3 ms·

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

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.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities;
    - bladegash 6y ago
      EO 12333 says the FBI can conduct foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; then it states if those activities take place regardless of authorities it must be done by the FBI; FISA then lays out statutory requirements in order to carry out the authorities specifically as they relate to US persons. So no, the author is not correct. Or maybe a more generous way to put it is their point was incomplete in a substantive way. I’m not sure where the miscommunication is taking place.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        The miscommunication seems to that you are taking it as a given that the FBI is acting in good faith, despite the history of both the organization and the use of EO 12333. Former government officials have said that the order is used to justify vast amounts of "incidental" collection, allowing the FBI to find one FISA approved target and commit the surveillance described.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

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.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >In other words...EO 12333 specifically authorizes activities for the FBI as they relate to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities;
  - bladegash 6y ago
    EO 12333 says the FBI can conduct foreign intelligence and counterintelligence activities; then it states if those activities take place regardless of authorities it must be done by the FBI; FISA then lays out statutory requirements in order to carry out the authorities specifically as they relate to US persons. So no, the author is not correct. Or maybe a more generous way to put it is their point was incomplete in a substantive way. I’m not sure where the miscommunication is taking place.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      The miscommunication seems to that you are taking it as a given that the FBI is acting in good faith, despite the history of both the organization and the use of EO 12333. Former government officials have said that the order is used to justify vast amounts of "incidental" collection, allowing the FBI to find one FISA approved target and commit the surveillance described.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]