4 ms·

Simple: the NSA isn't a law enforcement agency. It's not presenting evidence in court.

by jonstewart 12y ago

wooter 12y ago
Hm... not so sure why this fact allows them to trample the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
- adventured 12y ago
  It's not about allow, it's about stop. Most politicians in DC have no interest in stopping what the NSA is doing, so it isn't going to get stopped.
malandrew 12y ago
A bit off topic, but your comment did lead me to think that there may be a alternative way to curb NSA civil liberties abuses: treat it like an island. Right now, one of the biggest problems with the NSA for civil liberties is that it routinely cooperates with other domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and local law enforcement. With this is mind, we may also want to consider pushing for laws that isolate the NSA from domestic law enforcement by making any communication between the NSA and domestic law enforcement a crime without oversight from the public. A policy like this would not be without precedence, since we use a similar mechanism, the "chinese wall", in the financial world to separate departments of financial institutions that have a conflict of interest. The beauty of a "chinese wall" even though its not 100% effective is that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the mind of the individual when they themselves are doing something illegal/unethical. The citizenry of this country should seriously consider erecting such a large wall between the NSA/CIA and domestic law enforcement that one cannot talk to the other in any form without mediation (at work or outside of work) without it being a felony. A policy like this would go a long way to preventing abuses like parallel construction since it makes an activity at the human level a felony. Policies that aim to police organizational behavior are never as effective as policies that aim to police the activity of rank and file employees, since the enforcement of the former suffers from diffusion of responsibility. Specifically saying "Activity X is illegal and you'll be held responsible regardless of whether or not your superior(s) commanded you to do something" is a great way of curtailing institutional problems. Show me a corrupt institution and I'll show you that it is an institution where none of the crimes are policed at the level of the individual at the bottom. Isolating the NSA is as important for freedom and liberty in the world as passing laws that police its organizational behavior. That being said, we should still push for curbing all the civil liberties abuses currently practiced and putting rules in place preventing future abuses.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Yes, I agree, this might be a workable solution to satisfy both civil libertarians and those who think the NSA should be permitted all the access it wants. One could even argue that the Posse Comitatus Act already mandates such a wall.
  - malandrew 12y ago
    As much as I would love it if the Posse Comitatus Act addressed this, the fact that it focuses on "enforcement" by the military means it probably would be deemed as not applicable here. The NSA and CIA are providing informational support that violates numerous parts of the bill of rights, but the enforcement itself is still being carried out by the FBI, ATF, Secret Service and state and local police. At the time Posse Comitatus was passed, I don't think anyone ever envisioned that technology would one day permit pervasive ever-present surveillance. Are there any parts of the act that specifically attempt to curtail supporting enforcement by other means using language that could apply to information sharing techniques used in parallel construction?
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      I have to admit that was a stretch on my part. I was just thinking that "enforcement" could be argued to include the provision of relevant information. But the question isn't so much whether one could make the argument as how many people would be likely to be sympathetic to such a broad reading of the act. An increasing number, perhaps...
- mpyne 12y ago
  It's not a bad idea; there's in theory a very weak such wall already present so it's not as if there's no precedent. And I'd certainly feel better knowing that techniques like parallel construction could be replaced with a formal mechanism under strong oversight for use in serious criminal cases, without destroying intelligence sources and methods.

Simple: the NSA isn't a law enforcement agency. It's not presenting evidence in court.

wooter 12y ago

Hm... not so sure why this fact allows them to trample the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

adventured 12y ago
It's not about allow, it's about stop. Most politicians in DC have no interest in stopping what the NSA is doing, so it isn't going to get stopped.

malandrew 12y ago

A bit off topic, but your comment did lead me to think that there may be a alternative way to curb NSA civil liberties abuses: treat it like an island. Right now, one of the biggest problems with the NSA for civil liberties is that it routinely cooperates with other domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and local law enforcement. With this is mind, we may also want to consider pushing for laws that isolate the NSA from domestic law enforcement by making any communication between the NSA and domestic law enforcement a crime without oversight from the public. A policy like this would not be without precedence, since we use a similar mechanism, the "chinese wall", in the financial world to separate departments of financial institutions that have a conflict of interest. The beauty of a "chinese wall" even though its not 100% effective is that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the mind of the individual when they themselves are doing something illegal/unethical. The citizenry of this country should seriously consider erecting such a large wall between the NSA/CIA and domestic law enforcement that one cannot talk to the other in any form without mediation (at work or outside of work) without it being a felony. A policy like this would go a long way to preventing abuses like parallel construction since it makes an activity at the human level a felony. Policies that aim to police organizational behavior are never as effective as policies that aim to police the activity of rank and file employees, since the enforcement of the former suffers from diffusion of responsibility. Specifically saying "Activity X is illegal and you'll be held responsible regardless of whether or not your superior(s) commanded you to do something" is a great way of curtailing institutional problems. Show me a corrupt institution and I'll show you that it is an institution where none of the crimes are policed at the level of the individual at the bottom. Isolating the NSA is as important for freedom and liberty in the world as passing laws that police its organizational behavior. That being said, we should still push for curbing all the civil liberties abuses currently practiced and putting rules in place preventing future abuses.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Yes, I agree, this might be a workable solution to satisfy both civil libertarians and those who think the NSA should be permitted all the access it wants. One could even argue that the Posse Comitatus Act already mandates such a wall.
- malandrew 12y ago
  As much as I would love it if the Posse Comitatus Act addressed this, the fact that it focuses on "enforcement" by the military means it probably would be deemed as not applicable here. The NSA and CIA are providing informational support that violates numerous parts of the bill of rights, but the enforcement itself is still being carried out by the FBI, ATF, Secret Service and state and local police. At the time Posse Comitatus was passed, I don't think anyone ever envisioned that technology would one day permit pervasive ever-present surveillance. Are there any parts of the act that specifically attempt to curtail supporting enforcement by other means using language that could apply to information sharing techniques used in parallel construction?
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    I have to admit that was a stretch on my part. I was just thinking that "enforcement" could be argued to include the provision of relevant information. But the question isn't so much whether one could make the argument as how many people would be likely to be sympathetic to such a broad reading of the act. An increasing number, perhaps...
mpyne 12y ago
It's not a bad idea; there's in theory a very weak such wall already present so it's not as if there's no precedent. And I'd certainly feel better knowing that techniques like parallel construction could be replaced with a formal mechanism under strong oversight for use in serious criminal cases, without destroying intelligence sources and methods.