3 ms·

It's not as malicious as Ron makes it out to be. Here's Groklaw's bit on it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130610101148583 http://www.groklaw.net/

by pdubs 13y ago

It's not as malicious as Ron makes it out to be. Here's Groklaw's bit on it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130610101148583 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130610101148583 >The opinion Movant seeks cannot be released by the Government not only because it is classified but also because it is under this Court’s seal. As Judge Bates has explained, “[t]he FISC is a unique court,” whereas “[o]ther courts operate primarily in public, with secrecy the exception; the FISC operates primarily in secret, with public access the exception.” In re Release, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 487-88. The FISC maintains this operational secrecy because, unlike any other court, its “entire docket relates to the collection of foreign intelligence by the federal government.” Id. at 487. It's secret simply by the nature of the court, not by specific executive instruction.

wavefunction 13y ago
The court is not secret, nor are its decisions intended to be permanently secret. The idea behind seeking temporarily secret court-orders was that they would effect ongoing investigations, but that the court-orders would become public when the charges were brought. An example is obtaining a wire-tap order for an individual. If it were automatically public, the individual might be watching the public record and see that they were being wire-tapped and make the wire-tap meaningless. Now we have a situation where the decisions remain in secret for perpetuity? It's simple bullshit and an attempt to "route around" the Constitutional protections.
- nikcub 13y ago
  The broader metadata requests had a declassification date of 2038 - they must have argued that it isn't tied to any one case, and that it could always threaten an ongoing case if made public. It is interesting that yet again we end up in a preposterous situation, where you can suck in all call data and not tell anyone, due to a long chain of small concessions (patriot act, fisa review, 'business records' condition, etc.)
rafcavallaro 13y ago
How misleading of you! Why quote the DOJ's obviously biased opinion? Better to quote the simple fact pointed out on that very same groklaw page that the secret court did in fact make a ruling that some surveillance was a violation of the Fourth Ammendment and/or violated the spirit of the law: "EFF asked the government for a copy of "any written opinion or order" of the FISA court in which the court held that the surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act (2008 version) "was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" or had "circumvented the spirit of the law." After some of the usual back and forth in discovery, the government revealed that it had found one such [!], but it refused to provide it on the grounds that it had no authority under FISC rules "to release FISC opinions to a FOIA requester or any other member of the public without a FISC order." So that's why EFF is now approaching the court itself, asking for a ruling that the government is allowed to provide it. The ACLU asked, and was denied, once before for the same relief it now is asking for, but now, after the latest events and the President's encouragement of public debate saying it's healthy for a democracy, it is renewing its request."
- pdubs 13y ago
  That's legally useless without the details though.

by pdubs 13y ago

wavefunction 13y ago

The court is not secret, nor are its decisions intended to be permanently secret. The idea behind seeking temporarily secret court-orders was that they would effect ongoing investigations, but that the court-orders would become public when the charges were brought. An example is obtaining a wire-tap order for an individual. If it were automatically public, the individual might be watching the public record and see that they were being wire-tapped and make the wire-tap meaningless. Now we have a situation where the decisions remain in secret for perpetuity? It's simple bullshit and an attempt to "route around" the Constitutional protections.

nikcub 13y ago
The broader metadata requests had a declassification date of 2038 - they must have argued that it isn't tied to any one case, and that it could always threaten an ongoing case if made public. It is interesting that yet again we end up in a preposterous situation, where you can suck in all call data and not tell anyone, due to a long chain of small concessions (patriot act, fisa review, 'business records' condition, etc.)

rafcavallaro 13y ago

How misleading of you! Why quote the DOJ's obviously biased opinion? Better to quote the simple fact pointed out on that very same groklaw page that the secret court did in fact make a ruling that some surveillance was a violation of the Fourth Ammendment and/or violated the spirit of the law: "EFF asked the government for a copy of "any written opinion or order" of the FISA court in which the court held that the surveillance conducted under the FISA Amendments Act (2008 version) "was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment" or had "circumvented the spirit of the law." After some of the usual back and forth in discovery, the government revealed that it had found one such [!], but it refused to provide it on the grounds that it had no authority under FISC rules "to release FISC opinions to a FOIA requester or any other member of the public without a FISC order." So that's why EFF is now approaching the court itself, asking for a ruling that the government is allowed to provide it. The ACLU asked, and was denied, once before for the same relief it now is asking for, but now, after the latest events and the President's encouragement of public debate saying it's healthy for a democracy, it is renewing its request."

pdubs 13y ago
That's legally useless without the details though.