5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... > FISA warr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... > FISA warrant requests are rarely denied. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while only four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, and another seven being rejected. Over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court granted 33,942 warrants, with only 12 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.[4] This does not include the number of warrants that were modified by the FISA court

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
That they're rarely denied doesn't mean they're a rubber stamp.
- function_seven 3y ago
  That's the literal definition of a "rubber stamp" process! That you won't be denied, that the granting of your request is essentially automatic.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? I think the FBI understands the process and doesn't send flimsy requests in the first place. > four were rejected. If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected?
    - function_seven 3y ago
      When a government makes a court secret, I tend to infer the worst interpretation of the activities they're hiding from us. We have no means of checking whether the FBI is putting any care into their warrant applications. We have no way of knowing if the judges even read the affidavits, or what level of scrutiny they apply to the requests, etc. All we know is that they grant 99.98% of the warrants asked-for. That's a massively suspicious rate of approval that is more likely explained by the rubber stamp than careful consideration and evaluation. Nothing in this world has that kind of success rate without some sort of shenanigans.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        > We have no means of checking whether the FBI is putting any care into their warrant applications. Congress does. > Nothing in this world has that kind of success rate without some sort of shenanigans. That's your assumption. I have a higher success rate of safely driving to work.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        Sure and so far it was only Wyden that even was allowed to shed some light on what is happening behind the curtain and even then, when IC officials are dragged in front that body that is supposed to be the buck where it all stops, IC representative simply lied ( wiki Clapper for more info ). It is silly that all this is happening in plain sight and we still argue like it is some sort of assumption.
    - nostrademons 3y ago
      Would you believe that any process where 18,742 requests were granted and 4 are denied is because of "the quality of each request"? What would you think about a class where 18,742 students passed it and 4 failed it, or a company where 18,742 employees have acceptable performance and 4 are fired?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Exams and performance reviews are designed to rank the things being examined... why would that possibly apply to a warrant evaluation process? You think a good process is one where definitionally 50% of the warrants get rejected? In that case: just file 2x garbage warrant requests so the ones you care about are "correctly" guaranteed to be at the top.
        function_seven 3y ago
        50% would be a lot. I don't know what the optimum number is, but 0.02% (0.0002 rate) is just not plausible. One way to resolve this is to not have secret courts. Then we can judge the merits of these warrant applications in the light of day. If National Security is an issue, then delay the publication of court records by some fixed amount, and require an onerous process to keep the ongoing stuff sealed for those rare cases where it's needed. But in practice, you or I or anyone else should be able to pull up all the warrants issued in 2016, or 1994, or 2021. We should be able to assess the quality of the supporting PC, we should be able to track the success rate of these searches (How many ultimately went nowhere? What was the FBI focused on in a particular year? Etc.) All of this is a bare minimum requirement for a free and open society. Instead we get secret courts and a single statistic (99.98% acceptance rate). That's basically the same as a North Korean approval rating, or the electoral performance of a dictator. It's just too perfect to pass muster.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        > If National Security is an issue, then delay the publication of court records by some fixed amount, and require an onerous process to keep the ongoing stuff sealed for those rare cases where it's needed. Didn't you just describe a secret court? I don't think these records don't exist or are permanently classified.
    - Scoundreller 3y ago
      Probably some critical typo/paperwork issue (submitted to a suddenly dead judge or something). Once re-submitted, it was stamped. Or it was a duplicate.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      > How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? We don't need to. Based on what we already know, through years of news, abuse, etc., it is entirely inconceivable that every (or nearly every) single request is the perfect paragon of thoroughness and reasonableness. > If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected? Because no one actually uses "rubber stamp" to mean that literally every single thing goes by, unquestioned.
      - bigstrat2003 3y ago
        > Because no one actually uses "rubber stamp" to mean that literally every single thing goes by, unquestioned. I do. That's what it means, after all.
        acomar 3y ago
        metaphors, you see, are always literal
    - acomar 3y ago
      > How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? what purpose does the filter serve if it allows virtually all requests through? your response amounts to "trust the FBI, they don't need oversight". > I think the FBI understands the process and doesn't send flimsy requests in the first place. I would love to see your evidence for this. > If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected? because those requests were egregiously bad? warrant approval is bad across the board, even when the requests are public[1]. what reason do we have to assume they're better when they're sealed? "the FBI is self-regulating" doesn't pass muster when we can see the warrant requests they put forward and get approved when the details are public. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Are you really being so absolutist that 0.02% means that a definition is invalid?
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Well let's just take a look at the public facts and evidence provided to secure these warrants to decide.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    That's Congress's job.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  Two possibilities. Either the government is incredibly careful to only submit requests with sufficient evidence and justification to the secret court or its a rubber stamp. I wonder.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Having seen some submissions from various LEOs ( non-FISA stuff mind ), I have zero problem accepting the premise that the government is not that selective. Fishing expedition concept exists for a reason.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    That's the neat thing about priors, ain't it.
  - bigstrat2003 3y ago
    I certainly agree that the FISA court is almost certainly just a rubber stamp. I do not believe they provide meaningful oversight. But I must agree with 2OEH8eoCRo0 on this: we don't know, and we need to know when we're in the context of discussing what public policy should be. It's not enough to strongly suspect. What needs to happen is that the whole process needs to be made open to the public, as it should always have been. There is no acceptable reason to hide a process like this from the public. Once it is in the public view, we can properly judge whether the requests are truly just being rubber stamped. And, as a bonus, being forced to make these requests public would almost certainly reduce (though likely not eliminate) any extant abuse of this process.
- upsidesinclude 3y ago
  This is sarcasm?
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  "How many cases did they lead to?" "How many convictions resulted from those warrants?"
lern_too_spel 3y ago
Same article: "In a following letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013." "When [the Government] prepares an application for [a section 215 order, it] first submit[s] to the [FISC] what's called a 'read copy,' which the court staff will review and comment on. [A]nd they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see. And there is an iterative process back and forth between the Government and the [FISC] to take care of those concerns so that at the end of the day, we're confident that we're presenting something that the [FISC] will approve. That is hardly a rubber stamp. It's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process." https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... explains why the final win rate is so high and that it is exactly in line with other ex parte court orders: "Title III statistics strongly support the basic prediction that a lopsided win rate is a general feature of ex parte proceedings, not a unique characteristic of the FISC. Between 1968 and 2012, state and federal agencies made 50,419 requests for Title III wiretaps, and federal courts approved 99.93% of these requests." "Ultimately, we should care about the substance of what the court approves, not the frequency with which it does so. And if the substance of what the court does affects how the government selects applications, there’s no reason to think FISC reforms will change the win rate." That substance is reviewed by Congress.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

That they're rarely denied doesn't mean they're a rubber stamp.

function_seven 3y ago
That's the literal definition of a "rubber stamp" process! That you won't be denied, that the granting of your request is essentially automatic.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? I think the FBI understands the process and doesn't send flimsy requests in the first place. > four were rejected. If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected?
  - function_seven 3y ago
    When a government makes a court secret, I tend to infer the worst interpretation of the activities they're hiding from us. We have no means of checking whether the FBI is putting any care into their warrant applications. We have no way of knowing if the judges even read the affidavits, or what level of scrutiny they apply to the requests, etc. All we know is that they grant 99.98% of the warrants asked-for. That's a massively suspicious rate of approval that is more likely explained by the rubber stamp than careful consideration and evaluation. Nothing in this world has that kind of success rate without some sort of shenanigans.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      > We have no means of checking whether the FBI is putting any care into their warrant applications. Congress does. > Nothing in this world has that kind of success rate without some sort of shenanigans. That's your assumption. I have a higher success rate of safely driving to work.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        Sure and so far it was only Wyden that even was allowed to shed some light on what is happening behind the curtain and even then, when IC officials are dragged in front that body that is supposed to be the buck where it all stops, IC representative simply lied ( wiki Clapper for more info ). It is silly that all this is happening in plain sight and we still argue like it is some sort of assumption.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    Would you believe that any process where 18,742 requests were granted and 4 are denied is because of "the quality of each request"? What would you think about a class where 18,742 students passed it and 4 failed it, or a company where 18,742 employees have acceptable performance and 4 are fired?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      Exams and performance reviews are designed to rank the things being examined... why would that possibly apply to a warrant evaluation process? You think a good process is one where definitionally 50% of the warrants get rejected? In that case: just file 2x garbage warrant requests so the ones you care about are "correctly" guaranteed to be at the top.
      - function_seven 3y ago
        50% would be a lot. I don't know what the optimum number is, but 0.02% (0.0002 rate) is just not plausible. One way to resolve this is to not have secret courts. Then we can judge the merits of these warrant applications in the light of day. If National Security is an issue, then delay the publication of court records by some fixed amount, and require an onerous process to keep the ongoing stuff sealed for those rare cases where it's needed. But in practice, you or I or anyone else should be able to pull up all the warrants issued in 2016, or 1994, or 2021. We should be able to assess the quality of the supporting PC, we should be able to track the success rate of these searches (How many ultimately went nowhere? What was the FBI focused on in a particular year? Etc.) All of this is a bare minimum requirement for a free and open society. Instead we get secret courts and a single statistic (99.98% acceptance rate). That's basically the same as a North Korean approval rating, or the electoral performance of a dictator. It's just too perfect to pass muster.
        ethanbond 3y ago
        > If National Security is an issue, then delay the publication of court records by some fixed amount, and require an onerous process to keep the ongoing stuff sealed for those rare cases where it's needed. Didn't you just describe a secret court? I don't think these records don't exist or are permanently classified.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    Probably some critical typo/paperwork issue (submitted to a suddenly dead judge or something). Once re-submitted, it was stamped. Or it was a duplicate.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? We don't need to. Based on what we already know, through years of news, abuse, etc., it is entirely inconceivable that every (or nearly every) single request is the perfect paragon of thoroughness and reasonableness. > If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected? Because no one actually uses "rubber stamp" to mean that literally every single thing goes by, unquestioned.
    - bigstrat2003 3y ago
      > Because no one actually uses "rubber stamp" to mean that literally every single thing goes by, unquestioned. I do. That's what it means, after all.
      - acomar 3y ago
        metaphors, you see, are always literal
  - acomar 3y ago
    > How do we know it's automatic without knowing the quality of each request? what purpose does the filter serve if it allows virtually all requests through? your response amounts to "trust the FBI, they don't need oversight". > I think the FBI understands the process and doesn't send flimsy requests in the first place. I would love to see your evidence for this. > If it's a rubber stamp, why are any rejected? because those requests were egregiously bad? warrant approval is bad across the board, even when the requests are public[1]. what reason do we have to assume they're better when they're sealed? "the FBI is self-regulating" doesn't pass muster when we can see the warrant requests they put forward and get approved when the details are public. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/ https://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liber...
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Are you really being so absolutist that 0.02% means that a definition is invalid?
cool_dude85 3y ago
Well let's just take a look at the public facts and evidence provided to secure these warrants to decide.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  That's Congress's job.
UncleMeat 3y ago
Two possibilities. Either the government is incredibly careful to only submit requests with sufficient evidence and justification to the secret court or its a rubber stamp. I wonder.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Having seen some submissions from various LEOs ( non-FISA stuff mind ), I have zero problem accepting the premise that the government is not that selective. Fishing expedition concept exists for a reason.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  That's the neat thing about priors, ain't it.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  I certainly agree that the FISA court is almost certainly just a rubber stamp. I do not believe they provide meaningful oversight. But I must agree with 2OEH8eoCRo0 on this: we don't know, and we need to know when we're in the context of discussing what public policy should be. It's not enough to strongly suspect. What needs to happen is that the whole process needs to be made open to the public, as it should always have been. There is no acceptable reason to hide a process like this from the public. Once it is in the public view, we can properly judge whether the requests are truly just being rubber stamped. And, as a bonus, being forced to make these requests public would almost certainly reduce (though likely not eliminate) any extant abuse of this process.
upsidesinclude 3y ago
This is sarcasm?
FireBeyond 3y ago
"How many cases did they lead to?" "How many convictions resulted from those warrants?"

lern_too_spel 3y ago

Same article: "In a following letter Walton stated that the government had revamped 24.4% of its requests in the face of court questions and demands in time from July 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013." "When [the Government] prepares an application for [a section 215 order, it] first submit[s] to the [FISC] what's called a 'read copy,' which the court staff will review and comment on. [A]nd they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems that they see. And there is an iterative process back and forth between the Government and the [FISC] to take care of those concerns so that at the end of the day, we're confident that we're presenting something that the [FISC] will approve. That is hardly a rubber stamp. It's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process." https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-a-rubber-stamp/ https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/is-the-foreign-inte... explains why the final win rate is so high and that it is exactly in line with other ex parte court orders: "Title III statistics strongly support the basic prediction that a lopsided win rate is a general feature of ex parte proceedings, not a unique characteristic of the FISC. Between 1968 and 2012, state and federal agencies made 50,419 requests for Title III wiretaps, and federal courts approved 99.93% of these requests." "Ultimately, we should care about the substance of what the court approves, not the frequency with which it does so. And if the substance of what the court does affects how the government selects applications, there’s no reason to think FISC reforms will change the win rate." That substance is reviewed by Congress.