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

FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 157 posts

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#21

Post by dflock »

dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

> comport with what the applicable statutes authorize

If the statutes are extremely broad and permissive of surveillance, then he could well be telling the truth - FISA could be rigorously scrutinising every request and finding that the statutes permit almost all of them.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#22

Post by jjoonathan »

jMyles wrote: post #17
fru2013 wrote: post #13

I personally think that creating laws to prevent government surveillance is a pointless endeavor. The NSA has ignored and broken laws in the past, why would we expect them to follow new ones that are passed? The only way to prevent surveillance is with a technical solution (encryption), not a legal solution (more laws).

I agree, with a caveat: The encryption game is rigged since the NSA and other government actors are able to use public funds to sabotage it. So the legal angle is still important.

Agreed. With the ability to carry out correlation attacks and the proven information content of metadata, encryption can't provide a complete "technological solution."

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#23

Post by rayiner »

jMyles wrote: post #12
rayiner wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The federal appellate courts other than the fed circuit have regional jurisdiction. Their decisions are not binding authority on courts outside their own regions.

As I understand it, that's not at issue here. The rulings of the circuit and district courts are binding on actors in their jurisdictions - the FISC can't (or at least, I didn't understand it to be legal for them to) come in and rule that conduct deemed unconstitutional by a circuit court on a particular actor (ie, the Second Circuit ruling on conduct by the NSA).

I'd imagine it's similar to how Circuit rulings are binding on the IRS. They only have to follow circuit rulings when the taxpayer resides there.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#24

Post by ikeboy »

coldcode wrote: post #20
ikeboy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: >The surveillance court is subject to review by its own appeals panel, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Both the Second Circuit and the surveillance review court are in turn subject to the Supreme Court, which resolves conflicts between appeals courts.

Yet no one has standing to request the Supreme Court look into this. Ah the joys of secret courts.

If I'm reading it right, the plaintiff here was appointed an "interested party" in some legal sense, which would give them the right of appeal? Am I misunderstanding that?

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#25

Post by ikeboy »

jMyles wrote: post #16
ikeboy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the opinion linked in the article? https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2124483-br-15-75-mis... The actual arguments start from 10 and go to 12. The quote about Second Court not being binding on them is from page 14, and some problems they had with the Second Court's analysis are on page 16, including pointing out that some of the claims of the Second Court are no longer true after the Freedom Act was…

Yeah, it's really oddly worded. Whether or not the 2nd Circuit is binding on FISC is not at issue. The question is whether or not the 2nd Circuit is binding on the NSA (or at least NSA activities within its geographical jurisdiction).

The 2nd Circuit didn't issue an injunction, so it wasn't binding anyway. As the article states, they intend to ask for one from the 2nd now.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#26

Post by rtpg »

3pt14159 wrote: post #18
dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

Also the FISA court has been called an "almost parallel supreme court" by the New York Times, and given that it only hears one side of a case, makes this all the more troubling.

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.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#27

Post by icanhackit »

fru2013 wrote: post #13

I personally think that creating laws to prevent government surveillance is a pointless endeavor. The NSA has ignored and broken laws in the past, why would we expect them to follow new ones that are passed? The only way to prevent surveillance is with a technical solution (encryption), not a legal solution (more laws).

The only way to prevent surveillance is with a technical solution (encryption), not a legal solution (more laws).

I'd say both have their place however focus on protecting the legality of encryption, not on making it illegal to spy. Bolster security by design with law, don't use law to haphazardly stop spooks from doing spooky things.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#28

Post by caf »

jMyles wrote: post #14
dogma1138 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution only mandates to establish a single supreme court, all federal courts were established by acts of congress.

Poorly worded on my part. By "actual" Court, I meant a court whose personnel are appointed pursuant to the appointments clause of the US Constitution. Sure, they're all created by congress, but the District and Circuit courts have clear, long-established, transparent mechanisms for figuring out who is on the court.

Perhaps "Article III court"?
Post reply on HN