4 ms·

Not to mention that according to Chris Soghoian from ACLU, last year only 5 out of 180 FISA orders were authorized by 215 - the rest were authorized by other pr

Not to mention that according to Chris Soghoian from ACLU, last year only 5 out of 180 FISA orders were authorized by 215 - the rest were authorized by other programs. So this "critical" program represents only like ~3% of the government's surveillance programs. After all we only are talking about "phone records" here. Most records would likely come from Internet communications these days and there are likely programs that include capturing the content as well. Also: "McConnell announced that the Senate would return from its break on Sunday, May 31, just a few hours before the midnight deadline. McConnell called it "one more opportunity to act responsibly." http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senate-usa-freedom-act-fails-section-215-patriot-act-expiration/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senate-usa-freedom-act-fail... So it's not over until the fat lady sings.

ChrisAntaki 11y ago
> After all we only are talking about "phone records" here Phone records are the most publicized example of Section 215 in use, but the section is worded to apply to any "tangible thing."
throwawayaway 11y ago
Your story checks out, how depressing: FISC 5/180[0] [0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/05/why_the_current.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/05/why_the_curre...
derf_ 11y ago
> only 5 out of 180 FISA orders were authorized by 215 If you have a statute that you believe allows you to surveil the entire population, how many orders does that require? As opposed to ones that require some standard of suspicion for an individual or group. I don't mean to imply there aren't other programs or theories of authority, but that this statistics tells you exactly nothing about the importance of a particular provision.