lazy to pay attention until either the guns are pointed at them or the panem et circenses dry up, but by then it's too late. I don't actually blame the FBI or any TLA here. If we don't like this, the finger should be pointed at anyone who encourages this behavior or turns a blind eye to it.
- RCortex 10y ago
  > though, it is easier to believe that the system works as intended and people want to trust that it works as intended. I don't think America is truly authoritarian as much as it is too lazy to pay attention until either the guns are... I wonder if people just don't know how to make a difference. I wonder what would happen if schools taught activism as part of social studies. The idea itself is absolutely hilarious. A lot needs to be taught in social studies, like just getting kids to get along adequately

darawk 10y ago

TBH i'd be fairly happy if it was either of those two cases. The second is obviously an overreach, but i'd be willing to bet these use these NSLs on things wholly unrelated to terrorism. Drug investigations, organized crime, etc.. Anything can be related to national security if you stretch it far enough.

micaksica 10y ago
IMO crime can be separated usually to be either anti-ideology (emotional-psychological fanaticism), such as terrorists, rapists, murderers that are fanatically enveloped in something against the status quo of behavior, or anti-commercial (property destruction and crime, fraud, "white collar" crimes) in which somebody's money/goods are being misdirected or misused. The first is usually "terrorism" or "terroristic" behavior. As for the latter, we have thankfully come up with a novel definition of "economic terrorism". So you're probably right.
- jholman 10y ago
  Which one of those categories does jaywalking fall into? Smoking pot? Drunk driving? Selling drugs? Smuggling? Illegal sex acts? Negligent manslaughter? Domestic violence?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]