9 ms·

people have talked about only hearing one side of the case, but that's the same for all warrant proceedings. FISA court isn't about declaring people guilty, it

by rtpg 11y ago

people have talked about only hearing one side of the case, but that's the same for all warrant proceedings. FISA court isn't about declaring people guilty, it's about declaring whether there's reasonable suspicion.

SoftwareMaven 11y ago
It's more than just warrants, it's any information about information gathering at all. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/new-eff-aclu-amicus-brief-argues-court-right-order-disclosure-fisa-materials https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/new-eff-aclu-amicus-br...
joshuak 11y ago
Well in that case they've never had it with regard to 'all' business records of ANY kind. By definition there is no 'reasonable suspicion' in that context. In fact there is no suspicion at all, and that lack of suspicion is the crux of the whole argument is it not?
schoen 11y ago
On the other hand, we do have expiry (by default) of the secrecy surrounding regular warrants when they're executed, plus the ability to challenge them at trial and in appellate proceedings, with the result that there's an enormous amount of regular case law about them, even though all of them were originally issued ex parte. So that is very different. The main exception that we know about in the regular criminal justice system has been cell site simulators and cell site location information, where the government tried super-hard to prevent people from knowing that this information was being collected or challenging its collection or use.
higherpurpose 11y ago
So how does the FISA court determine that "3-hop" people (millions) are "suspicious, then? The standard for an NSA "general warrant" is FAR, and I mean FAR weaker than for a regular warrant. Literally orders of magnitudes weaker, to the point you could barely consider it a "standard". Especially when the FISA court approves for for 3 months at once (and now for 6). What kind of "warrant" is that? Does that sound reasonable to you?
- zkhalique 11y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but organizations and agencies are basically using humans to further their own desires, such as to continue existing and expand their powers. You can see this in organizations ranging from companies to government agencies. And Big Data is like crack cocaine to them. Do you really think you can cut off their access to something so eminently collectable? Do you think if it technology has enabled it, then organizations won't find a way to use it? If the USA spy agencies don't do it, the Chinese and Russians will. The details of some domestic law doesn't matter, they'll just find ways around it. At the end of the day, the organizations need the data. Humans can only fight organizations with other organizations... humans that try to get in the way on their own are eliminated and replaced.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
It's about stuffing databases full of surveillance information gathered by the NSA; databases which are shared with law enforcement agencies across the country. Those agencies then use the data to mine for leads, stage fake context searches, seize peoples' property, and put people on criminal trial; all while denying collusion with the surveillance state. I'm supposed to think this is all okay because, 'hey, they're guilty, right?' except that 1. This is explicitly prohibited by the Bill of Rights and 2. They aren't always guilty.

by rtpg 11y ago

SoftwareMaven 11y ago

It's more than just warrants, it's any information about information gathering at all. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/new-eff-aclu-amicus-brief-argues-court-right-order-disclosure-fisa-materials https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/new-eff-aclu-amicus-br...

joshuak 11y ago

Well in that case they've never had it with regard to 'all' business records of ANY kind. By definition there is no 'reasonable suspicion' in that context. In fact there is no suspicion at all, and that lack of suspicion is the crux of the whole argument is it not?

schoen 11y ago

On the other hand, we do have expiry (by default) of the secrecy surrounding regular warrants when they're executed, plus the ability to challenge them at trial and in appellate proceedings, with the result that there's an enormous amount of regular case law about them, even though all of them were originally issued ex parte. So that is very different. The main exception that we know about in the regular criminal justice system has been cell site simulators and cell site location information, where the government tried super-hard to prevent people from knowing that this information was being collected or challenging its collection or use.

higherpurpose 11y ago

So how does the FISA court determine that "3-hop" people (millions) are "suspicious, then? The standard for an NSA "general warrant" is FAR, and I mean FAR weaker than for a regular warrant. Literally orders of magnitudes weaker, to the point you could barely consider it a "standard". Especially when the FISA court approves for for 3 months at once (and now for 6). What kind of "warrant" is that? Does that sound reasonable to you?

zkhalique 11y ago
I hate to break it to you, but organizations and agencies are basically using humans to further their own desires, such as to continue existing and expand their powers. You can see this in organizations ranging from companies to government agencies. And Big Data is like crack cocaine to them. Do you really think you can cut off their access to something so eminently collectable? Do you think if it technology has enabled it, then organizations won't find a way to use it? If the USA spy agencies don't do it, the Chinese and Russians will. The details of some domestic law doesn't matter, they'll just find ways around it. At the end of the day, the organizations need the data. Humans can only fight organizations with other organizations... humans that try to get in the way on their own are eliminated and replaced.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

It's about stuffing databases full of surveillance information gathered by the NSA; databases which are shared with law enforcement agencies across the country. Those agencies then use the data to mine for leads, stage fake context searches, seize peoples' property, and put people on criminal trial; all while denying collusion with the surveillance state. I'm supposed to think this is all okay because, 'hey, they're guilty, right?' except that 1. This is explicitly prohibited by the Bill of Rights and 2. They aren't always guilty.