4 ms·

It's an election year. Party constituents eat polarizing rhetoric and outlandish takes like it's a breakfast bar. Journalists are happy to stock that bar. fwiw

by oooyay 3y ago

It's an election year. Party constituents eat polarizing rhetoric and outlandish takes like it's a breakfast bar. Journalists are happy to stock that bar. fwiw, it wasn't Biden that created the court it was Merrick Garland: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/redress-data-protection-review-court https://www.justice.gov/opcl/redress-data-protection-review-... Also, not exactly a secret given that it had a PR release and the judges are known. Maybe the secret part is getting in front of them.

smcin 3y ago
The court's functioning is absolutely still a secret to its plaintiffs [EU residents]; its location is a secret, the DOJ refuses to say if it has taken a case yet, or when it will. [That implies it has not published any rulings, or maybe it will never publish rulings]. Its decisions will also be kept a secret, from both the EU residents petitioning the court and the federal agencies tasked with following the law. Plaintiffs [EU-residents] are not allowed to appear in person [not even remotely by Zoom, it sounds like?] and are represented by a special advocate, appointed by the U.S. Attorney General. I can't see US citizens being told to just trust a secret European court whose deliberations aren't known, yet affects their lives, visas, travels, finances etc. "Maybe the secret part is getting in front of them." No, they already stated that the EU plaintiffs don't have the right to appear before the court. So they don't get in front of them. On the "Animal House" taxonomy of double-secret, it's up there.
- oooyay 3y ago
  I think your points are fair and I largely agree with you, but I'd probably use the word "opaque" rather than secretive. Sometimes opaque systems do serve a purpose, other times they're an excuse to undermine rights and liberties. This court deals entirely in classified information (from its mandate) and only produces classified rulings. I linked both of the sources (.gov websites) in another comment. Whether or not that's good enough to remain opaque I don't know. I do know that I'm not a fan of any surveillance state and I'm not confident in the ability of intergovernment watchdogs to spot violations, even gross ones.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    Governments shouldn't be able to prosecute people with secret evidence and secret processes in secret locations. You can keep your classified materials secret or you can prosecute someone, but you shouldn't be able to do both. Anything else is categorically incompatible with the liberal democratic principles of accountable government. As it's said, "Put up, or shut up."
    - leereeves 3y ago
      This "court" doesn't prosecute anyone. It's an internal review board for the intelligence agencies. Its function is (purportedly) to prevent the intelligence agencies from abusing their power.
      - kyleee 3y ago
        Great, so it’s a police department Internal Affairs office on a whole lot of steroids. I’m sure it’s on the up and up
    - nl 3y ago
      I don't think absolute statements like this are useful. There clearly are cases where it is appropriate to prosecute someone with classified evidence. Spying cases are a good example. The problem is that these exemptions are used too often.
      - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
        Transparent democratic government is non negotiable, but even from a consequentialist viewpoin it's not clear at all. We had a leaky sieve to documents of all SCI types for president for four full years and the nation hasn't collapsed. Clearly the downsides of unaccountable government are worse.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  The thought of US citizens being even for a second treated like how the US government treats non-US-residents is absolutely hilarious. What an utter rude shock.
  - AniseAbyss 3y ago
    [dead]
leereeves 3y ago
> fwiw, it wasn't Biden that created the court it was Merrick Garland But Merrick Garland is a Biden appointee. Don't you think leaders should be held accountable for the actions of their administration? Of course, as vjulian points out, they aren't masterminding everything that their subordinates do, but they do choose who to appoint and have the power to reverse anything they disapprove of once they learn about it.
- oooyay 3y ago
  > Don't you think leaders should be held accountable for the actions of their administration? Color me cynical, but people only mutter this when it's someone on the other team. So, in general do I think we should follow that principle? Yes. Do I think people widely believe that enough to hold their own self-interest-adjacent parties accountable? Certainly not. If you want to be very picky, the rule Mr Garland invented was in response to a Biden executive order [1] [2]. The executive order is long, but section 3 is pretty succinct and clear. If Mr Garland implemented an opaque system then I can predict one of two scenarios occurred, maybe both: 1. All of the information the court receives is classified and should never have been leaked in the first place, so no one should know. That means the way someone does know is because of the watchdogs inside the intelligence community. 2. Mr Garland is openly defying the President through process and appeasing someone (maybe the intelligence community). 1: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/14/2022-22234/data-protection-review-court https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/14/2022-22... 2: https://www.state.gov/executive-order-14086-policy-and-procedures/#safeguarding https://www.state.gov/executive-order-14086-policy-and-proce...
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Thanks for the link to the executive order. Now that I've read it, I'd say that an opaque system seems to be exactly what Biden wanted. The EO repeatedly says that results and procedures will be "classified" and "consistent with the protection of intelligence sources or methods". And the complainant not being able to represent themselves is mandated by the EO: "a special advocate will be selected by the Data Protection Review Court to advocate regarding the complainant's interest in the matter".

by oooyay 3y ago

smcin 3y ago

The court's functioning is absolutely still a secret to its plaintiffs [EU residents]; its location is a secret, the DOJ refuses to say if it has taken a case yet, or when it will. [That implies it has not published any rulings, or maybe it will never publish rulings]. Its decisions will also be kept a secret, from both the EU residents petitioning the court and the federal agencies tasked with following the law. Plaintiffs [EU-residents] are not allowed to appear in person [not even remotely by Zoom, it sounds like?] and are represented by a special advocate, appointed by the U.S. Attorney General. I can't see US citizens being told to just trust a secret European court whose deliberations aren't known, yet affects their lives, visas, travels, finances etc. "Maybe the secret part is getting in front of them." No, they already stated that the EU plaintiffs don't have the right to appear before the court. So they don't get in front of them. On the "Animal House" taxonomy of double-secret, it's up there.

oooyay 3y ago
I think your points are fair and I largely agree with you, but I'd probably use the word "opaque" rather than secretive. Sometimes opaque systems do serve a purpose, other times they're an excuse to undermine rights and liberties. This court deals entirely in classified information (from its mandate) and only produces classified rulings. I linked both of the sources (.gov websites) in another comment. Whether or not that's good enough to remain opaque I don't know. I do know that I'm not a fan of any surveillance state and I'm not confident in the ability of intergovernment watchdogs to spot violations, even gross ones.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  Governments shouldn't be able to prosecute people with secret evidence and secret processes in secret locations. You can keep your classified materials secret or you can prosecute someone, but you shouldn't be able to do both. Anything else is categorically incompatible with the liberal democratic principles of accountable government. As it's said, "Put up, or shut up."
  - leereeves 3y ago
    This "court" doesn't prosecute anyone. It's an internal review board for the intelligence agencies. Its function is (purportedly) to prevent the intelligence agencies from abusing their power.
    - kyleee 3y ago
      Great, so it’s a police department Internal Affairs office on a whole lot of steroids. I’m sure it’s on the up and up
  - nl 3y ago
    I don't think absolute statements like this are useful. There clearly are cases where it is appropriate to prosecute someone with classified evidence. Spying cases are a good example. The problem is that these exemptions are used too often.
    - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
      Transparent democratic government is non negotiable, but even from a consequentialist viewpoin it's not clear at all. We had a leaky sieve to documents of all SCI types for president for four full years and the nation hasn't collapsed. Clearly the downsides of unaccountable government are worse.
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
The thought of US citizens being even for a second treated like how the US government treats non-US-residents is absolutely hilarious. What an utter rude shock.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]

leereeves 3y ago

> fwiw, it wasn't Biden that created the court it was Merrick Garland But Merrick Garland is a Biden appointee. Don't you think leaders should be held accountable for the actions of their administration? Of course, as vjulian points out, they aren't masterminding everything that their subordinates do, but they do choose who to appoint and have the power to reverse anything they disapprove of once they learn about it.

oooyay 3y ago
> Don't you think leaders should be held accountable for the actions of their administration? Color me cynical, but people only mutter this when it's someone on the other team. So, in general do I think we should follow that principle? Yes. Do I think people widely believe that enough to hold their own self-interest-adjacent parties accountable? Certainly not. If you want to be very picky, the rule Mr Garland invented was in response to a Biden executive order [1] [2]. The executive order is long, but section 3 is pretty succinct and clear. If Mr Garland implemented an opaque system then I can predict one of two scenarios occurred, maybe both: 1. All of the information the court receives is classified and should never have been leaked in the first place, so no one should know. That means the way someone does know is because of the watchdogs inside the intelligence community. 2. Mr Garland is openly defying the President through process and appeasing someone (maybe the intelligence community). 1: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/14/2022-22234/data-protection-review-court https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/14/2022-22... 2: https://www.state.gov/executive-order-14086-policy-and-procedures/#safeguarding https://www.state.gov/executive-order-14086-policy-and-proce...
- leereeves 3y ago
  Thanks for the link to the executive order. Now that I've read it, I'd say that an opaque system seems to be exactly what Biden wanted. The EO repeatedly says that results and procedures will be "classified" and "consistent with the protection of intelligence sources or methods". And the complainant not being able to represent themselves is mandated by the EO: "a special advocate will be selected by the Data Protection Review Court to advocate regarding the complainant's interest in the matter".