4 ms·

A system similar to this was already in place for warrantless surveillance, the FISA courts, which have become a rubber stamp. These systems that are supposed

A system similar to this was already in place for warrantless surveillance, the FISA courts, which have become a rubber stamp. These systems that are supposed to be a check on state power eventually become far too comfortable with the agencies they are supposed to have an adversarial relationship with.

gameman144 4y ago
I don't have any experience in this area, but how would one know that the FISA courts are a rubber stamp, as opposed to the requests being brought to the court being only the most reasonable and well-defined ones? It seems like from the outside the observable effect would be the same (high warrant-granting rate), but the reality between the two is very different.
- sc68cal 4y ago
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-surveillance-court-rubber-stamps-mass-surveillance-under https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-s...
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    The issue with this editorial is that it quotes the Chief Justice. The next sentence should be: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unilaterally appoints all FISA judges himself.
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  Two details: Only recently has FISA been expanded to allow an amici role for government-licensed attorneys to argue against certain requests. We’ve kind of had three phases of FISA: Church commission FISA rejected 4 out of 25,000 requests. And those were approved after re-submission. Numbers like that cannot refute rubber stamp allegations. Then, after 2001, submissions started getting wild. The rejection rate and public statements seemed to show some friction between branches. Then, cooly around 2013, FISA seemed to allow requests on American citizens. By 2017, Wrey was arguing that FBI depended on this. And only lately do we have the amici roles.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gameman144 4y ago
    Ah, this is super interesting, thanks for the insight!
    - ttyprintk 4y ago
      For some reason, Wikipedia doesn’t provide its usual level of detail on the FISA court page. Amendments to FISA look like: 1978, formed out of the Church commission 1994, business communications added to scope, and surveillance might be physical. “Business” would eventually include GPS and cell tower locating information kept by cell provider businesses. 2007, expanded to legitimize a dragnet for cases where foreign agents are included among bulk collection. I say legitimize because in 2005 the intelligence community was busted surpassing the bounds permitted by law. Retroactive immunity of telecom companies is one of the more interesting policy debates, I think. Since 2008, it has been renewed by every President. While Snowden is perhaps the most prominent face of what the public is permitted to know, Trump campaigner Carter Page is the most prominent FISA target. Any American citizen is legally protected by FISA unless they’re a foreign agent. Page acted suspiciously like he was being paid by Russia to courier information. I think we can conclude that the FISA court acted in their typical knee jerk fashion to allow surveillance without bothering with civil rights; four times. The DoJ would eventually conclude it did not have probable cause to surveil Page. Republican legislators felt Page needed to be protected, and he became the face for some changes to FISA. Carter Page lied about trips to Moscow. Depending on your politics, this might be to cover up crimes, or you might fantasize that he was on a secret mission. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also lied about the trips. Anyway, fighting for changes to the kind of suspicion FISA is allowed to investigate is based on Page lying about when he was in Moscow. The material unconstitutionally gathered on Page is tightly guarded by the government. His lawsuits have been thrown out. Having been at one time such a prominent victim that he was changing FISA law, he would later be described by the White House as an unknown.

gameman144 4y ago

I don't have any experience in this area, but how would one know that the FISA courts are a rubber stamp, as opposed to the requests being brought to the court being only the most reasonable and well-defined ones? It seems like from the outside the observable effect would be the same (high warrant-granting rate), but the reality between the two is very different.

sc68cal 4y ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-surveillance-court-rubber-stamps-mass-surveillance-under https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/foriegn-intelligence-s...
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  The issue with this editorial is that it quotes the Chief Justice. The next sentence should be: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court unilaterally appoints all FISA judges himself.
ttyprintk 4y ago
Two details: Only recently has FISA been expanded to allow an amici role for government-licensed attorneys to argue against certain requests. We’ve kind of had three phases of FISA: Church commission FISA rejected 4 out of 25,000 requests. And those were approved after re-submission. Numbers like that cannot refute rubber stamp allegations. Then, after 2001, submissions started getting wild. The rejection rate and public statements seemed to show some friction between branches. Then, cooly around 2013, FISA seemed to allow requests on American citizens. By 2017, Wrey was arguing that FBI depended on this. And only lately do we have the amici roles.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gameman144 4y ago
  Ah, this is super interesting, thanks for the insight!
  - ttyprintk 4y ago
    For some reason, Wikipedia doesn’t provide its usual level of detail on the FISA court page. Amendments to FISA look like: 1978, formed out of the Church commission 1994, business communications added to scope, and surveillance might be physical. “Business” would eventually include GPS and cell tower locating information kept by cell provider businesses. 2007, expanded to legitimize a dragnet for cases where foreign agents are included among bulk collection. I say legitimize because in 2005 the intelligence community was busted surpassing the bounds permitted by law. Retroactive immunity of telecom companies is one of the more interesting policy debates, I think. Since 2008, it has been renewed by every President. While Snowden is perhaps the most prominent face of what the public is permitted to know, Trump campaigner Carter Page is the most prominent FISA target. Any American citizen is legally protected by FISA unless they’re a foreign agent. Page acted suspiciously like he was being paid by Russia to courier information. I think we can conclude that the FISA court acted in their typical knee jerk fashion to allow surveillance without bothering with civil rights; four times. The DoJ would eventually conclude it did not have probable cause to surveil Page. Republican legislators felt Page needed to be protected, and he became the face for some changes to FISA. Carter Page lied about trips to Moscow. Depending on your politics, this might be to cover up crimes, or you might fantasize that he was on a secret mission. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also lied about the trips. Anyway, fighting for changes to the kind of suspicion FISA is allowed to investigate is based on Page lying about when he was in Moscow. The material unconstitutionally gathered on Page is tightly guarded by the government. His lawsuits have been thrown out. Having been at one time such a prominent victim that he was changing FISA law, he would later be described by the White House as an unknown.