3 ms·

I mean, that's not really a hiccup, it is a cornerstone of intelligence activity authorities. Sure, law enforcement officers can make up a bunch of crap that pr

I mean, that's not really a hiccup, it is a cornerstone of intelligence activity authorities. Sure, law enforcement officers can make up a bunch of crap that provides pretext for an investigation/other activities. However, I think you are misunderstanding the legal definitions and elements for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. The Canadian would not be considered under either definition unless they are acting on behalf of the Canadian Government as an agent of a foreign power. There are specific legal definitions for all these terms that are worth looking into[1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

phobosanomaly 6y ago
From your link, the definition of foreign power includes: "a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons" And, a foreign agent can be: "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power" That kind of language is so loose. A good legal team could easily claim something something something Antifa foreign influence burned down a Target to meet that legal definition.
rmrfstar 6y ago
I think you're being a little naive about how these laws are used. At the end of the day they do a smell test to see if there is a sufficient "foreign nexus". And there always is. 99.9% of the surveillance they do is political and never sees the inside of a court room, so it doesn't matter if their analysis is implausible or made in bad faith. [1] Canadian: check. US citizen who studied abroad: check. US citizen with a foreign partner: check. US citizen with a foreign gardener: probably check. US citizen with a foreign car: check back in 2030. [1] https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%...
- casefields 6y ago
  You've got a point. Plus, using that source only reinforces what a fishing expedition the whole Russia affair was.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
As others have stated, the definition is broad enough to easily abuse. For example, as Wikileaks has been labeled a hostile foreign agent, any (foreign?) donator would justify all surveillance. Further, I can't find a definition for "counterintelligence" on the Cornell site period, though I may have made mistakes in my search. Presumably, they could use that exception to surveil protestors "protecting" them from foreign influence.
- bladegash 6y ago
  It is defined in EO 12333 as well as in 50 USC §401a as, "The term 'counterintelligence' means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities." In theory, they would not legally be able to without a Court Order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. At least not when it concerns unconsented physical searches or electronic surveillance of US persons.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Thanks, I tried to search the entire site for "counterintelligence" and got no results. That seemed unlikely, but I didn't press on. That definition seems to justify surveillance on anyone with a Russian bot twitter follower, or their associates. Basically, every protestor. Likely a convincing argument allowing surveillance of both of us based on this thread could be made. >In theory, they would not legally be able to without a Court Order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court The executive order in question already gives them permission to make such searches. You can argue that a court would find that order unconstitutional, but until such a ruling such a search would be considered legal, and would support what the reporter claims.
    - bladegash 6y ago
      That is not what EO 12333 says/does. It says that if anyone is going to conduct the activities in question in the US, it will only be the FBI. FISA dictates the requirements as to how.

phobosanomaly 6y ago

From your link, the definition of foreign power includes: "a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons" And, a foreign agent can be: "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power" That kind of language is so loose. A good legal team could easily claim something something something Antifa foreign influence burned down a Target to meet that legal definition.

rmrfstar 6y ago

I think you're being a little naive about how these laws are used. At the end of the day they do a smell test to see if there is a sufficient "foreign nexus". And there always is. 99.9% of the surveillance they do is political and never sees the inside of a court room, so it doesn't matter if their analysis is implausible or made in bad faith. [1] Canadian: check. US citizen who studied abroad: check. US citizen with a foreign partner: check. US citizen with a foreign gardener: probably check. US citizen with a foreign car: check back in 2030. [1] https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%...

casefields 6y ago
You've got a point. Plus, using that source only reinforces what a fishing expedition the whole Russia affair was.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

As others have stated, the definition is broad enough to easily abuse. For example, as Wikileaks has been labeled a hostile foreign agent, any (foreign?) donator would justify all surveillance. Further, I can't find a definition for "counterintelligence" on the Cornell site period, though I may have made mistakes in my search. Presumably, they could use that exception to surveil protestors "protecting" them from foreign influence.

bladegash 6y ago
It is defined in EO 12333 as well as in 50 USC §401a as, "The term 'counterintelligence' means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities." In theory, they would not legally be able to without a Court Order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. At least not when it concerns unconsented physical searches or electronic surveillance of US persons.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Thanks, I tried to search the entire site for "counterintelligence" and got no results. That seemed unlikely, but I didn't press on. That definition seems to justify surveillance on anyone with a Russian bot twitter follower, or their associates. Basically, every protestor. Likely a convincing argument allowing surveillance of both of us based on this thread could be made. >In theory, they would not legally be able to without a Court Order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court The executive order in question already gives them permission to make such searches. You can argue that a court would find that order unconstitutional, but until such a ruling such a search would be considered legal, and would support what the reporter claims.
  - bladegash 6y ago
    That is not what EO 12333 says/does. It says that if anyone is going to conduct the activities in question in the US, it will only be the FBI. FISA dictates the requirements as to how.