4 ms·

> You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law If you believe that they do, I've got a bridge to sell you. Congress is entirely derelict i

> You may or may not believe the NSA actually complies with the law If you believe that they do, I've got a bridge to sell you. Congress is entirely derelict in their duties of holding them accountable, and has been for a very long time.

atoav 5y ago
It is also the wrong question. In practise (as shown by the snowden revalations) the actual question is not if the secret services comply with the law — it is whether the law complies with the secret services. In most nations where illegal practises came to light these illegal practises have been legalized after the fact. The breaches of fundamental laws that happened before have gone unpunished. So to say secret services comply with the law is really a bit rich, given that when they don't law is usually adjusted to fit their behaviour with no punishments for any wrongdoing.
- mnowicki 5y ago
  I recall hearing that the NSA was able to get permission to collect/access certain data by having private 'hearings', and in one of these private hearings they ruled that these hearings don't need to be disclosed to the public. I'm very fuzzy on the details, but basically the idea is that they can get permission to do things that we think are illegal, and make these things legal. The law is basically just a formality they have to go through to do what they wanted to do in the first place
tunap 5y ago
Derelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable. >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ... the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). Emphasis mine.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  So if surveillance doesn’t last 72 hours (one and done), does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing a FISA warrant?
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    I’m actually kinda interested if the “surveillance” is retroactive. Meaning, do they have 72 hours to go through everything that’s already out there in the ether about you or is it more “you can only look at active communications for 72 hours and after that you need a court order”.
  - pc86 5y ago
    "72 hours after the beginning of surveillance" is pretty clear cut, isn't it? You need a warrant even if you surveille someone for 30 seconds. You just have the ability to get it after the fact.
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      There is never supposed to be a guarantee that you can get the warrant. So you can show up in court and not bother to make a case and then you’ll not get the warrant but have your data.

atoav 5y ago

It is also the wrong question. In practise (as shown by the snowden revalations) the actual question is not if the secret services comply with the law — it is whether the law complies with the secret services. In most nations where illegal practises came to light these illegal practises have been legalized after the fact. The breaches of fundamental laws that happened before have gone unpunished. So to say secret services comply with the law is really a bit rich, given that when they don't law is usually adjusted to fit their behaviour with no punishments for any wrongdoing.

mnowicki 5y ago
I recall hearing that the NSA was able to get permission to collect/access certain data by having private 'hearings', and in one of these private hearings they ruled that these hearings don't need to be disclosed to the public. I'm very fuzzy on the details, but basically the idea is that they can get permission to do things that we think are illegal, and make these things legal. The law is basically just a formality they have to go through to do what they wanted to do in the first place

tunap 5y ago

Derelict? Perhaps. Complicit? Probable. >FISA specifies two documents for the authorization of surveillance. First, FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that ... the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(3). Emphasis mine.

ComputerGuru 5y ago
So if surveillance doesn’t last 72 hours (one and done), does this verbiage leave any wiggle room for not needing a FISA warrant?
- remarkEon 5y ago
  I’m actually kinda interested if the “surveillance” is retroactive. Meaning, do they have 72 hours to go through everything that’s already out there in the ether about you or is it more “you can only look at active communications for 72 hours and after that you need a court order”.
- pc86 5y ago
  "72 hours after the beginning of surveillance" is pretty clear cut, isn't it? You need a warrant even if you surveille someone for 30 seconds. You just have the ability to get it after the fact.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    There is never supposed to be a guarantee that you can get the warrant. So you can show up in court and not bother to make a case and then you’ll not get the warrant but have your data.