4 ms·
FBI + Client Attorney present + University's data scrub + nothing on the public docket likely means FISA court, which is in theory reserved for espionage and te
by vessenes 2y ago
FBI + Client Attorney present + University's data scrub + nothing on the public docket likely means FISA court, which is in theory reserved for espionage and terrorism in the US. Most University cryptographic research happens in public these days, so I have a hard time imagining a sequence of events strictly bounded by cryptography research + chinese origin that yields FISA court motions.
The real thing to say here is that we will probably never know what's alleged, much less what's happened.
Interesting would be if he were a skilled enough cryptographic theorist to have gotten a backdoor into a NIST approved algorithm; new ideas in this field are almost always appreciated.
- tptacek 2y agoNo? FISA isn't an adversarial court that hears espionage cases; it exists solely to handle applications for surveillance. Espionage and national security cases are handled by ordinary federal courts.
- giantg2 2y agoWhat kind of court was Drake tried in?
- tptacek 2y agoI have no idea, but nobody is "tried" at FISC. FISC has no jurisdiction over any criminal case and is strictly ex-parte.
- dragonwriter 2y agoDrake who? Whoever, it wasn’t FISC, because FISC doesn’t have jurisdiction to do any trials.
- irundebian 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Drake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Drake
- dragonwriter 2y agoSo, he wasn't tried at all, he was convicted on a guilty plea, and the case was in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, not the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which, as previously stated, doesn't handle criminal cases.)
- DrillShopper 2y ago> In April 2010, Drake was indicted by a Baltimore grand jury on the following charges: Willful Retention of National Defense Information 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) (5 counts) (793(e) is a modification of the Espionage Act of 1917 made under the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950), Obstructing justice 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (1 count), Making a False Statement 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (4 counts) > Federal Judge Richard D. Bennett was responsible for hearing handling the case, and initially set trial for June 2011 He then plead out
- kasey_junk 2y agohttps://sgp.fas.org/news/2010/04/doj041510.html https://sgp.fas.org/news/2010/04/doj041510.html Federal criminal court in Maryland
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sitkack 2y agoIt could be that it wasn't an adversarial attack but a discovery, either of a weakness or an intentional flaw. Regardless, the crypto power gradient changes and that is concerning.
- guerrilla 2y ago[flagged]
- Ar-Curunir 2y agoThe person in question is not a cryptographer, but rather works more broadly in computer security. He has not contributed to NIST standards AFAICT
- mvdtnz 2y agoWhat's a FISA court?
- hypeatei 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... > to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Secret courts that some say are unconstitutional[0]. [0]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/why-fisa-amendments-act-unconstitutional https://www.aclu.org/documents/why-fisa-amendments-act-uncon...
- tptacek 2y agoFISA is a special process set up, partly by the Church Committee, in the last 1970s in order to oversee foreign signals intelligence. It's staffed by federal Article III judges, and its purpose is to handle paperwork applications for surveillance of communications pertaining to foreign nationals where any leg occurs on domestic soil.
- dragonwriter 2y agoOne of exactly two courts—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that handles initial applications for surveillance warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) which can handles reviews of denials of applications by FISC. These two courts are not “reserved for espionage and terrorism”, they are dedicated to assuring that limitations on impact on US persons of surveillance justified on foreign intelligence grounds are observed. They handle only warrant applications for foreign intelligence surveillance that has some US nexus, not charges/allegations of any kind, and no one targeted or impacted by such a warrant would ever get notice that proceedings were occurring, much less be represented, in these courts.
- user3939382 2y agoFISA, our secret court with secret proceedings to deal with secret charges under secret laws with secret interpretations. What could go wrong?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 2y agoThe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and the higher level Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA is the law limiting government surveillance certain of whose provisions they enforce) don't deal with “charges” at all, and the statute they do enforce the warrant requirements for (FISA) isn’t secret.
- user3939382 2y agoTheir interpretation of the statutes is secret thus we have secret law enforced by this court. The charges related to these warrants are secret if not adjudicated by the court. To be more direct, the existence of this court is an abomination in the context of a democracy.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Their interpretation of the statutes is secret Their application of the statutes to facts that remain classified are generally classified, sure. > The charges related to these warrants are secret if not adjudicated by the court. There are no charges directly related to the warrants because they are not criminal warrants. If there are criminal charges indirectly related to them, they are not secret, and are pursued in normal US courts, by normal process. > To be more direct, the existence of this court is an abomination in the context of a democracy. There may be ways to improve the processes of these courts, but given the functions they deal with and the facts that in other democracies (as in the US prior to FISA) there is often no court oversight of foreign intelligence surveillance, I think their existence is actually a positive thing.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> FBI + Client Attorney present + University's data scrub + nothing on the public docket likely means FISA court No, it doesn't. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proceedings are only warrant applications for surveillance that cannot be used on criminal trials; targets wouldn't be informed of or represented in proceedings. Espionage or terrorism charges are handled by normal US District Courts, on the public docket (though certain documents and proceedings within those—or any other—cases dealing with classified evidence are handled under special procedures to preserve the secrecy of the evidence )
- vessenes 2y agopast the edit window, but thanks for educating me. I think I was conflating Nacchio's long fight over Qwest's NSA requests with FISA.