Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 140 posts

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#101

Post by Terr_ »

realce wrote: post #44
Terr_ wrote: post #10

On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…

The proof is in the pudding! Since there have been no horrible events since the ultra-law was enacted, it must be working!

Lisa Simpson [0] approved.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBMwPcRbVE

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#102

Post by landemva »

jfengel wrote: post #69
smeeth wrote: post #41

A clarification, because I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding: This is about whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to see information that was already collected legally by another part of the gov't. This is not about whether or not the gov't can collect this specific data in the first place, everyone involved seems to agree they do.

Correct. There is a strong dividing line between those two organizations, resulting from some very bad misbehavior by the FBI and CIA in the 1950s and 60s. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to allow some agencies to collect information on non-Americans using techniques they'd never allow on citizens, while other agencies can use a more restricted set of techniques on Americans. After 9/11 they brea…

How is 9/11 on the other side of harassing MLK? FBI had been told before 9/11 about non-citizens paying with cash at flights schools for heavy aircraft simulator time.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-sch...

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#103

Post by Terr_ »

kenjackson wrote: post #43
Terr_ wrote: post #10

On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…

That’s insincere. Even if you truly believe a catastrophe may happen you may not be willing to risk life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss.

> life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss

1. If the President hates the CIA/NSA/FBI director that much they tend to get quickly replaced.

2. Punishing a lower-level agent with prison doesn't seem like an effective way to get revenge on whatever agency leadership the President might hate.

You're making an appeal to a compound scenario: It isn't just (A) "Hollywood ticking bomb" unlikely, but also (B) "TV political backstabbing drama" unlikely, multiplied again by (C) "stupidly baroque form of revenge" unlikely... to get a final probability somewhere near zero-point-zero-zero-not-gonna-happen-LOL.

So no, I don't think that fantastical hypothetical justifies day-to-day erosion of rule-of-law and civil rights.

> Even if you truly believe a catastrophe may happen

If someone truly believes it and they have a reasonable basis behind that belief [0], then surely the morality of saving millions from an atomic fireball or whatever goes pretty dang far in outweighing 1-20 years in federal prison, and they will have ample evidence to make a strong case for getting a pardon.

[0] If spy/agent/analyst dude "truly believes" but for no real reason other than voices in their head, a prophetic dream, hidden scriptures, or alphabet-soup... they are already incompetent and need to be fired immediately to remove them from that position of authority.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#104

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

RajT88 wrote: post #71
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, you are too late for any comment about the text to hold any water. 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald settled that. It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. One term that came from Heller was “dangerous and unusual”, make note of the and. Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary.

In terms of setting precedent, this is accurate. > It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. > Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary. The 1766 definition reads: "Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidan…

>Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past.

It really wasn't. Had Miller not be basically defaulted on by death, but decided anyhow... this would have been clear earlier. Just because you don't like it - never made it any less of an individual right... You know, the second one in the section where all the other individual civil rights are - or was that an organizing mistake on their part?

Your definition is very interesting in that it seems to be a clear case of revisionist history, or a complete fabrication. Post a link, please.

Because here are quotes using the term, and not one in the 1700/1800s implies regulation as in government regulation [0] [1]. Working properly, in good working order, effective.

[0] https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Quotations?textTermText0... [1] https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20lite...

But hey.... Keep pushing "collective right" you're wasting your time, not mine. It's moot for my lifetime, and will be my kids problem.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#105

Post by crmd »

Terr_ wrote: post #10

On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…

A good friend who worked for DoD explained it well to me: unseemly behavior in response to “ticking time bomb” scenarios should be absolutely 100% illegal; don’t worry, if it ever actually happens (unlikely) we will break the law and ask for forgiveness.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#106

Post by RajT88 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #104
RajT88 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of setting precedent, this is accurate. > It is an individuals right to keep and bear, not collective, never was. Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. > Next, well regulated never meant lots of regulations. It meant well trained and in good working order. 1800s Oxford dictionary. The 1766 definition reads: "Properly controlled, governed, or directed; subject to guidan…

>Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. It really wasn't. Had Miller not be basically defaulted on by death, but decided anyhow... this would have been clear earlier. Just because you don't like it - never made it any less of an individual right... You know, the second one in the section where all the other individual civil rights are - or was that an organizing mistake on their…

You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go:

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and...

But that is besides the point.

Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Militia acts of 1792/1795/1862 and finally 1903. It's all really straightforward, and each thing logically follows the next. Miller follows along in that vein. There's nothing revisionist about it; it's all really straightforward.

Where things get crooked in the reasoning is literally the Heller decision. Somehow it refers to the first Militia act with the decision referring to "able bodied men", while then concluding that "Militia" in the 2A does not actually mean "Militia". It's pretty bonkers.

You seem to be as willing to cherry pick as the conservative SCOTUS majority was in 2008. It's kind of nuts, because what I cited above, actually does already provide for private firearm ownership (with some boundaries around it). It's quite obvious that the reason for the much more convoluted reasoning in Heller is because the conservative majority wanted to greatly expand gun rights, and had to work backward from that goal to something that gave them enough of a fig leaf to ignore the (massive, self-evident) history of Militias and their regulation.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#107

Post by sneak »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #12

I'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.

Law enforcement in the US exists to enforce the existing social order (including that of class and race), not to pursue justice or universally/fairly enforce laws. This isn’t some conspiracy theory, but is well documented in the history of policing in the USA, both at the local and federal level.

It is a tool used by the ownership class (via selective enforcement) to legally mitigate threats to their social, economic, and political dominance.

This is why minorities are disproportionately represented in prison for disproportionately minor crimes, and why rich white people doing the same drugs don’t generally get in any trouble.

This is also why police, the essential enforcers in the system, are generally permitted to commit as much minor crime (except against members of the ownership class) as they wish. The system falls down without their cooperation.

Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#108

Post by kenjackson »

Terr_ wrote: post #103
kenjackson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s insincere. Even if you truly believe a catastrophe may happen you may not be willing to risk life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss.

> life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss 1. If the President hates the CIA/NSA/FBI director that much they tend to get quickly replaced. 2. Punishing a lower-level agent with prison doesn't seem like an effective way to get revenge on whatever agency leadership the President might hate. You're making an appeal to a compound scenario: It isn't just (A) "Hollywood ticking bomb" unlikely, but…

Play this out with the recent Hamas attack. You decide to torture some Hamas member and discover plans of this attack. You feed the info to Israel who then changes their patrol pattern and Hamas pulls their attack plan.

Now you are in trial for torturing this guy. You state that you stopped a major attack. Israel isn’t even fully convinced an attack was eminent, despite you being confident. Even other members of Hamas provide evidence on your behalf, but it looks bad for everyone involved that torture was needed. It’s much better looking to the general intelligence establishment that you acted ina rogue manner doing something that may have at best helped a little and at worst had ignited a whole international crisis of torture of a Palestinian.

I think for a lot of people they would be fine to just see how things play out and later say “if we tortured this guy who later admitted to know we could’ve stopped the attack”.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#109

Post by wolverine876 »

“A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; or because, when the standard could be met, it would be so only after the expenditure of scarce resources, the submission and review of a lengthy legal filing, and the passage of significant time — which, in the world of rapidly evolving threats, the government often does not have,”

The serious issue for IT professionals is, as always, to find a solution that meets all needs: Efficiency (resource consumption), privacy, legality.

I don't know enough of the requirements, but a couple possibilities:

* Automate warrant submissions (obviously).

* Provide warrantless views of the data that preserve privacy and allow rapid review. For example, hide all proper nouns and only allow a GPT and intelligence agent to review it. If something is found, it can be passed to law enforcement for warrant requests.

Again, I really don't know nearly enough about the requirements, process, etc., but it would be interesting to hear from someone who does.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#110

Post by 15457345234 »

jpk wrote: post #28
appleskeptic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be awful. Theft and bribery are already prosecuted aggressively. If anything, too much. It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Here they are, some of the most powerful people in the world, paid barely enough to live an hour drive away from DC, having to spend a fair bit of their personal income to go to lunch and dinner with leaders of private industry. As for c…

You seem to be arguing that we have a system where theft and bribery are necessary in some way, and therefore we shouldn't prosecute it aggressively. Wouldn't we rather reform the system such that it makes theft and bribery less attractive?

> You seem to be arguing

The sarcasm is positively dripping from that post

Post reply on HN