9 ms·

In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A.

329 points by bcn 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago
Excellent reporting by Eric Lichtblau based on "current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions". One key point: In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.
- lisper 13y ago
  Funny, I must have missed the part of the Fourth Amendment that carves out an exception for "special needs" or "overriding public danger." Hm, let's see: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Nope, I still don't see it.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - D9u 13y ago
      *"The supreme court's decision is final."* No it is not final, that's why we have appellate courts.
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        /facepalm What do you think 'Supreme' means? The Supreme Court is where you take a case after you've been through the appellate courts. If this is your actual opinion rather than a typing error then you're unqualified to take part in this conversation.
        tzs 13y ago
        In the Federal court system of the US, the Supreme Court is the top court. That is NOT the case in all court systems, though. In the New York State courts, for instance, the Supreme Courts are the trial courts. They are below the Supreme Court, Appellate Dicision, which is below the Court of Appeals. Thus, your argument that a court must be the top court because it has Supreme in its name is faulty.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        In the Federal court system of the US, the Supreme Court is the top court. Which is the court system we're discussing. Why New York has an upside court naming scheme I don't know, but it's not relevant here.
        tzs 13y ago
        Your implicit (and somewhat rude) argument was that D9u should have known the Supreme Court of the US is the top court because it is named the "Supreme" court. The New York courts are relevant because they provide a counterexample that refutes your argument. You owe D9u an apology. You happened to be right in your conclusion that the Supreme Court of the US is the top US court, but that is only because you already knew that and tried to construct your argument backward from the conclusion.
        graycat 13y ago
        However, some arguments here on HN have started to convince me that the SCOTUS role as 'supreme' or 'final' is not really correct and that Jefferson saw this. Instead, after the SCOTUS come the voters who can tell Congress, e.g., "I don't care what the SCOTUS says. I'm a citizen and a voter, and I say that what the NSA has been doing spying on US citizens violates the Fourth Amendment, and I want you to pass a law throttling the NSA and getting them honoring the Fourth Amendment." And if such a law is not enough, then the citizens can amend the Constitution. It will be nice if some plaintiff with standing to sue brings a case before the SCOTUS and wins. E.g., maybe a class action on behalf of all 120 million or so Verizon customers who had their telephone metadata grabbed by the NSA. Apparently Google is bringing a case.
  - graycat 13y ago
    > Nope, I still don't see it. Your problem is understandable! An ordinary citizen can't be expected to "see it"! Seeing it takes special qualifications, years and years of experience, especially at the highest levels of government, many deep, secret arguments and considerations, etc. Only such very, very special people can be expected to "see it". In particular, those very, very special people can read the same words in the Fourth Amendment you and I can read but, unlike you and I, know that they, such very, very special people, are understanding the true meaning of those words, true meaning, I'm sorry to say, no insult intended, is just beyond ordinary people such as you and I. But now aren't you glad that our country, your privacy, and the Fourth Amendment are being so well cared for by such very, very special people, people who can understand things, e.g., the true meaning of the Fourth Amendment, you and I can never "see"? Uh, oops, where did it put that extra airline barf bag???
    - johncoltrane 13y ago
      What is the point of a constitution if any judge/lawmaker can create loopholes around its most crucial articles in complete secrecy? What is the point of a judiciary system that uses secrecy so easily while at the same time putting common people behind bars for perjury? How can people think they are free when they can be subjected to "laws" they never heard about at any time? To be honest, I'm not a citizen of the USA so I shouldn't care. But all that is increasingly appearing to be the norm around the world and it's becoming extremely worrying.
      - aclevernickname 13y ago
        When a country abuses their own rules, the heads of state must be tried in an international (criminal) court. But no non-lawyer knows how to do it, so it never gets done. You're right about it being the norm. The only way to stop it is to sue them. it's literally the only thing they understand.
      - graycat 13y ago
        There a lot of competition for seats in the US House and Senate. So, basically one thing we are waiting for in the US is House and Senate candidates who want to make speeches strongly in favor of restoring the First and Fourth Amendments. It would be good news if the present members of the House and Senate would come out strongly for the Constitution. So, why not? Candidate reasons: (1) Currently the Dems have the White House and the Senate so don't want to appear to claim that the situation is rotten. (2) Everyone in office is afraid of being accused of being "soft on terrorism". And if a politician gives a speech saying we should restore the full meaning of the First and Fourth Amendments and another loser, wacko, Jihader Boston bomber kills/or injures some people, then the politician's political opponents will scream "soft on terrorism". (3) While some people are quite concerned about the NSA and Congress with the Patriot Act, etc. trashing the Constitution, likely and apparently so far not enough people are raising hell. (4) Somehow the political dynamics in the US are strongly toward: Once the US takes some step for national security, reversing that step is very difficult. A big example was Viet Nam: There the US went on and on and on spending more and more and more and right along, really, doing less well, for a very long time. How long? In the late 1940s, the US supported the return of the French. When the French lost in, whenever, 1954, the US tried to prop up a 'US friendly' Saigon. By Kennedy's term starting in 1961, as Saigon started to lose, Kennedy said some of the right things: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm "I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it -- the people of Viet-Nam -- against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people." During his campaign, LBJ also said some of the right things: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/timeline/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/timeline/ "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." Then, once in office, LBJ wanted to win a "coon skin cap" and added and added. Then Nixon wanted only to 'win' -- I know, "Peace with honor". From about 1961 on, a growing fraction of the US voters were very much against the war and wanted, really, just, to, in a single word, leave. In two words, leave immediately. McGovern ran on that, and lost badly. The US demonstrations got bigger and stronger. The 1968 Dem convention in Chicago was a small war in the streets. There were many marches on DC. "Hay, hay, LBJ how many kids have you killed today?". Still the White House and Congress wanted to "stay the course". As we were actually losing and people were hanging off the last helicopters out of Saigon, President Ford still wanted to send more money. Gotta tell you, next to no one in Congress or the White House wanted out of Viet Nam. How'd we get out? The requests for much more in blood and treasure did fail in Congress. Then the North Vietnamese basically took South Viet Nam and Saigon and drove us out. Then, for the "war against terror", the other side has no hope of driving out the US like the North Vietnamese did. Viet Nam was the big example we were never to repeat, but we did. It didn't take much: A few wacko Jihaders hijacked four airplanes, and the US went all wacko: We ruined our airline system, trashed the Constitution with the Patriot Act, etc., occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and stayed for well over 10 years. Gulf War I was an exception: There we remembered Viet Nam and the fairly simple and obvious lessons and applied them. So, we asked what's the goal; can we achieve it; how do we achieve it; how do we get out? Goal: Drive Saddam out of Kuwait. How to achieve it: Have the Saudis give the US space for some airfields. For a few weeks, run one heck of an air campaign against the Iraqi forces. During that time, build up some ground forces. Then, release the ground forces into the Iraqi desert west of Kuwait for a big left hook, cut off Iraqi access to Kuwait, and kill off the caught Iraqis, all in just 100 hours. Invite the Iraqi military leaders to a tent, make them an offer they can't refuse, have them sign, and then mostly just leave. It worked as planned. With that success, for Gulf War II it was back to Viet Nam style many years of badly conceived mud wrestling. Similarly in Afghanistan. Net, again, once the US decides to pursue some such a national security effort, we go for years and years pursuing nonsense goals, being silly and ineffective, and just will not see, say, and act on the obvious -- leave. More generally, the US wants to police the world. When the world doesn't look nice enough to justify the police effort, the response is more time, blood, and treasure for more policing believing that less police work would yield a disaster. Alas, we ignore the lesson of Viet Nam: We couldn't have lost any worse than we did, both militarily (at the level at which we fought the war) or politically. Politically? We never could find anyone who could run the South from Saigon. So, with that big loss, what's happened? Did the world collapse? Did dominoes fall from SE Asia, east, all the way across the Pacific and land in Malibu? Did Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, Taiwan, Guam, etc. fall? Did Peking and/or Moscow dominate SE Asia? Heck no. Instead now Viet Nam is doing well making, e.g., Brother laser printers. The US should be totally thrilled with Viet Nam. Likely and apparently the US could have had that outcome in 1947, 1954, .... Bluntly, the US military and State Department, etc. just do not know how to do nation building. E.g., in Saigon we didn't know how to pick an effective leader. Apparently the situation is the same in Kabul. One reason is domestic US politics: So, if the nation building doesn't try to make the place look like Peoria, or some TV sitcom (Green Acres), then US politics gets all fired up. E.g., the US goes into a very traditional Muslim country and, for domestic US feminist politics, tries to educate the girls and have sexual equality, all of which is in wild conflict with social mores going back a few hundred years. We want them to have a constitution, a parliament, free elections, modern laws, a judicial system, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. Meanwhile the US loses out to some indigenous leaders who promise no such things. They have a way of doing things over there. That's not the US way, and we don't like it. But, we are total fools if we believe we can change their ways to being like our ways and more foolish if we believe that they will like our efforts at doing so. Instead, if we are to work in such a country, then we need to accept, understand, and work with their ways of doing things. And, yes, that might mean that don't send the girls to school. And it might mean that structures of power and leadership selected by means not close to free elections. Whatever, the US needs to make its policing efforts fast and effective and then leave. Politicians need to speak something closer to the truth to the US voters and not promise to pursue foreign adventures to create shining cities on hilltops. Until the US starts to look at reality and become effective, the US will continue to waste time, treasure, blood, the US Constitution, domestic tranquility, etc. In simple terms, on foreign adventures, the US needs to give it a rest, f'get about it, back off, cool down, relax, and then, something like it did after Viet Nam, rethink. For defending the US, do that both more effectively and mostly closer to home and without nation building. I'm not soft on terror or US foreign enemies: For Afghanistan, I would have leveled large areas of the place, all from the air, until the Taliban desperately called for peace at any price. But I wouldn't set foot in the place. Similarly for Saddam -- make him an offer he couldn't refuse, with B-2 bombers circling overhead just for practice, but again not set foot in the place. I wouldn't give them schools; I wouldn't give them so much as a short pencil. Then I'd leave. The need is to defend the US. There's no need to trash the US Constitution. Millions of US voters need to tell the politicians in clear terms to stop the brain-dead nonsense of wasting US time, treasure, blood, domestic tranquility, the domestic economy, and the US Constitution, wise up, and become effective.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    The fourth amendment also doesn't have an exclusionary rule in its text IE no part of it says if the police conduct an illegal search, they can't use that evidence against you. Yet most people seem to get up in arms when Scalia/Thomas/whoever says that line of cases should be overruled, and that it's up to congress to pass laws to deal with police conduct
    - jivatmanx 13y ago
      The rule existed in traditional English Common law from long before the U.S. declared Independence. Being that the Fourth Amendment itself was a reaction against General Warrants and Writs of Assistance, it's hard to imagine the founders would have wanted even less protection here than English law already provided http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#History_of_the_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#History_of_th...
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        This is a great policy and common law argument. But, much like the parent comment, can you point where in the text of the 4th amendment (or the constitution) where it says anything about an exclusionary rule? Because if we are going to argue policy and common law, than we also have restrictions that don't appear in the text, but appeared in common law, as well.
        jivatmanx 13y ago
        The Ninth amendment states that the Bill of Rights is not intended to be exhaustive enumeration of liberty. There is no danger in erring on the side of too much liberty. Parent errs on side of denying of liberty already clearly enumerated.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        Sure. I think we are mostly in violent agreement. I'm actually not trying to argue that it's not a violation of the fourth amendment (i strongly believe it is). I'm arguing that the literal text of the fourth amendment alone is not, by itself, a great explanation of what it really means in today's world. The reply I original made was to the argument that because 'overriding public danger' doesn't appear in the literal text of the 4th amendment, there can be no such exception. As we've both gone through, the 4th amendment can't be viewed in a vacuum, or else it would be nonsensical. So saying "i don't see where the literal text of the 4th amendment says that" doesn't seem to me a complete and total argument. For example, it literally says nothing about anything but papers, persons, houses, and effects. None of this explicitly covers phone calls, or even e-mail. You have to argue by analogy or inclusion in today's equivalent of papers or effects It also only prevents unreasonable searches and seizures, and there is an argument to be made that "special needs" or "overriding public danger" make the searches not unreasonable. I don't personally buy it, but ... As you mention, there is also historical context on all sides to consider. That is in fact, exactly my point. Saying "it ain't in the text" is even far past what textualism adherents do, and i'd venture to guess, would not make for a very useful statute construction philosophy.
  - IanCal 13y ago
    Is this an interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? You're only protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, but if they deem collecting this data to be 'reasonable' then it wouldn't apply, if I'm reading it right. That said, I don't know much about the constitution (I'm from England, pip pip).
    - lisper 13y ago
      > Is this an interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? Probably, but it's not a reasonable one :-) Here are just a few reasons why: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/were_all_terrorist_suspects_now/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/were_all_terrorist_suspects_... http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/what_do_drug_sniffing_dogs_have_to_do_with_the_18th_century_justice_system_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/what_do_drug_sniffing_dogs_h...
- nknighthb 13y ago
  It's obscene. Skinner (the railway case) and its brethren are concerned with either employees in certain sensitive jobs, and school children participating voluntary activities. Some of them go too far, in my opinion, but none can be read as justification for this kind of blanket operation covering the entire populace.
- leoc 13y ago
  But this isn't news. It's apparently been public knowledge since 2009, when the redacted Yahoo! ruling was released http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru... . That ruling (even the redacted version which was relased) clearly lays out and upholds the concept of the "special needs"-based foreign-intelligence exception to the US' Fourth Amendment: 2 . The Foreign Intelligence Exception . The recurrent theme permeating the petitioner's arguments is the notion that there is no foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. 6 The FISC rejected this notion, positing that our decision in In re Sealed Case confirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement. This ruling isn't secret, it's just been hiding in plain sight. Even after the NYT reported the Yahoo! connection to the verdict in an article which directly linked the ruling PDF, it was still apparently impossible to get people to read the ruling and see what it says about the Fourth Amendment for themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606
D9u 13y ago
There can be no "consent of the governed" when "We the People" are unaware of the actions which our elected, as well as non-elected, representatives perpetrate in Our name. ___Edit__ Yes, "unaware," as in "We the People" are perpetually "unaware" of what goes on in secret court proceedings.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Unaware? Mass surveillance has been going on for a long time, and everybody who cared to learn knew the immense scope. This is not a news revelation, it is a media campaign by parties who need something to talk about. Consent of the governed is the problem. The U.S. Senate is directly elected, and the public paranoia wanted these broad pseudo-security measures. Speaking of consent of the governed, why is the media saturated by Snowden-as-Bieber celebrity stories, and not election rigging by the IRS? Would you like to learn more?
  - krapp 13y ago
    why is the media saturated by Snowden-as-Bieber celebrity stories, and not election rigging by the IRS? Let me guess, did your group's 501(c)(4) paperwork get held up by a few weeks?
    - newbie12 13y ago
      It was months or years in some cases, and there's also evidence the IRS leaked private donor lists and audited donors.
      - krapp 13y ago
        There's no evidence of 'rigged elections' though.
        Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        U.S. political campaigns are conducted largely via tax-free contributions. Banning 1/3 of the advertisements and rallies most certainly is rigging an election.
bcn 13y ago
Here's a zinger: The officials said one central concept connects a number of the court’s opinions. The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormous volumes of “metadata” — facts like the time of phone calls and the numbers dialed, but not the content of conversations — does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the government establishes a valid reason under national security regulations before taking the next step of actually examining the contents of an American’s communications. This concept is rooted partly in the “special needs” provision the court has embraced. “The basic idea is that it’s O.K. to create this huge pond of data,” a third official said, “but you have to establish a reason to stick your pole in the water and start fishing.”
- wavefunction 13y ago
  A pond of circular reasoning, built on sandy foundations of quid pro quo and legal memos hidden from the sunlight of day it seems.
  - drivebyacct2 13y ago
    Americuh! Fuck Yeah!
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    And of course it is only fitting that access to the information collected is all for sale to the Carlyle Groups of the world and their portfolio companies like BAH.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    drivebyacct2: your last few posts are dead. No idea what could have happened; you've been here a while and have twice the karma I do.
    - pyre 13y ago
      I believe that there is an automatic profanity filter.
- dclowd9901 13y ago
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
The FISA courts need to be dissolved, and replaced with something that is visible to the public.
lazyjones 13y ago
Secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons - what's your conclusion? Mine is: this is a secret dictatorship.
- graycat 13y ago
  Well, if not quite yet, then with, say, another president like Nixon .... Sorry 'bout that, but my conclusion was that, yes, he was a "crook".
  - sixothree 13y ago
    Judging from the tapes he spent more time trying to destroy his political enemies than actually governing.
    - graycat 13y ago
      Yup.
- pivnicek 13y ago
  We are open about our secrecy. "It is transparent, that’s why we set up the FISA court." - Barack Obama
drawkbox 13y ago
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." -- John F. Kennedy
foobarbazqux 13y ago
The motivation here is security through obscurity, right?
- graycat 13y ago
  Partly it's security theater.
  - untog 13y ago
    I don't think it's arguable that collecting every piece of data on every citizen could be a benefit to national security. It's just the associated cost to privacy that makes it utterly horrendous.
    - graycat 13y ago
      Maybe Stalin, Hitler, Himmler, J. E. Hoover, the Stasi, etc. would all agree that having all the data would help them build a surveillance state they would like. Still, no matter who does/doesn't not like having all that data collected, for the Federal Government to be able to demand that data strikes me as a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. Legal cases are being brought; maybe a case will make it to the SCOTUS; and maybe the SCOTUS will strike down as unconstitutional the laws that enabled such data collection. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution how nice would be to have a Stasi surveillance state and have to conclude that the US founding fathers did not desire such a thing. Anytime a clear majority of active voters want to have this situation turned around, around it will come, quickly.
- shmerl 13y ago
  No. Motivation is simple as before - thirst for power.
thbtbtbtbtb 13y ago
Imagine you work at the NSA. Your boss comes through the door and says, "Hey, we just got approval to store the communications of everyone everywhere. We need the be able to cite credible suspicion before we can look at Americans' communications, though. What can you do for me?" "Wait, we can intercept and store all the communications?" "Yep, all of them." "Because they might include ones that present a threat?" "Yeah, that's it." "OK. Well, what if we could narrow it down? What if we implemented a system to only scrutinize communications we thought were likely to be threats. That would be better, right?" "Where are you going with this?" "Well, we're already collecting everything, right? What if we went just a teensy bit further? What if we just added a step where we did semantic analysis of everything we collect? That way, we'd narrow down the stuff we were actually, you know, looking at to stuff we were already pretty sure was important." "That's a GREAT idea!" "Wait, I'm not finished. We could narrow it down even more if we maintained a graph of communications between everyone we know about. We want to affect the minimum number of people possible, right?" "Well, we're worried about lone wolves too..." "That's fine. We can get business records through the PATRIOT Act. We can make this a really fine-grained test. We can look for suspicious purchase patterns, medical conditions, attempts to avoid detection, you name it. What could possibly go wrong?"
a3n 13y ago
Why don't they get it over with and declare martial law? They clearly have decided they can do WTF-ever they want, by declaration.
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  They might already have done so - in secret!
lettergram 13y ago
Unfortunately they do not need scrutiny from the public, these judges (supposedly) are experts in constitutional law and the public (according to law) does not have any say in it.
ensignavenger 13y ago
"...the first Galactic Empire, for Peace and Security!" "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause!"
Amadou 13y ago
In this case, however, a little-noticed provision in a 2008 law, expanding the definition of “foreign intelligence” to include “weapons of mass destruction,” was used to justify access to the message. The court’s use of that language has allowed intelligence officials to get wider access to data and communication... That is really, really scary when you include the fact that the term "weapon of mass destruction" has been so watered down as to now include even a freakin potato gun. http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/expansive-definition-for-weapon-of-mass-destruction-gives-prosecutors-the-power-13635.html http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/expan...
ferdo 13y ago
> In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. This is political kabuki designed to make us think we have a representative government. We don't. We have an oligarchy composed of financial/industrial/military interests (as all oligarchies are) that runs the intelligence agencies of the government it owns. The fact of the matter is that the NSA has always considered itself exempt from the law and the Constitution: > "NSA does not have a statutory charter; its operational responsibilities are set forth exclusively in executive directives first issued in the 1950s. One of the questions which the Senate asked the Committee to consider was the "need for specific legislative authority to govern the operations of...the National Security Agency." > According to NSA's General Counsel, no existing statutes control, limit, or define the signals intelligence activities of NSA. Further, the General Counsel asserts that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to NSA's interception of Americans' international communications for foreign intelligence purposes." > http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/ChurchB3_10_NSA.pdf http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/C...
pivnicek 13y ago
A government that demands secret courts can not call itself democratic. It is the antithesis.
Qantourisc 13y ago
In our country all laws have to be published in the "Staatsblad" (State-released paper/documents containing new businesses, laws, ...) So unless a law to allow secret laws was made we shouldn't have secret laws. So that got me thinking, try outlawing secret laws ?
snsr 13y ago
> the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government Legal precedents created by non-adversarial proceedings in a secret court are nothing less than terrifying.
teeja 13y ago
Somehow I don't think the FISA court is fixing the problems it was created to fix. It seems to have been co-opted. Hopefully, in something less than a decade, one of our legislators can find time in his busy money-raising schedule to discover how that happened. And then start a task-force to make meaningful recommendations.
dsuth 13y ago
I do certification of high risk industrial installations for a living, and this story reminded me of one I heard about the Japanese Fukushima disaster. One of the guys who does certification over there did some digging and found out that they had 3 sets of operating procedures for the plant: the independently reviewed and certified ones which would provide a high level of safe operation; the ones they didn't show anyone which was how they supposedly operated the plant day to day (cutting corners); and then the way they actually operated the plant, which was even less safe. When I read stories about the FISA, they sound shocking, but they also sound a lot like Fukushima's 'second level' operating procedures. Bad, and an obvious sideshow, but not even close to what's really going on behind closed doors at the NSA.

329 points by bcn 13y ago

jdp23 13y ago

Excellent reporting by Eric Lichtblau based on "current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions". One key point: In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. The special needs doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the officials said.

lisper 13y ago
Funny, I must have missed the part of the Fourth Amendment that carves out an exception for "special needs" or "overriding public danger." Hm, let's see: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Nope, I still don't see it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - D9u 13y ago
    *"The supreme court's decision is final."* No it is not final, that's why we have appellate courts.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      /facepalm What do you think 'Supreme' means? The Supreme Court is where you take a case after you've been through the appellate courts. If this is your actual opinion rather than a typing error then you're unqualified to take part in this conversation.
      - tzs 13y ago
        In the Federal court system of the US, the Supreme Court is the top court. That is NOT the case in all court systems, though. In the New York State courts, for instance, the Supreme Courts are the trial courts. They are below the Supreme Court, Appellate Dicision, which is below the Court of Appeals. Thus, your argument that a court must be the top court because it has Supreme in its name is faulty.
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        In the Federal court system of the US, the Supreme Court is the top court. Which is the court system we're discussing. Why New York has an upside court naming scheme I don't know, but it's not relevant here.
        tzs 13y ago
        Your implicit (and somewhat rude) argument was that D9u should have known the Supreme Court of the US is the top court because it is named the "Supreme" court. The New York courts are relevant because they provide a counterexample that refutes your argument. You owe D9u an apology. You happened to be right in your conclusion that the Supreme Court of the US is the top US court, but that is only because you already knew that and tried to construct your argument backward from the conclusion.
      - graycat 13y ago
        However, some arguments here on HN have started to convince me that the SCOTUS role as 'supreme' or 'final' is not really correct and that Jefferson saw this. Instead, after the SCOTUS come the voters who can tell Congress, e.g., "I don't care what the SCOTUS says. I'm a citizen and a voter, and I say that what the NSA has been doing spying on US citizens violates the Fourth Amendment, and I want you to pass a law throttling the NSA and getting them honoring the Fourth Amendment." And if such a law is not enough, then the citizens can amend the Constitution. It will be nice if some plaintiff with standing to sue brings a case before the SCOTUS and wins. E.g., maybe a class action on behalf of all 120 million or so Verizon customers who had their telephone metadata grabbed by the NSA. Apparently Google is bringing a case.
- graycat 13y ago
  > Nope, I still don't see it. Your problem is understandable! An ordinary citizen can't be expected to "see it"! Seeing it takes special qualifications, years and years of experience, especially at the highest levels of government, many deep, secret arguments and considerations, etc. Only such very, very special people can be expected to "see it". In particular, those very, very special people can read the same words in the Fourth Amendment you and I can read but, unlike you and I, know that they, such very, very special people, are understanding the true meaning of those words, true meaning, I'm sorry to say, no insult intended, is just beyond ordinary people such as you and I. But now aren't you glad that our country, your privacy, and the Fourth Amendment are being so well cared for by such very, very special people, people who can understand things, e.g., the true meaning of the Fourth Amendment, you and I can never "see"? Uh, oops, where did it put that extra airline barf bag???
  - johncoltrane 13y ago
    What is the point of a constitution if any judge/lawmaker can create loopholes around its most crucial articles in complete secrecy? What is the point of a judiciary system that uses secrecy so easily while at the same time putting common people behind bars for perjury? How can people think they are free when they can be subjected to "laws" they never heard about at any time? To be honest, I'm not a citizen of the USA so I shouldn't care. But all that is increasingly appearing to be the norm around the world and it's becoming extremely worrying.
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      When a country abuses their own rules, the heads of state must be tried in an international (criminal) court. But no non-lawyer knows how to do it, so it never gets done. You're right about it being the norm. The only way to stop it is to sue them. it's literally the only thing they understand.
    - graycat 13y ago
      There a lot of competition for seats in the US House and Senate. So, basically one thing we are waiting for in the US is House and Senate candidates who want to make speeches strongly in favor of restoring the First and Fourth Amendments. It would be good news if the present members of the House and Senate would come out strongly for the Constitution. So, why not? Candidate reasons: (1) Currently the Dems have the White House and the Senate so don't want to appear to claim that the situation is rotten. (2) Everyone in office is afraid of being accused of being "soft on terrorism". And if a politician gives a speech saying we should restore the full meaning of the First and Fourth Amendments and another loser, wacko, Jihader Boston bomber kills/or injures some people, then the politician's political opponents will scream "soft on terrorism". (3) While some people are quite concerned about the NSA and Congress with the Patriot Act, etc. trashing the Constitution, likely and apparently so far not enough people are raising hell. (4) Somehow the political dynamics in the US are strongly toward: Once the US takes some step for national security, reversing that step is very difficult. A big example was Viet Nam: There the US went on and on and on spending more and more and more and right along, really, doing less well, for a very long time. How long? In the late 1940s, the US supported the return of the French. When the French lost in, whenever, 1954, the US tried to prop up a 'US friendly' Saigon. By Kennedy's term starting in 1961, as Saigon started to lose, Kennedy said some of the right things: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kentv.htm "I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it -- the people of Viet-Nam -- against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people." During his campaign, LBJ also said some of the right things: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/timeline/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/timeline/ "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." Then, once in office, LBJ wanted to win a "coon skin cap" and added and added. Then Nixon wanted only to 'win' -- I know, "Peace with honor". From about 1961 on, a growing fraction of the US voters were very much against the war and wanted, really, just, to, in a single word, leave. In two words, leave immediately. McGovern ran on that, and lost badly. The US demonstrations got bigger and stronger. The 1968 Dem convention in Chicago was a small war in the streets. There were many marches on DC. "Hay, hay, LBJ how many kids have you killed today?". Still the White House and Congress wanted to "stay the course". As we were actually losing and people were hanging off the last helicopters out of Saigon, President Ford still wanted to send more money. Gotta tell you, next to no one in Congress or the White House wanted out of Viet Nam. How'd we get out? The requests for much more in blood and treasure did fail in Congress. Then the North Vietnamese basically took South Viet Nam and Saigon and drove us out. Then, for the "war against terror", the other side has no hope of driving out the US like the North Vietnamese did. Viet Nam was the big example we were never to repeat, but we did. It didn't take much: A few wacko Jihaders hijacked four airplanes, and the US went all wacko: We ruined our airline system, trashed the Constitution with the Patriot Act, etc., occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and stayed for well over 10 years. Gulf War I was an exception: There we remembered Viet Nam and the fairly simple and obvious lessons and applied them. So, we asked what's the goal; can we achieve it; how do we achieve it; how do we get out? Goal: Drive Saddam out of Kuwait. How to achieve it: Have the Saudis give the US space for some airfields. For a few weeks, run one heck of an air campaign against the Iraqi forces. During that time, build up some ground forces. Then, release the ground forces into the Iraqi desert west of Kuwait for a big left hook, cut off Iraqi access to Kuwait, and kill off the caught Iraqis, all in just 100 hours. Invite the Iraqi military leaders to a tent, make them an offer they can't refuse, have them sign, and then mostly just leave. It worked as planned. With that success, for Gulf War II it was back to Viet Nam style many years of badly conceived mud wrestling. Similarly in Afghanistan. Net, again, once the US decides to pursue some such a national security effort, we go for years and years pursuing nonsense goals, being silly and ineffective, and just will not see, say, and act on the obvious -- leave. More generally, the US wants to police the world. When the world doesn't look nice enough to justify the police effort, the response is more time, blood, and treasure for more policing believing that less police work would yield a disaster. Alas, we ignore the lesson of Viet Nam: We couldn't have lost any worse than we did, both militarily (at the level at which we fought the war) or politically. Politically? We never could find anyone who could run the South from Saigon. So, with that big loss, what's happened? Did the world collapse? Did dominoes fall from SE Asia, east, all the way across the Pacific and land in Malibu? Did Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, Taiwan, Guam, etc. fall? Did Peking and/or Moscow dominate SE Asia? Heck no. Instead now Viet Nam is doing well making, e.g., Brother laser printers. The US should be totally thrilled with Viet Nam. Likely and apparently the US could have had that outcome in 1947, 1954, .... Bluntly, the US military and State Department, etc. just do not know how to do nation building. E.g., in Saigon we didn't know how to pick an effective leader. Apparently the situation is the same in Kabul. One reason is domestic US politics: So, if the nation building doesn't try to make the place look like Peoria, or some TV sitcom (Green Acres), then US politics gets all fired up. E.g., the US goes into a very traditional Muslim country and, for domestic US feminist politics, tries to educate the girls and have sexual equality, all of which is in wild conflict with social mores going back a few hundred years. We want them to have a constitution, a parliament, free elections, modern laws, a judicial system, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. Meanwhile the US loses out to some indigenous leaders who promise no such things. They have a way of doing things over there. That's not the US way, and we don't like it. But, we are total fools if we believe we can change their ways to being like our ways and more foolish if we believe that they will like our efforts at doing so. Instead, if we are to work in such a country, then we need to accept, understand, and work with their ways of doing things. And, yes, that might mean that don't send the girls to school. And it might mean that structures of power and leadership selected by means not close to free elections. Whatever, the US needs to make its policing efforts fast and effective and then leave. Politicians need to speak something closer to the truth to the US voters and not promise to pursue foreign adventures to create shining cities on hilltops. Until the US starts to look at reality and become effective, the US will continue to waste time, treasure, blood, the US Constitution, domestic tranquility, etc. In simple terms, on foreign adventures, the US needs to give it a rest, f'get about it, back off, cool down, relax, and then, something like it did after Viet Nam, rethink. For defending the US, do that both more effectively and mostly closer to home and without nation building. I'm not soft on terror or US foreign enemies: For Afghanistan, I would have leveled large areas of the place, all from the air, until the Taliban desperately called for peace at any price. But I wouldn't set foot in the place. Similarly for Saddam -- make him an offer he couldn't refuse, with B-2 bombers circling overhead just for practice, but again not set foot in the place. I wouldn't give them schools; I wouldn't give them so much as a short pencil. Then I'd leave. The need is to defend the US. There's no need to trash the US Constitution. Millions of US voters need to tell the politicians in clear terms to stop the brain-dead nonsense of wasting US time, treasure, blood, domestic tranquility, the domestic economy, and the US Constitution, wise up, and become effective.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  The fourth amendment also doesn't have an exclusionary rule in its text IE no part of it says if the police conduct an illegal search, they can't use that evidence against you. Yet most people seem to get up in arms when Scalia/Thomas/whoever says that line of cases should be overruled, and that it's up to congress to pass laws to deal with police conduct
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    The rule existed in traditional English Common law from long before the U.S. declared Independence. Being that the Fourth Amendment itself was a reaction against General Warrants and Writs of Assistance, it's hard to imagine the founders would have wanted even less protection here than English law already provided http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#History_of_the_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#History_of_th...
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      This is a great policy and common law argument. But, much like the parent comment, can you point where in the text of the 4th amendment (or the constitution) where it says anything about an exclusionary rule? Because if we are going to argue policy and common law, than we also have restrictions that don't appear in the text, but appeared in common law, as well.
      - jivatmanx 13y ago
        The Ninth amendment states that the Bill of Rights is not intended to be exhaustive enumeration of liberty. There is no danger in erring on the side of too much liberty. Parent errs on side of denying of liberty already clearly enumerated.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        Sure. I think we are mostly in violent agreement. I'm actually not trying to argue that it's not a violation of the fourth amendment (i strongly believe it is). I'm arguing that the literal text of the fourth amendment alone is not, by itself, a great explanation of what it really means in today's world. The reply I original made was to the argument that because 'overriding public danger' doesn't appear in the literal text of the 4th amendment, there can be no such exception. As we've both gone through, the 4th amendment can't be viewed in a vacuum, or else it would be nonsensical. So saying "i don't see where the literal text of the 4th amendment says that" doesn't seem to me a complete and total argument. For example, it literally says nothing about anything but papers, persons, houses, and effects. None of this explicitly covers phone calls, or even e-mail. You have to argue by analogy or inclusion in today's equivalent of papers or effects It also only prevents unreasonable searches and seizures, and there is an argument to be made that "special needs" or "overriding public danger" make the searches not unreasonable. I don't personally buy it, but ... As you mention, there is also historical context on all sides to consider. That is in fact, exactly my point. Saying "it ain't in the text" is even far past what textualism adherents do, and i'd venture to guess, would not make for a very useful statute construction philosophy.
- IanCal 13y ago
  Is this an interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? You're only protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, but if they deem collecting this data to be 'reasonable' then it wouldn't apply, if I'm reading it right. That said, I don't know much about the constitution (I'm from England, pip pip).
  - lisper 13y ago
    > Is this an interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? Probably, but it's not a reasonable one :-) Here are just a few reasons why: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/were_all_terrorist_suspects_now/ http://www.salon.com/2013/06/17/were_all_terrorist_suspects_... http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/what_do_drug_sniffing_dogs_have_to_do_with_the_18th_century_justice_system_partner/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/what_do_drug_sniffing_dogs_h...
nknighthb 13y ago
It's obscene. Skinner (the railway case) and its brethren are concerned with either employees in certain sensitive jobs, and school children participating voluntary activities. Some of them go too far, in my opinion, but none can be read as justification for this kind of blanket operation covering the entire populace.
leoc 13y ago
But this isn't news. It's apparently been public knowledge since 2009, when the redacted Yahoo! ruling was released http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru... . That ruling (even the redacted version which was relased) clearly lays out and upholds the concept of the "special needs"-based foreign-intelligence exception to the US' Fourth Amendment: 2 . The Foreign Intelligence Exception . The recurrent theme permeating the petitioner's arguments is the notion that there is no foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause. 6 The FISC rejected this notion, positing that our decision in In re Sealed Case confirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement. This ruling isn't secret, it's just been hiding in plain sight. Even after the NYT reported the Yahoo! connection to the verdict in an article which directly linked the ruling PDF, it was still apparently impossible to get people to read the ruling and see what it says about the Fourth Amendment for themselves. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5923606

D9u 13y ago

There can be no "consent of the governed" when "We the People" are unaware of the actions which our elected, as well as non-elected, representatives perpetrate in Our name. ___Edit__ Yes, "unaware," as in "We the People" are perpetually "unaware" of what goes on in secret court proceedings.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
Unaware? Mass surveillance has been going on for a long time, and everybody who cared to learn knew the immense scope. This is not a news revelation, it is a media campaign by parties who need something to talk about. Consent of the governed is the problem. The U.S. Senate is directly elected, and the public paranoia wanted these broad pseudo-security measures. Speaking of consent of the governed, why is the media saturated by Snowden-as-Bieber celebrity stories, and not election rigging by the IRS? Would you like to learn more?
- krapp 13y ago
  why is the media saturated by Snowden-as-Bieber celebrity stories, and not election rigging by the IRS? Let me guess, did your group's 501(c)(4) paperwork get held up by a few weeks?
  - newbie12 13y ago
    It was months or years in some cases, and there's also evidence the IRS leaked private donor lists and audited donors.
    - krapp 13y ago
      There's no evidence of 'rigged elections' though.
      - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
        U.S. political campaigns are conducted largely via tax-free contributions. Banning 1/3 of the advertisements and rallies most certainly is rigging an election.

bcn 13y ago

Here's a zinger: The officials said one central concept connects a number of the court’s opinions. The judges have concluded that the mere collection of enormous volumes of “metadata” — facts like the time of phone calls and the numbers dialed, but not the content of conversations — does not violate the Fourth Amendment, as long as the government establishes a valid reason under national security regulations before taking the next step of actually examining the contents of an American’s communications. This concept is rooted partly in the “special needs” provision the court has embraced. “The basic idea is that it’s O.K. to create this huge pond of data,” a third official said, “but you have to establish a reason to stick your pole in the water and start fishing.”

wavefunction 13y ago
A pond of circular reasoning, built on sandy foundations of quid pro quo and legal memos hidden from the sunlight of day it seems.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Americuh! Fuck Yeah!
- cinquemb 13y ago
  And of course it is only fitting that access to the information collected is all for sale to the Carlyle Groups of the world and their portfolio companies like BAH.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  drivebyacct2: your last few posts are dead. No idea what could have happened; you've been here a while and have twice the karma I do.
  - pyre 13y ago
    I believe that there is an automatic profanity filter.
dclowd9901 13y ago

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

The FISA courts need to be dissolved, and replaced with something that is visible to the public.

lazyjones 13y ago

Secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons - what's your conclusion? Mine is: this is a secret dictatorship.

graycat 13y ago
Well, if not quite yet, then with, say, another president like Nixon .... Sorry 'bout that, but my conclusion was that, yes, he was a "crook".
- sixothree 13y ago
  Judging from the tapes he spent more time trying to destroy his political enemies than actually governing.
  - graycat 13y ago
    Yup.
pivnicek 13y ago
We are open about our secrecy. "It is transparent, that’s why we set up the FISA court." - Barack Obama

drawkbox 13y ago

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." -- John F. Kennedy

foobarbazqux 13y ago

The motivation here is security through obscurity, right?

graycat 13y ago
Partly it's security theater.
- untog 13y ago
  I don't think it's arguable that collecting every piece of data on every citizen could be a benefit to national security. It's just the associated cost to privacy that makes it utterly horrendous.
  - graycat 13y ago
    Maybe Stalin, Hitler, Himmler, J. E. Hoover, the Stasi, etc. would all agree that having all the data would help them build a surveillance state they would like. Still, no matter who does/doesn't not like having all that data collected, for the Federal Government to be able to demand that data strikes me as a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment. Legal cases are being brought; maybe a case will make it to the SCOTUS; and maybe the SCOTUS will strike down as unconstitutional the laws that enabled such data collection. I can't find anywhere in the Constitution how nice would be to have a Stasi surveillance state and have to conclude that the US founding fathers did not desire such a thing. Anytime a clear majority of active voters want to have this situation turned around, around it will come, quickly.
shmerl 13y ago
No. Motivation is simple as before - thirst for power.

thbtbtbtbtb 13y ago

Imagine you work at the NSA. Your boss comes through the door and says, "Hey, we just got approval to store the communications of everyone everywhere. We need the be able to cite credible suspicion before we can look at Americans' communications, though. What can you do for me?" "Wait, we can intercept and store all the communications?" "Yep, all of them." "Because they might include ones that present a threat?" "Yeah, that's it." "OK. Well, what if we could narrow it down? What if we implemented a system to only scrutinize communications we thought were likely to be threats. That would be better, right?" "Where are you going with this?" "Well, we're already collecting everything, right? What if we went just a teensy bit further? What if we just added a step where we did semantic analysis of everything we collect? That way, we'd narrow down the stuff we were actually, you know, looking at to stuff we were already pretty sure was important." "That's a GREAT idea!" "Wait, I'm not finished. We could narrow it down even more if we maintained a graph of communications between everyone we know about. We want to affect the minimum number of people possible, right?" "Well, we're worried about lone wolves too..." "That's fine. We can get business records through the PATRIOT Act. We can make this a really fine-grained test. We can look for suspicious purchase patterns, medical conditions, attempts to avoid detection, you name it. What could possibly go wrong?"

a3n 13y ago

Why don't they get it over with and declare martial law? They clearly have decided they can do WTF-ever they want, by declaration.

joe_the_user 13y ago
They might already have done so - in secret!

lettergram 13y ago

Unfortunately they do not need scrutiny from the public, these judges (supposedly) are experts in constitutional law and the public (according to law) does not have any say in it.

ensignavenger 13y ago

"...the first Galactic Empire, for Peace and Security!" "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause!"

Amadou 13y ago

In this case, however, a little-noticed provision in a 2008 law, expanding the definition of “foreign intelligence” to include “weapons of mass destruction,” was used to justify access to the message. The court’s use of that language has allowed intelligence officials to get wider access to data and communication... That is really, really scary when you include the fact that the term "weapon of mass destruction" has been so watered down as to now include even a freakin potato gun. http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/expansive-definition-for-weapon-of-mass-destruction-gives-prosecutors-the-power-13635.html http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/government/expan...

ferdo 13y ago

> In one of the court’s most important decisions, the judges have expanded the use in terrorism cases of a legal principle known as the “special needs” doctrine and carved out an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant for searches and seizures, the officials said. This is political kabuki designed to make us think we have a representative government. We don't. We have an oligarchy composed of financial/industrial/military interests (as all oligarchies are) that runs the intelligence agencies of the government it owns. The fact of the matter is that the NSA has always considered itself exempt from the law and the Constitution: > "NSA does not have a statutory charter; its operational responsibilities are set forth exclusively in executive directives first issued in the 1950s. One of the questions which the Senate asked the Committee to consider was the "need for specific legislative authority to govern the operations of...the National Security Agency." > According to NSA's General Counsel, no existing statutes control, limit, or define the signals intelligence activities of NSA. Further, the General Counsel asserts that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to NSA's interception of Americans' international communications for foreign intelligence purposes." > http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/ChurchB3_10_NSA.pdf http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book3/pdf/C...

pivnicek 13y ago

A government that demands secret courts can not call itself democratic. It is the antithesis.

Qantourisc 13y ago

In our country all laws have to be published in the "Staatsblad" (State-released paper/documents containing new businesses, laws, ...) So unless a law to allow secret laws was made we shouldn't have secret laws. So that got me thinking, try outlawing secret laws ?

snsr 13y ago

> the court is creating a significant body of law without hearing from anyone outside the government Legal precedents created by non-adversarial proceedings in a secret court are nothing less than terrifying.

teeja 13y ago

Somehow I don't think the FISA court is fixing the problems it was created to fix. It seems to have been co-opted. Hopefully, in something less than a decade, one of our legislators can find time in his busy money-raising schedule to discover how that happened. And then start a task-force to make meaningful recommendations.

dsuth 13y ago

I do certification of high risk industrial installations for a living, and this story reminded me of one I heard about the Japanese Fukushima disaster. One of the guys who does certification over there did some digging and found out that they had 3 sets of operating procedures for the plant: the independently reviewed and certified ones which would provide a high level of safe operation; the ones they didn't show anyone which was how they supposedly operated the plant day to day (cutting corners); and then the way they actually operated the plant, which was even less safe. When I read stories about the FISA, they sound shocking, but they also sound a lot like Fukushima's 'second level' operating procedures. Bad, and an obvious sideshow, but not even close to what's really going on behind closed doors at the NSA.