3 ms·

Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specif

Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specifically, that it has acceptable measures in place to reduce and eliminate purely domestic intercepts.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specifically, that it has acceptable measures in place to reduce and eliminate purely domestic intercepts. Just to be clear, that's not at all the same thing. FISA warrants have always been allowed to be quite broad, and were primarily concerned with identifying that there was a foreign intelligence target and that appropriate minimization procedures were in place, exactly as is the case now. What was at issue in 2006 had no review from anyone outside of the executive branch for either of those issues. You can oppose what is being done now, but you cannot (without erroneously assuming that everyone else in the world agrees with you on everything but partisanship) validly look at the 2006 polls and the 2013 polls, especially given the difference in both the kind of surveillance at issue (listening in vs. call tracking) and the procedures at issue (warrantless vs. FISA warrants) and makes claims about consistency because they aren't about the same things, even if you think that people should feel the same about them.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Do you believe that, in actual effect, the 2006-era program was substantially different from its 2013 equivalent? And that the program had "no review" is false, members of the "Gang of Eight" were briefed, and of course could have pursued legislative measures to shut down the program consistent with separation of powers (i.e., defunding it). I actually agree with you about the wording of the poll and the difference between the metadata collection and "warrantless wiretapping". But hey, all the stuff HN is going nuts about for the past week was all cleared by the FISA court, AFAICT, so the lack of that fig leaf wasn't really what would have pissed off a consistent citizen in 2006, no?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > But hey, all the stuff HN is going nuts about for the past week was all cleared by the FISA court, AFAICT, so the lack of that fig leaf wasn't really what would have pissed off a consistent citizen in 2006, no? Assuming by "a consistent citizen" you mean the same people "going nuts" on HN, probably not. But that's not really relevant, now, is it?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Just to be clear, though, we're still doing the 2006 thing, with the only "warrant" being a general FISC ruling on the overall legitimacy of the program. Specifically, that it has acceptable measures in place to reduce and eliminate purely domestic intercepts. Just to be clear, that's not at all the same thing. FISA warrants have always been allowed to be quite broad, and were primarily concerned with identifying that there was a foreign intelligence target and that appropriate minimization procedures were in place, exactly as is the case now. What was at issue in 2006 had no review from anyone outside of the executive branch for either of those issues. You can oppose what is being done now, but you cannot (without erroneously assuming that everyone else in the world agrees with you on everything but partisanship) validly look at the 2006 polls and the 2013 polls, especially given the difference in both the kind of surveillance at issue (listening in vs. call tracking) and the procedures at issue (warrantless vs. FISA warrants) and makes claims about consistency because they aren't about the same things, even if you think that people should feel the same about them.

twoodfin 13y ago
Do you believe that, in actual effect, the 2006-era program was substantially different from its 2013 equivalent? And that the program had "no review" is false, members of the "Gang of Eight" were briefed, and of course could have pursued legislative measures to shut down the program consistent with separation of powers (i.e., defunding it). I actually agree with you about the wording of the poll and the difference between the metadata collection and "warrantless wiretapping". But hey, all the stuff HN is going nuts about for the past week was all cleared by the FISA court, AFAICT, so the lack of that fig leaf wasn't really what would have pissed off a consistent citizen in 2006, no?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > But hey, all the stuff HN is going nuts about for the past week was all cleared by the FISA court, AFAICT, so the lack of that fig leaf wasn't really what would have pissed off a consistent citizen in 2006, no? Assuming by "a consistent citizen" you mean the same people "going nuts" on HN, probably not. But that's not really relevant, now, is it?