4 ms·

There's a lot of new information about the Fisa process here! The highlight: > When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not

There's a lot of new information about the Fisa process here! The highlight: > When it is time for the NSA to obtain Fisa court approval, the agency does not tell the court whose calls and emails it intends to intercept. It instead merely provides the general guidelines which it claims are used by its analysts to determine which individuals they can target, and the Fisa court judge then issues a simple order approving those guidelines. . .Once the NSA has this court approval, it can then target anyone chosen by their analysts, and can even order telecoms and internet companies to turn over to them the emails, chats and calls of those they target. The Fisa court plays no role whatsoever in reviewing whether the procedures it approved are actually complied with when the NSA starts eavesdropping on calls and reading people's emails. It appears we may have been mistaken to assume the court deliberates on and grants an order for each request. It appears the court gives a general approval for guidelines, and then NSA analysts request whatever they want from companies without meaningful oversight.

declan 13y ago
If you look at FAA 702, it's been clear since 2007-2008 that the court does NOT deliberate on and grant an order for each request. See my article from 2007: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-far-does-the-new-wiretap-law-go/2100-1029_3-6201032.html http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-far-does-the-new-wiretap-law-go... "...expands the National Security Agency's power to eavesdrop on phone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic with limited court oversight...warrants are not needed for Internet or telephone "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States..." And 2009: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html ..."a secret federal appeals court has ruled that federal agencies can be authorized to conduct warrantless e-mail and telephone surveillance without violating the U.S. Constitution"...
- discostrings 13y ago
  Thanks for the citations! It seems this isn't new information then--just that a lot of the current news hasn't even gotten to this point. In most of what I read, I see the perception that writers think most orders from the court are like the Verizon order in that they ask a certain company for certain information.

declan 13y ago

If you look at FAA 702, it's been clear since 2007-2008 that the court does NOT deliberate on and grant an order for each request. See my article from 2007: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-far-does-the-new-wiretap-law-go/2100-1029_3-6201032.html http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-How-far-does-the-new-wiretap-law-go... "...expands the National Security Agency's power to eavesdrop on phone calls, e-mail messages and other Internet traffic with limited court oversight...warrants are not needed for Internet or telephone "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States..." And 2009: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html ..."a secret federal appeals court has ruled that federal agencies can be authorized to conduct warrantless e-mail and telephone surveillance without violating the U.S. Constitution"...

discostrings 13y ago
Thanks for the citations! It seems this isn't new information then--just that a lot of the current news hasn't even gotten to this point. In most of what I read, I see the perception that writers think most orders from the court are like the Verizon order in that they ask a certain company for certain information.