Live data from Hacker News

Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

techcrunch.com

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#21
The reason that FISA warrant requests have such a high acceptance rate is because a federal prosecutor wouldn't ask for one unless they were certain it would be approved. They don't have to file a request every time a federal agent wants a warrant. They have the option to say "You need to gather more evidence".

They say a good trial lawyer won't ask a witness a question without knowing what the answer will be. FBI lawyers know the law and they know the judges, they won't just take shots in the dark when it comes to obtaining warrants. It's like asking why you have a 100% approval rate for your bank card purchases. If you know that you don't have enough money, you won't try to buy something.

Keep in mind that it's difficult to become a federal prosecutor and the job attracts intelligent people. The kind of lawyer that you see advertising on the side of a bus or a local DA trying to make a name for herself will try to push the envelope to get as much as they can. But high level corporate or government lawyers rarely sign their names to anything that isn't legally rock solid.

I just saw the Obama interview and he only hinted at this answer. As a Harvard trained lawyer he understands the system, but as POTUS he can't always be candid.

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#22
post #18

Dear God, it's like I'm a kid again. I didn't grow up in the US; when I was a kid, we didn't have this kind of interviews on TV. For one thing, most of the TV shows they aired was propaganda, and it was so utterly boring most of us didn't bother. The newspapers, on the other hand, carried propaganda along with the news, so you kindda had to read it, too, if you were to know what's happening. The smarter folks could e…

You skipped something - besides the foreign entities that represent a perpetual threat, you also have the internal elements classified as "fierce civil libertarians", for now ;-)

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#23
post #19
post #10

Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question: "But has FISA court turned down any request?" We get this answer: "The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion." Just blather, incoherence and grasp…

This is the thing I hate about media. Charlie, dude, you're the moderator. You're a journalist who's been schooled and has tens of years of experience in the field, whose duty is to inform your viewers/readers about current events. If they aren't informed, ask the fucking question. "But has FISA turned down any request?" "The -- because -- whatever". "Ok, so has it turned down any request?"

Charlie Rose gets lots of inside access and high-powered guests because his MO is to kiss up to powerful people, ask softball questions, and follow whatever plan he made for the interview, regardless of the answers he gets. He almost never asks useful follow-up questions, often doesn’t seem to pay any attention to what his guests have to say, and asks lots of moronic paragraphs-long yes-or-no questions (my favorite answer to one of these was from IIRC Bill Joy from maybe 15 years ago “[3 second pause] Well, Duh.”). As an interviewer qua interviewer, he’s the worst in public broadcasting. But of course, his show is still sometimes worth watching, because he ends up getting lots of great guests.

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#24
post #19
post #10

Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question: "But has FISA court turned down any request?" We get this answer: "The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion." Just blather, incoherence and grasp…

This is the thing I hate about media. Charlie, dude, you're the moderator. You're a journalist who's been schooled and has tens of years of experience in the field, whose duty is to inform your viewers/readers about current events. If they aren't informed, ask the fucking question. "But has FISA turned down any request?" "The -- because -- whatever". "Ok, so has it turned down any request?"

Yes, this is a failure of the Journalist. You job is to find the truth, if they are evasive you do not just shrug and move on.

As much as I dislike him the US needs a Jeremy Paxman who is willing to ask the same question 14 times in a row. (Yes, I know the reason he asked so many times was because they were running fast, he still had to have the balls to do it.)

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#25
> There is a second program called the 702 program. [...] It can only be narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks

A FISA 702 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6304/text order (IANAL) authorises "the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information". In FISA http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg178... section 101 "foreign intelligence information" is defined thus:

(e) "Foreign intelligence information" means— (1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against — (A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or PUBLIC LAW 95-511—OCT. 25, 1978 92 STAT. 1785 (2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to— (A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or (B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

Again IANAL, but it seems that just about any possible reason the US could have for going through a non-resident alien's GMail or Dropbox account could be waved through under (e)(2). Lockheed Martin would like to know all your business secrets? Of course this would benefit the national defense of the United States. Annoying EU politician holding out against whatever intellectual-property treaty the US government is pushing this year? Clearly the United States would be aided in the conduct of its foreign affairs by complete surveillance of his email and calendar, maybe even by tipping off some journalists about the affair he is having. (Again, I'm not saying here that anything much like this has happened, just suggesting that the "foreign intelligence information" requirement isn't going to prevent it from happening.)

And it's not even clear to me that the FISC court has any requirement or ability to rule on whether the US government is staying within even this very generous "foreign intelligence information" requirement. On a FISA 702 certification the Government has to 702 (g)(2)(A) "attest that-- [...] '(v) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information". Does this give the FISC any ability to inquire into the specifics, or is the government basically on Scout's honour in this?

So I can't see any legal basis on which FAA 702 orders are restricted to being "narrowly related to counter-terrorism, weapons proliferation, cyber hacking or attacks". But I presume Pres. Obama isn't just lying here, so I assume that an executive decision has been made to that effect: that the NSA cube-farm workers who are grinding through routine counter-terrorist surveillance are under orders to so restrict themselves. But that would just be an administrative order, not a law actually binding on the government. So, at some level between the President and the desk-jockeys, the decision could be made at any time to revise or take away that restriction - or just to set it aside ad hoc at any time for any reason. I don't think it's even clear that the boys who handle industrial espionage and the like are covered by this order at all.

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#26
> I don’t think anybody says we’re no longer free because we have checkpoints at airports.

Lies right there. It's difficult to call someone a liar because the scope is far reaching, beyond just one untruth or another. Would it be correct to say "Obama is a liar"?

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#27
post #19
post #10

Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question: "But has FISA court turned down any request?" We get this answer: "The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion." Just blather, incoherence and grasp…

This is the thing I hate about media. Charlie, dude, you're the moderator. You're a journalist who's been schooled and has tens of years of experience in the field, whose duty is to inform your viewers/readers about current events. If they aren't informed, ask the fucking question. "But has FISA turned down any request?" "The -- because -- whatever". "Ok, so has it turned down any request?"

You'll enjoy this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

(not american, sadly)

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#29
post #10

Obama is almost certainly the best spoken US President in 50 years. But when asked a simple, straightforward yes or no question: "But has FISA court turned down any request?" We get this answer: "The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion." Just blather, incoherence and grasp…

The inarticulate, chopped-up sentences are just an artifact of the article's author purposefully being nasty to Obama. Everybody talks like that; it's just not quoted as a matter of course.

I think it makes more sense to say the author is writing it like that to show that Obama was stumbling with his words in response to a "yes/no/I don't know" question. That's useful information that I appreciate the author conveying.

Re: Obama Can’t Confirm If Courts Ever Rejected Spying Requests

#30
post #21

The reason that FISA warrant requests have such a high acceptance rate is because a federal prosecutor wouldn't ask for one unless they were certain it would be approved. They don't have to file a request every time a federal agent wants a warrant. They have the option to say "You need to gather more evidence". They say a good trial lawyer won't ask a witness a question without knowing what the answer will be. FBI la…

>But high level corporate or government lawyers rarely sign their names to anything that isn't legally rock solid.

So magically, these "high level" people stop trying to overreach? Suddenly they're struck with a respect for privacy and law? That's simply not credible. Feds regularly abuse seizure laws[1], why would you possibly think they're more restrained elsewhere?

I'd expect a reasonably high acceptance rate, especially if they're allowed to pick judges sympathetic to them. But a rate approaching zero should set off red flags.

1: e.g. http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/24/tewksbury-motel-foreclosure

Post reply on HN