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

Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#91

Post by malandrew »

hooande wrote: post #23

The NSA has committed no crimes. As an organization, they've acted within the bounds of the law and done exactly what they were supposed to do. This watchdog report is saying that the law is not in the interest of the people and it should be changed. But until that happens, the NSA is in the right to continue with business as usual. Our constitution prohibits ex post facto law. This means that someone can't be charge…

    The NSA has committed no crimes.
"The NSA has not yet been investigated, tried or convicted of any crimes. However, it's intelligence director, James Clapper, did commit perjury, but it has yet to be investigated and he has yet to be tried and found guilty or innocent by a jury of his peers."

FTFY.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#93

Post by pyre »

ajays wrote: post #61
mercurial wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. However, if we take the original premise and change it to "If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no solid, non-circumstancial evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?", would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?

"would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?" Nobody is arguing against that. What people are complaining about is, among other things, the bulk collection and retention of records; the gathering of records upto 3 degrees of separation from a suspect; etc.

Most reasonable people aren't arguing against all wiretapping, but I wouldn't say nobody.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#94

Post by bostonpete »

angersock wrote: post #70
mercurial wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with wiretaps, as long as you have actual independent judicial oversight? I don't have an issue with cops listening to cartel hitmen. Considering everybody as a suspect, that's entirely different. > It would also be wonderful if all law enforcement officers were required to wear uniforms or identify themselves when in the course of their duties. I see that now. "Hello, Don Corleone, I'm an undercov…

There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.

If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#95

Post by dllthomas »

midas007 wrote: post #54
revelation wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we stop with the nonsense "they have comitted no crimes" line? They have violated orders by FISC and overstepped their boundaries in many cases before the FISC, then lied to it. So of course they comitted crimes, it's just that the punishment (or due process) is nonexistant.

With the sheer volume of laws on the books, it's a foregone conclusion that they have broken as many as a prosecutor cares to find. Although it's doubtful anyone will be imprisoned for "doing their patriotic duty."

'Although it's doubtful anyone will be imprisoned for "doing their patriotic duty."'

Except Snowden, if they get their hands on him.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#96

Post by arca_vorago »

snowwrestler wrote: post #76
dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your hypothetical makes no sense. If they have "probable cause" before tapping his phone, that means that the "left no evidence other than incriminating phone calls" must be false.

Ok let's say they have some evidence that is sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, but probably insufficient to secure a conviction. Why would it be wrong for the FBI, under the supervision of a court order, to tap this person's phone to see if he is the killer? Keep in mind this is not a broad NSA dragnet here. This would be a targeted wiretap driven by probable cause and governed by the federal rules of eviden…

"under the supervision of a court order"

A court order is not a warrant. This is the heart of the discussion you are trying to get into. The 4th amendment is very clear:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If we allow a court order or a subpoena to continue to be all that LEO/LEA's to need to get whatever information they want, they will stop going to the courts for warrants, and worse, they will end up doing FISA style bulk orders/subpoena's.

Bottom line, if you have probable cause, get a fucking warrant, else, fuck off. (and companies should be requiring warrants for access to customer information too, not just setting up a pay portal for LEA's to peruse at leisure.)

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#97

Post by rhizome »

mercurial wrote: post #41
dragonwriter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and any standard of evidence -- even reasonable suspicion -- can't be met without the existence of evidence. That's why its called a "standard of evidence". Again, if there is no evidence left by the "hitman" except the calls for which the warrant is sought, as specified in the hypothetical, than there can't be probable cause to support the warrant. There can't even be reasonable suspicion. In fact, without some…

Fair enough. However, if we take the original premise and change it to "If the FBI identified an organized crime hitman who killed 20+ people and left no solid, non-circumstancial evidence other than making incriminating phone calls, is it wrong for them to place a tap on his phone line once they have probable cause that he is a hitman?", would you agree that wiretaps (with warrants) can be useful?

Couldn't they just follow him?

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#98

Post by Karunamon »

res0nat0r wrote: post #87
angersock wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And because of how fucked-up the system is, when they come to pick you up, any number of minor things during that encounter ("Fuck you pig, where's the warrant?", running, etc.) can escalate into resisting arrest, disturbing the peace, or assaulting an officer, and then magically you're in the system "for real" and screwed.

Probably shouldn't be telling cops to fuck off then?

1st amendment says otherwise.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#99

Post by arca_vorago »

codex wrote: post #8
sigil wrote: post #3

Brand also worried that declaring that counterterrorism officials “have been operating this program unlawfully for years” could damage morale and make agencies overly cautious in taking steps to protect the country. It's great to have another voice speaking up against mass surveillance. Still -- you're telling me these agencies are in all likelihood committing crimes against the American people, but we need to be car…

They're not committing crimes against the American people. Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program. Without harm, there no criminal act. That said, something can be unlawful without being criminal.

" Not one American has been found who has been demonstrably harmed by any NSA program."

Of course, this statement heavily relies on what you mean by "demonstrably" and "harm". What is the standard of proof you would require to demonstrate harm? As you say it, it sounds like one of those terms that you can forever pushback against and say "but X didn't demonstrate harm sufficiently".

The most likely harm that I would consider widespread would be the chilling effect. For example, Chris Hedges and others tried to sue the gov for the NDAA's chilling effect, but once they got to court it was thrown out because they had "no standing". So it's pretty obvious that you can't say that a court ruling on something demonstrates harm, because the courts themselves are part of the harm occurring.

As a matter of fact, I bet I could have a pretty good claim that the NSA program has harmed me. I am an Iraq combat vet with PTSD, and happened to be someone who has talking about the NSA doing this stuff since the early 2000's. At my last meeting with the VA, I specifically stated that I was concerned at the confidentiality of my talks due to their being entered in an electronic system that I suspected the NSA and other three-letters would have access to. Therefore I quit my PTSD treatment because I felt I could not trust the VA system or any claims of doctor-patient confidentiality. I actually asked the doc to make sure she typed that into the system so that in the future I could use it as evidence if the need ever arose. I'm doing fine now mostly of my own volition, but what I think about is how many other vets had the same gut feeling and kept their problems hidden and suffered greatly for it?

This is only one example that I think is pretty concrete.

Re: Watchdog Report Says N.S.A. Program Is Illegal and Should End

#100

Post by dllthomas »

bostonpete wrote: post #94
angersock wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wouldn't be cartel hitmen if the thing wasn't illegal and hence profitable. I have an issue with letting them listen--especially if I'm on the other end of the phone, for example, taking their order for pizza or arranging a playdate for my kids or something. It's the few-hops-away rule that is very easily justifiable that creates surveillance states.

If you unknowingly were setting up a playdate for your kids with a hitman, I think you'd have a vested interest in having the guy exposed and brought to justice.

But if I was setting up a playdate for my kids from someone who ordered pizza from the same place as a hitman...
Post reply on HN