4 ms·

The key of the article: “It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy

by gasull 13y ago

The key of the article: “It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute. “So Roberts is single-handedly choosing the people who get to decide how much surveillance we’re subject to.” Senator Wyden, briefed by the NSA, said that the NSA has a secret interpretation of the law: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

tptacek 13y ago
I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. They get to do that because Congress passes janky laws that deliberately delegate authority to the agencies to come up with the specific line item regulations that animate the laws. Congress needs to stop doing that, across the board. This is also the basis of the "3 Felonies A Week" problem (that, and the fact that that the US has a perverse default of strict liability in criminal law). But Wyden has exactly as much power to curtail the surveillance state as he does over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee, or over national seatbelt laws.
- gasull 13y ago
  I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. And because John Roberts apoints FISC judges, he chooses those who secretly interpret the law. That's pretty much like deciding how to interpret the law. And in secret. What it's actually deciding the law itself. And, again, secretly. Your latest comment contradicts your OP "No, he doesn't. This is a directly, overtly inaccurate claim."
  - tptacek 13y ago
    FISC is an instrument of Congress. It was a way of punting on finicky rulemaking for foreign surveillance by appointing an independent review board. No matter what NSA's "interpretations" of the law are, that discretion is enabled --- deliberately --- by Congress, and can be eliminated by Congress.

by gasull 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. They get to do that because Congress passes janky laws that deliberately delegate authority to the agencies to come up with the specific line item regulations that animate the laws. Congress needs to stop doing that, across the board. This is also the basis of the "3 Felonies A Week" problem (that, and the fact that that the US has a perverse default of strict liability in criminal law). But Wyden has exactly as much power to curtail the surveillance state as he does over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee, or over national seatbelt laws.

gasull 13y ago
I am certain that federal agencies have all sorts of whacked out "secret" interpretations of the laws of Congress. And because John Roberts apoints FISC judges, he chooses those who secretly interpret the law. That's pretty much like deciding how to interpret the law. And in secret. What it's actually deciding the law itself. And, again, secretly. Your latest comment contradicts your OP "No, he doesn't. This is a directly, overtly inaccurate claim."
- tptacek 13y ago
  FISC is an instrument of Congress. It was a way of punting on finicky rulemaking for foreign surveillance by appointing an independent review board. No matter what NSA's "interpretations" of the law are, that discretion is enabled --- deliberately --- by Congress, and can be eliminated by Congress.