> To date, CloudFlare has never received an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Moreover, we believe that due process requires co

> To date, CloudFlare has never received an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Moreover, we believe that due process requires court review of executive orders. As a policy, we challenge any orders that have not been reviewed and approved by a court. This needs to be clarified urgently. Anyone reading this would, quite reasonably, assume that this court review would (maybe among other things) seek to protect them from unreasonable search and seizure, that to get court approval the US government would (at least in principle) have to establish probable cause (or at least some kind of level of cause) of some crime (or at least some kind of bad behaviour). In fact, for non-US-citizens living outside the US this is apparently (IANAL) not the case. They appear to have quite literally no rights that the FISC court is obliged or entitled to uphold in the face of a FISA 702/FAA 702 order targeting them - neither rights under the Fourth Amendment, nor under FISA or any other law. From any specified non-resident alien the US government can seemingly take whatever data it wants, for any reason, without even having to state the reason to the court. Blatant industrial espionage? 100% OK. Watergate-style snooping for information to use in political dirty tricks? 100% OK. (The US government is completely clear that the purpose of FISA 702 is to eliminate the probable-cause requirement: http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI0067.pdf http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia20101129/FAAFBI... ) Again, this will quite reasonably surprise people, who are used to for example having their US property protected by the Fifth Amendment even as non-resident aliens. Therefore CloudFlare's statement must make it clear and explicit to them that they are SOL once the US government decides it wants their data and that CloudFlare's demand for a court-approved order is a chocolate teapot when it comes to protecting them (as opposed to CloudFlare). > As part of these challenges, we always request the right to disclose at least the fact that we received such an order but we are not always granted that request. This could also use some clarification, since of the several thousand FISA orders served to other companies there doesn't seem to be any trace (IANAL) of one where the government has lifted the gag. The statement should make it clear that until there is a change of government policy, or law, or precedent then there is hardly a snowball's that CloudFlare's request will be granted.