5 ms·
Lawmakers push 702 reauthorization requiring warrant to access info on Americans
- ortusdux 3y agoFor those interested, I highly recommend The Lawfare podcast episodes wherein "Members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board discuss their recent report on FISA Sec. 702." https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-part-one-of-the-pclob-on-fisa-section-702 https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-par... Direct link to the PCLOB report: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23993279/2023-pclob-702-report.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23993279/2023-pclob-7...
- favorited 3y agoI'll also recommend the latest episode (#242) of the National Security Law Podcast, which included a spirited discussion about 702's Constitutionality w.r.t. querying already-collected metadata of Americans. https://www.nationalsecuritylawpodcast.com/episode-242-a-rule-of-law-and-punctuation-free-episode/ https://www.nationalsecuritylawpodcast.com/episode-242-a-rul...
- chmod775 3y ago> “There are some red lines. And one of those red lines is the operationally unworkable and fundamentally inept requirement to go to a court before accessing already lawfully collected information… What a pathetic attempt at weasel language. Are they saying it would be better to make collecting it in the first place illegal? Great suggestion! They continue: > "This is something we think is both the wrong fit for what we’re doing, and operationally unworkable,” That is the point - They've been caught doing things they shouldn't be, so this bill makes being naughty "operationally unworkable". > “For us, it remains a red line not to have to go to a court and lose the operational window to stop an assassination attempt to prevent ransomware, to stop a senior government official’s email account from being hacked.” At this point these powers in hands that have proven themselves to be untrustworthy are scarier than any bogeyman they could conjure. Try again.
- nimbius 3y agoSeems like what lawmakers really want is to maintain a convenient checkvalve for parallel construction.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> what lawmakers really want is to maintain a convenient checkvalve for parallel construction Lawmakers are keeping the warrant requirement. It's the administration pushing back.
- bennettnate5 3y agoIt sounds like they're _introducing_ the warrant requirement, rather than keeping it. No court warrant was needed prior to this proposed law.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoFunny how I can't get lawfully collected bodycam recordings (public domain in my state) without mass redactions trying to hide the police officer's incompetence.
- onthecanposting 3y agoI think so much illegal surveillance has been outsourced to the somewhat-private sector, which is so widely abused, that the only obstacle is a plausible explanation that the information could have been obtained lawfully. All disappointing but not shocking.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anon373839 3y agoIf these are FISA warrants, the whole thing is meaningless. The FISA court is truly a rubber stamp. ”During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intell...
- bradknowles 3y agoJust having to go in front of a judge is a chilling effect. And IMO that chilling effect is exactly the first step that we need. That keeps the worst of the worst from even making it across the line. Now, there's a lot more that we also need, but this is a necessary first step.